Dating an Early 18th Century Single Hand Long Case

[wspohn]

I bought this clock several months ago from a friend. The friend is in his mid 80s and his son has no interest in it at all, sadly.

The clock's story was that it had been acquired by my friend's father in England in the 1940s, right before they immigrated to South Africa in the 1950s. He was a cabinet maker and had been offered the clock as is for nothing, but because the case was quite probably original and in decent shape, but when they decided to return to Britain, they left the case behind took the movement and left the somewhat dilapidated case in Africa.

When they came to Canada in 1952, he replicated the original case, so I can't rely in detail on what I have to try and work out likely date of the clock.

In general it seems to be in the earlier pattern with counter-rotating spiral pillars on each side of the door and a forward sliding rather than vertically removed hood.

The dial centre is matted and the movement is a 30 hour birdcage type. Glass windows in the hood sides are fairly large but that may well not be original.

Of course no listing in the source books for Sam Haydon of Wareham. I am thinking that it might be within the first couple of decades of the 18th century, but would like to hear if anyone has an opinion based on the very limited information available and the pictures. The single hand was a totally non-original effort by some later owner; I am having a reproduction single hand adapted to suit.

 

[zedric]

Given that the case is not original, all we have to go on is the movement. Can you show some photos of that?

 

[wspohn]

Well the fact that the original case was copied at least indicated what the style is.

I'll pull the hood off tomorrow and get a couple of shots that will hopefuly be clear enough to be useful, thanks.

 

[DeanT]

Nick Mitchener is the go to man for this....

 

[zedric]

I assume you have also seen the dial here, also by Sam Haydon, which is probably a little later than yours

longcase clock dial | #425965066

 

[novicetimekeeper]

There was a William Haydon, and his Son, Father and son originally in Dorchester, son later in Poole and then later insolvent. Their joint history runs from 1681-1774 with possibly the first entry another William. Samuel could be a son of the William mentioned in 1681. I have not come across Haydon clocks before. Judging solely on the dial it looks to be around 1700.

 

[jmclaugh]

I can't find a Samuel Haydon listed either. The dial spandrels are said to have been very popular in the provinces from around 1700-25 and very similar half hour markers are found on clocks dated to the early 1700s so your dating to the first two decades of the 18th C looks sound.

 

[Evernia]

A Samuel Haydon of Wareham left a will in 1735 - getting hold of a copy might reveal whether he was a clockmaker.
Wareham Wills Admins & Inventories Archdeaconry Court of Dorset

 

[Evernia]

It is worth at least noting - while not being particularly convinced by - the 1672 scratched into the chapter ring.

 

[novicetimekeeper]

A Samuel Haydon of Wareham left a will in 1735 - getting hold of a copy might reveal whether he was a clockmaker.
Wareham Wills Admins & Inventories Archdeaconry Court of Dorset

good spot, I usually buy the wills of my clockmakers if I can, usually very cheap. This guy sounds about the right age.

 

[novicetimekeeper]

It is worth at least noting - while not being particularly convinced by - the 1672 scratched into the chapter ring.

I wouldn't take any notice of that. Whilst I think you could make a case for pre 1700 nothing about this dial suggests 1672.

Those spandrels are said to be first used in London in 1695, those half hour markers are bracketed up to a decade either side of 1700 usually.

Wareham was still an active port in 1700, but clockmaking in Dorset got off to a bit of a slow start.

 

[Evernia]

I wouldn't take any notice of that. Whilst I think you could make a case for pre 1700 nothing about this dial suggests 1672.

Those spandrels are said to be first used in London in 1695, those half hour markers are bracketed up to a decade either side of 1700 usually.

Wareham was still an active port in 1700, but clockmaking in Dorset got off to a bit of a slow start.

Exactly my point - note the inscribed date and say why it is being discounted, rather than not mentioning it and leaving a question over whether it had been seen and what other details might have been missed.

 

[wspohn]

Sorry, I should have mentioned that I ignore that date as it is obviously not done by the same hand and in fact my friend believes that his father scratched it on there, perhaps based on something he came across that lead him to think that might be the date.

