American E. Howard & Co. Boston #89 Regulator (Floor Clock?)

Casey Jones

Registered User
Jul 27, 2009
35
4
8
Bonham, Texas
Country
Region
I am going to need a little help from the experts here. Picked up this E. Howard & Co. Boston #89 regulator this morning. The man's story was that in the 1930's his Grandfather got this clock when a Bank was remodeled. He did not want it to hang on the wall so he inverted the door and moved the movement to the bottom of the case to make it a floor clock. Everything is original except it is upside down. Not very attractive that way.

It is missing the suspension spring and weight. The cable broke when he was a teenager and there was enough cable left to use just one pulley and made it a 4 day clock. I need to know where I can order a new suspension spring as it takes a larger spring than I have in my supply? Also how heavy is the weight needed to drive this clock?

My first move is to invert the clock back to a wall clock, clean and oil the movement. Then obtain the parts to get it running again. Any suggestions or ideas will be appreciated. Thanks

E_Howard_1.jpg E_Howard_2.jpg E_Howard_3.jpg E_Howard_4.jpg E_Howard_5.jpg E_Howard_6.jpg E_Howard_7.jpg
 

Casey Jones

Registered User
Jul 27, 2009
35
4
8
Bonham, Texas
Country
Region
Have the dial touched up,don't totally repaint it.
I wouldn't dare repaint this dial. I may or may not even fill in depending on how I feel about it once it is running. I have already inverted the door and mounting plate back into correct position. Now to fill the extra holes. Need ideas about finding a suspension spring and how much weight is needed for the double pulley system.
 

JTD

Registered User
Sep 27, 2005
10,149
1,156
113
Country
I agree with David62, it would be worth having the dial professionally restored (not repainted).

JTD
 

Casey Jones

Registered User
Jul 27, 2009
35
4
8
Bonham, Texas
Country
Region
Can anyone tell me how much the correct weight for the E. Howard #89 regulator should weigh? Also who sells the large suspension springs comparable to the original for this E. Howard #89 regulator?
 

Casey Jones

Registered User
Jul 27, 2009
35
4
8
Bonham, Texas
Country
Region
E. Howard #1 movement weight weighs 13-1/2 lbs.

Regards,
D~
Thank you. I don't believe this movement is a #1 as it is not stamped with a number but the mounting block is stamped with the number 6. E. Howard & Co. Boston seems to have made two different models of a #89 regulator with different cases and movements. Photos below. Note the clock was inverted to make it a floor clock when this photo was taken. I have since put it back right, crown up. Would this movement also take a #1 weight? Thanks

E_Howard_1.jpg E_Howard_4.jpg E_Howard_8.jpg
 

the 3rd dwarve

Registered User
Nov 3, 2000
711
31
28
The model 89 came in a few different case styles and utilized different movements depending on the final application. Most of the watchman’s #89s used the #89 movement.

The number 1 movement was used where more accurate time keeping was desired. The easiest way to distinguish between the two is the number 1 movement has a seconds bit and the number 89 does not.

From the looks of your movement I’m thinking it was made post 1910.

Regards,

D~
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Casey Jones

Casey Jones

Registered User
Jul 27, 2009
35
4
8
Bonham, Texas
Country
Region
I emailed the Dial House but have not yet received an answer back as to retouching the dial. I have put the clock back in its correct configuration and hung it on the wall to get it out of my garage. Much safer on the wall than standing in my garage. Based on a suggestion from a Facebook clock group I used a piece of .0035 shim stock and some brass plate that I had in one of my junk cigar boxes to make a replacement suspension spring. Still searching for a weight. May have to temporarily use a English tall clock weight. I will eventually get around to cleaning the movement, case and glass but that is in the future, good winter projects. Searching the internet for information indicates that all the E. Howard Watchman's # 89 clocks that I found were 59 inches tall. This clock is 62 & 1/4 inches tall due to an extra spacer between the door and crown. I don't know if this was common or just a special order for the Bank that it came out of.

E_Howard_89_2.jpg
 

the 3rd dwarve

Registered User
Nov 3, 2000
711
31
28
That’s not a watchman’s clock.

It looks like a Howard “Cleveland” case to me.

The model 89 was available in several cases in several species of wood.

Regards,

D~
 

Uhralt

NAWCC Member
Sep 4, 2008
5,518
826
113
Country
Region
May have to temporarily use a English tall clock weight.
I would assume that that weight would be too heavy and may have a negative impact on the movement. I would try something lighter, like a Seth Thomas #2 weight.

Uhralt
 

Casey Jones

Registered User
Jul 27, 2009
35
4
8
Bonham, Texas
Country
Region
Uhralt
I will try the #70 weight out of my E. Howard & Co, Boston #70 and see if that is enough weight. Earlier in this thread I was told that the clock required a 13 & 1/2 pound weight. That is why I was looking at a 14 lb. English tall clock weight.

