The case looks like the Seth Thomas Garfield (1880's), which was an 8-day weight-driven clock. But neither the dial nor the positions of the winding arbors look right (compared only, I confess, to what I've seen). Is this a weight clock or a spring-driven clock? Can we see the movement? Maybe one our ST experts like James Jones or Larry Pearson will offer their comments.
I'm certainly not a Seth Thomas expert but we do have a Garfield and our example's case is pretty close match from what I can see. The hands one this one don't match and the placement of the winding arbors, as Steven points out, is "off". Also, the Gong Boss and placement doesn't match. The pendulum bob on the Garfield is unique in that it has a damascened pattern so my guess is that the movement has been replaced.
Here's the movement and pendulum that were in our weight driven example:
Here's a photo that shows the dial, case and more of the Gong. A previous owner "touched up" the Dial's "Seth Thomas". They didn't do a good job, but it wasn't horrible either. I just wish they had left it alone though. I've thought about having it professionally reversed but haven't done so.
Yeah, Bruce, that's what I expect to see. John's has me wondering. There is a Gilbert clone of the Garfield, called the Latona, but the gong base on it is also different. The one on John's clock reminds of those found on Welch, Ingraham, or even Waterbury, excepting the three-toed foot. We need to see what's there or be told we're wrong by those who know better. Not that we're ever wrong!
Well, I suppose this would not be a unique example of a clock generally associated with one style (in this case, weight-driven) was "repurposed" for another style (spring-driven). And this phenomenon with the Garfield has been observed before. See this thread. For example, the Gilbert Latona mentioned above came as either weight-driven (time only) or spring driven (time and strike).
Interesting information Steven,
the movement is marked 44 on the right lower leg. All the screws in the backboard are original and there are now sign of any weight pulley attachments.
This must be a rarely seen clock. Perhaps a switch over from one type to another or a mid production change.
According to Ly's Gilbert Reference the "Latona" must have been about an 1 inch taller than this clock. Also the molding around the bottom of the dial in the Gilbert Clock is not an exact match to that used by Seth Thomas so there are a few subtle differences. For some reason your clock's hands do not match one another.
As I mentioned in the other thread regarding the weighted lever, in the 44 front mount movement I worked on about 7 years ago the weighted lever was suspended in the 3:00 O'Clock position (as viewed from the rear). As I recall, it's purpose to to exert a little force on one of the Strike Control Levers. Where exactly the application of force is applied I don't recall. It looks like it is just hanging down in your movement. If it is "inert" in your clock, someone may have forgot to properly position it and found that the clock ran okay without the gravity assist. Sorry that I can't be more helpful but I didn't take closeup photos of the lever in position/relation to the surrounding control surfaces.