Early English Long Case, Tall Case

[northcoastimports]

I just got this piece, and have some questions.















As you can see, it's oak, long door, early-English style. The dial plate says Wilkes and Co. The painting is unrestored and is of Adam and Eve with Eve moving the Fruit of Knowledge.

The inside of the case has a handwritten note that says "Sam Buxton, Colchester 1773"

The question I had was about the dial. I read from Loomes's site that "Period One" dials look more or less like mine, with the flowers in the corners, the Second Hand dial and the Calendar dial.

BUT, on the Loomes site, it talks about "Period Two" having dials with Arabic numerals and 15-min outer numbers.

Am I getting hung up on details? Is it a hard and fast rule that NO clock pre-1800 had Arabic numbers and HAD to have minute numbers every 5 minutes?

 

[Mike Phelan]

I'd say ca 1780-1800, so fairly late, in the context of British LC clocks.

Arabic numerals are much less common than Roman, but you cannot have hard-and-fast rules on antique clocks!

The note is probably from a repairer who started in 1772 - most LC's are signed on the dial, but that might have rubbed off. A UV lamp can sometimes show it.

Wilkes made the dial.

Most 8-day LC clocks had seconds hands of all periods. Calendar dials on later painted dial clocks were as yours - it avoided making another wheel.

HTH

 

[jmclaugh]

There are a number of dialmakers called Wilkes all based in Birmingham and most working in the early 1800s. The closest match I found is Wilkes B & Co though it may be one of the others.

The dating of dials you mention by Loomes is a good guideline but as Mike says they aren't intended to be hard and fast rules particularly where the periods overlap but on the other hand it is very unlikely to find styles from the first period in the final period or vice-versa. I would think your clock dates to the late 1700s to early 1800s.

 

[makeshift]

I think the clock is pre 1800, due to the long main door. If the written note is genuine, then it also points to pre 1800.
Only rural clock case makers stuck to the long door after 1800, and Colchester, Essex, is too near London to be considered rural in the sense of a place like Great Yarmouth. It was always a busy town, a garrison town in fact, still is. It was also Bodica's capital.

 

[northcoastimports]

Ah Hah! Thanks for suggesting the UV light! I didn't need one. You can clearly see where "Samuel Buxton, Colchester" got rubbed off when looking closely with the naked eye.

Thanks for the tip!

So that confirms the note as the maker. The 1773 is what's listed in Baillie's as the start date.

 

[northcoastimports]

Here's another clock on Ebay with the Adam and Eve decoration, but it's a later maker:



The painting is pretty different from mine, but the same subject.

The movement also looks quite a bit different from mine.

 

[Jeremy Woodoff]

The clock on eBay is very interesting: the dial is a much earlier style than 1808--I would say around 1775. At first I thought it was an 8-day dial married to a 30-hour pull-up chain movement, but the winding holes look very small, as if they are "false" winding holes. The movement still looks later than the dial. Also, isn't an automaton on a 30-hour tall clock very unusual?

 

[makeshift]

Mr. Woodoff,

I would tend to agree that the clock is a bit of a marriage. I wouldn't class the case as being "Manchester", way off course there. If you take off the frills of the clock of the thread, the cases are almost identical.

 

[northcoastimports]

Hey (BTW, very interesting thread on English Longcase cases, thanks)

I have begun restoration on mine (the subject of this thread) and found that There seems to be a place for a tubular bell. You can kind of see it in this old pic (sorry I don't have a better one):



See, at the bottom of the pic where there is a bracket to hang something, and the big, heavy hammer that hits it.

Plus, there is a big round hole in the mounting board through which (it looks like) a tubular bell should hang.

This surprised me, as I thought these had bell or coil-gong strikes. But, everything looks original, nothing looks added on or changed.

 

[harold bain]

Not likely a tubular bell, as these were not used until 1884, when J. Harrington patented the tubular chime (but, not impossible that someone experimented earlier than this).

 

[Jeremy Woodoff]

I think the strike hammer and apparent tubular gong must have been a later modification from the original bell strike. Are there unused holes in one of the plates where a bell standard would have been?

 

[laprade]

NCI, I used a shot of your Colchester, from the adobe file you sent me, to show the damaged finials, in a post on the "study" thread. I was going to email, but since you've popped up again on the board, a question: are the finials, gilt wood, or solid plaster.

As to the bell hammer; if it has been changed there will be two things missing; marks from a bell stand and marks from the spring that made the hammer hit the bell.

External hammers were operated purely by gravity and were for coiled gongs.

laprade

 

[northcoastimports]

That's what I thought too, but I don't remember seeing anything in the wood, or marks/changes in the movement. The hammer is still gravity, but it has a rubber end (should be leather?) It's a really nice job on the add on if it is - can't tell it's been changed.

The finials are not wood - some kind of plaster that's been chewed up a little.