This clock has holes inside where all the electrical devices were removed when I got it but it did still have a maze of old single strand wires all over the back. I assumed from all the wires that it was a master clock as it came from a Bank remodel in the 1940's. I am not familiar with what designates a Watchman's clock. I will research a Howard Cleveland case.
 

Uhralt

NAWCC Member
Sep 4, 2008
5,518
826
113
Country
Region
I will try the #70 weight out of my E. Howard & Co, Boston #70 and see if that is enough weight. Earlier in this thread I was told that the clock required a 13 & 1/2 pound weight. That is why I was looking at a 14 lb. English tall clock weight.
From the look of the movement I thought a lighter weight should be appropriate. Let us know what you find.
Uhralt
 

the 3rd dwarve

Registered User
Nov 3, 2000
711
31
28
The Howard #1 movement swings an eight inch bob weighing 8-1/2 lbs. They came from Howard with a 13-1/2 lb. Weight.


Casey,

Here’s a picture of a typical Howard #89 watchman’s clock in oak.


Does your case have a door on the right hand side like the one pictured?

Regards,

D~

oak s.jpg left closed.jpg left open.jpg
 

Jim DuBois

Gibbs Literary Award
NAWCC Member
Jun 14, 2008
3,819
1,379
113
Magnolia, TX
Country
Region
As others have suggest what you have is neither a true watchmans clock nor is it a model 89. Here are 2 photos of a watchmans clock, a clock similar to yours, and a photo of 2 different sized model 89's. The watchmans clocks have a similar cast to an 89, but more wide in most cases....and a movement like yours and a watchmans clock movement.

e_howard_web.jpg E.Howard-WatchmanClock-Frt.jpg E.Howard-WatchmanClockMech.jpg goward regulator 1.jpg weight regulators masters 3.JPG how1.jpg howard89restoredladd.jpg
 

Casey Jones

Registered User
Jul 27, 2009
35
4
8
Bonham, Texas
Country
Region
Name and date on the inside of the main wheel. I can make out the date of May 10, 1920 as well as Roxbury, Mass. I can not read the name of the assembler. I am hoping someone here can identify the name. Thanks.

EHowardDate_1.jpg
 

the 3rd dwarve

Registered User
Nov 3, 2000
711
31
28
Casey,

Thank you for posting the information from your maintaining wheel.

The 1916 Boston City Directory lists:

Hinckley, Charles A, clockmaker, 7 Wabeno, Roxbury

I also want to clarify that the movement in your clock is not the movement found in Watchman’s clocks.

I have attached a picture of the movement found in Howard watchman’s clocks.

As I posted above I believe your clock is the “Cleveland” model.

Along with the “Medford Armory” model it is cataloged as a high grade regulator with the same movement as the #89 regulator. They were offered in cases of mahogany, oak, cherry, or bronze with 8 day weight or self-winding movement. They were both available equipped for operating secondary clocks which you said yours was. I am also attaching a picture of the available self winding movement to show how similar it is to yours.

Regards,

D~

movement watchman's clocks.jpg #1 movement electrics .jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: Casey Jones

Casey Jones

Registered User
Jul 27, 2009
35
4
8
Bonham, Texas
Country
Region
the 3rd dwarve Thank You for all your information. I will have to do more research on a Cleveland model E. Howard Regulator. This clock is larger than all the #89's that I have found as it is 62 & 1/2 inches tall and 23 & 1/8 inches at the widest. I believe the case is made of Cherry with original finish. I have cleaned and lubricated the movement, replaced the brass cable, and made a new suspension spring. It is currently running with the weight from my #70 regulator and has been for about 3 hours. I will give it 24 hours to be sure the weight is sufficient to keep it running. I'm hoping that the #70 weight is sufficient as #70 weights are much easier to find than #1 weights.

The nub on the winding arbor was worn down and no longer engaged the winding stop wheel. I drilled the nub and added a brass round head rivet to extend it back long enough to activate the stop works wheel to prevent over winding.
 

Casey Jones

Registered User
Jul 27, 2009
35
4
8
Bonham, Texas
Country
Region
Howard_Dial_After.jpg Howard_Dial_Before.jpg Howard_Clock_After.jpg
Have the dial touched up,don't totally repaint it.
Follow up. I had the dial touched up by the Dial House II, "stabilize paint, fill and touch up missing paint, restore missing linework, strengthen maker's name". I am well pleased with the results. A picture of before and after as well as the dial back in the clock.
 
  • Like
Reactions: devore

Forum statistics

Threads
175,148
Messages
1,531,858
Members
52,586
Latest member
jiceconi
Encyclopedia Pages
1,063
Total wiki contributions
2,972
Last update
-