Picked up this E Ingraham clock recently thinking it was Sessions but it is an E Ingraham time and strike parlour clock. There is no label. It looks to be in good shape. The movement is stamped "E Ingraham Co patent date Oct 8, 78 Nov 11, 79, Bristol Conn." On the inside floor, it is stamped "Manufactured by the E Ingraham & Co, Bristol Conn". Slight difference in the name. Does 1895 sound about right? Is it common for clockmakers to stamp the inside floor? Does the coil gong look right? Does anyone know what model this is? I think everything is original. Not sure about the dial though. Two numbers are scratched into the lower bottom of the front plate and they are H25,915 and H27,475. Meaning? Ron
From 1861 to 1880, Ingraham was called E. Ingraham and Company. Between 1880 and 1884, they were called The E. Ingraham & Co. (sounds silly, I know). Your clock would seem to fit in the latter years, on the basis of the name on the movement and the inside base. However, the kicker is that Tran Duy Ly's book on Ingraham clocks shows this model, the Mystic, from the 1897 catalogue. How to reconcile the information? Either the Mystic had a longish shelf life, or it was recycled in the 1890's after being out of production for several years. Tentatively, I would opt for the latter explanation, since the "era of the walnuts" was mostly gone by 1897. But, in any event, enjoy your clock, Swigart label and all.
I'm puzzled by these dates. Did you mean 1879? Otherwise how could something have a long shelf life and be recycled in the 1890s if it was first listed in 1897 and then out of production for several years? Something isn't adding up. Tom
I meant 1897, as that is what is shown in Tran. I did not say it was first listed in 1897. I said it either had a longish shelf life or was recycled in the 1890's. Tran used the 1897 catalogue for reasons best known to him. Maybe it was the earliest one available to show the Mystic. The use of "E. Ingraham Co." on the movement and "The E. Ingraham & Co." on the inside base suggests a date in 1884 or shortly thereafter. (I apologize for my lack of clarity on this point). Between 1861 and 1880, the company was known as "E. Ingraham & Co." Between 1880 and 1884, it was "The E. Ingraham & Co." From 1884, he company was "The E. Ingraham Co.", and that name was used on their movements. (The definite article was not used on the movements.) So, the movement is 1884 or later, while the case seems to be early 1884 at the latest. That this clock is shown in the 1897 catalogue suggested that the model either had a long production life, or that the model was recycled (remaindered, if you will) sometime in the 1890's after being out of production for a number of years. Another possibility is that the model was a late production walnut in which some left-over parts were used (in this case, the base). I have seen one other such clock, the Ingraham Globe, shown in Tran from the 1891 catalogue and having the same inside base as is shown on Ron's clock.
I like your last paragraph. It makes sense that there would be a long initial production and then a re-issue perhaps. So, walnut then, interesting. Ron
That S on the paper dial throws many people off, like ly Seth Thomas Queen Anne clock as well. Nice looking clock Ron.
It caught me when I first looked at it. I thought it was a Sessions but discovered that the dial is aftermarket, Swigart. Ron
I did not want to change the patina but it is certainly lighter in colour after a vigorous cleaning with Murphy's soap. Ron
