




I agree with the date based on the rococco spandrels and the style of the chapter ring. The movement appears to have ringed and knopped pillars which would usually suggest earlier but may just be a quirk by the maker.Mark Hawkins of Bury St. Edmonds is listed in Baillie as "early 18th century." However, based on the style of the dial I would put this clock at 1750-70. A replaced seat board could mean a switched movement. Can't tell without additional information. Does the dial fit the case opening exactly? Does the case style fit the age of the clock, ca. 1750?
Were ringed pillars used so early? I always assumed they followed on from finned do you think they ran concurrently for so long?The Loomes entries are; Mark Hawkins(I) bc 1674 from Newmarket to Bury St. Edmunds where married 1701 died 1750. Mark Hawkins(II) 'At the Seven Stars & Dial' later 'At the Crown % Dial' in Cook Row at the corner of Hatter Street Bury St Edmunds. b 1707 married 1745 died 1767. There was also a second elder son William, corner of Whiting Street & Church Gate Street Bury St. Edmunds born 1703 whom it is believed succeeded Mark(I) c 1740, insolvent 1747 after which he may have worked for Mark(II).
The dial and arch spandrel patterns are often paired and are said to have been much used 1760-85 dial and the rest of the dial fits with that sort of period. The pillars are the early type dated to 1660 to 1740 but that doesn't mean they stopped being used in 1740. Based on that the clock is by Mark(II).
Hard to say why the seatboard may have been replaced but some pictures of the case may help in comparing it to the dial in terms of period.
From what you have shown of the case so far you have a mark made by the pendulum that matches the current pendulum, that's a good start. The backboard is very red has it been painted? The bottom ledge of the door frame doesn't show any marks of rubbing by the weights so no clues there. Brass cased lead weights are not what I'd expect on a later clock like this. I would expect just lead.I'll be going back next Saturday and will take pics of the entire case. The dial seems to fit the movement exactly, but more knowledgeable opinions than mine help a lot.
There is nothing fixed in dates with these clocks, fashions start in London and work their way out. The further you get from London the longer it may take to change but sometimes somebody works in London then returns home so styles may take a jump. We can give opinions, which don't always agree, but we will be around plus or minus 10 years at the most usually.Clocks nearer London perhaps within 5 years.The red in the back of the case is from the flash, it's the same finish as the rest of the clock. I have no clue how that happened. When did they change to all lead? And is the lead incased in iron? (2 of the others have weights that look like iron and they look pretty much alike) The door is now a bit warped so it doesn't close, which I'm pretty sure is from the way he stored it, and the others. The same thing happened with 2 of the others, one of which I new well 40 years ago, and it wasn't warped then. (That really gives my age) The top of the pendulum suspension spring has a small piece that's loose so the pendulum can move freely in all directions, and it fits perfectly in the sort of cup shaped indentation on the piece on top of the movement that holds the pendulum out. (I'm not up on terminology at all).
I figured I miss something in my picture taking. Does the back extending above the top of the hood tell anything? Or is it normal on some of them? What should I look for in the cheeks? Anything else I should look closely at? I'm afraid the next time I see it, will be decision time.
It should have a pin hinge, the pins stick up out of the pillars and extend into the hood.The door does open, although the hinged side doesn't seem to be attached at the bottom. I should have look closer to see the problem when I was there.
What wood do you think that case is Graham? I think 1760s is about when Mahogany was entering the longcase market, it was later in longcase than other furniture and was initially used as trim and then veneer on oakHi Mark,
That red finish inside looks like red lead paint, which was used inside a lot of old furniture that I've come across, especially chests of drawers and wardrobes dating from the 19th century. Whether this suggests that the case is later is another matter; it could have been painted at any time.
Regards,
Graham
Jonathan says Mark II died 1767, assuming he made clocks up until or nearly until his death then a mahogany case is much more possible. I don't know much about East Anglian clock and case styles but I do think it probably had an arch to the hood originally which has been replaced by a flat top leaving the backboard sticking up in the air. I've never owned an arch top, I prefer flat tops, but I seem to recall the backboards ending square and the arch part of the back being part of the hood. I'm sure both are possible, I think Smike's round dial clock has an arched backboard. However if the backboard is original this seems the most likely explanation.Hi Graham & Nick,
If I had to guess as far as the hinge, I'd guess pin hinge that has come out of the bottom so it doesn't stay (at the bottom). Any percentage guess as far as originality, or if I should run from it? What do I still need to look more closely at before I make my final decision on the clock? If I remember correctly Mark Hawkins 2 died around 1750, feel free to correct me!
Thanks Ralph, this is a very good article!Here's a pdf on the topic, by Dennis Radage.
http://www.clocksmagazine.com/pdfs/how-to-date-a-grandfather-clock.pdf
Ralph
It's a starting point, but I think it is a shame he picked such an obvious marriage as an example. There is a lot more information in the books he uses as references.Thanks Ralph, this is a very good article!