Will get some photos of the movement later today. Thanks to all for their thoughts.

 

[novicetimekeeper]

I had not noticed the date before it was pointed out. It doesn't look too deep, and the engraving in general looks deep, I think resilvering will easily rectify the vandalism.

 

[wspohn]

First I need to correct one error on my part. I realized when I went to get some pictures of the movement that I had misspoken in regard to the hood - it does not slide forward but rather is raised - likely the person the replicated the case recalled that or wouldn't have bothered to do it that way. But it also has a hinged door that opens. My understanding is that on original early cases it would have been either/or.

Here are the pics:

 

[novicetimekeeper]

A good start, but a pic from the other side of the movement would help. and from each side square on. We want to see the collets and arbours.

Early feature we can see are shallow collets and thick fly, also the depth of the movement. Early movements are generally larger and more square than later movements.

A less desirable feature is all that solder on the posts.

 

[wspohn]

More pictures.

 

[wspohn]

PS - if I didn't mention it before, the dial is 11".

 

[novicetimekeeper]

nice hammer stop. What are the screws for in the left rear post? I can't see from the pics but is the pinion of report, the one driving the countwheel, cut into the end of the arbour or a brass pinion on the steel arbour. The former is the earlier style.

 

[wspohn]

The pinion in question is brass, fitted to the steel arbour.

The three screws on the left side (looking at it from the rear) are holding on a strip of steel which is broken off half way through the top screw. I infer that it originally may have been the mount for the bell which was broken off and replaced with a new steel bell mount that was inserted through a hole in the top plate and nutted beneath. It appears to be a repair of some age.

 

[novicetimekeeper]

that sounds odd can we see more detail on that? The bellstand is usually a forged wrought iron piece with a flat foot and steady pin mounted on the top plate. I have seen very many of these posted frame clocks and never seen a bell done any other way. Lantern clocks have straps that cross over the top of the bell and come down to the post finials where they are sprung fit with pins.

 

[wspohn]

Here are a couple more pictures - the bell stand is heavy wire, bent and threaded and a home made nut - piece of brass flat stock drilled, threaded and sawed off roughly square. Rather amateurish.

 

[novicetimekeeper]

I imagine if you look at the top plate there will be evidence of the original.

 

[wspohn]

There are no other unfilled holes in the top plate, much less a bell stand foot and locating pin, which is why I thought that those three screws might be involved with the original mechanism, though they appear to be modern rather than hand made 'v' slot screws. Otherwise I am not sure what that rather ancient piece of steel screwed to the left rear post might have been. Do you recall if they ever attached a bell stand that way (even of the foot on the top plate was the usual way)?

 

[novicetimekeeper]

you can never say never in provincial clock making, but no I have never seen an alternative bell mount.

 

[wspohn]

Would a picture of the top plate help?

 

[novicetimekeeper]

Would a picture of the top plate help?

always more pics helps

 

[wspohn]

Here is the top plate. The bell stand is just fitted into a hole drilled through the plate - I didn't see any other signs of holes or fitting no longer filled/used, which is what led me to postulate that the steel bit secured by the three screws to the left rear post.

Sorry for the slightly out of focus shot - I am using my general purpose SLR as my other cameras with macro capability aren't charged up.

 

[novicetimekeeper]

whip the bell off and take a pic straight down with your phone, should come out better than that.

 

[wspohn]

Picture from the top with bell removed. Obvious replacement bell stand using modern small nyloc nuts, not tightened on the bell. Lovely clear tone on the bell - rather large and possibly not original?

Bell stand attache through hole in the top plate, but no other unfilled holes are present there, which is what made me think that the original bell stand might have attached to those unexplained bits screwed to the left post.

 

[novicetimekeeper]

That is odd, but I suppose a conventional bell stand could have used that hole. The bells are big on these because the hammer hits them on the inside. In a plated movement the hammer strikes the outside of the bell.

 

[wspohn]

Ah - so quite possibly the original bell but hung from a later stand! And if the stand is almost always anchored to the top plate then the three screws and bit of steel on the left rear post must remain a mystery. Thanks.