Going through the wooden tall case clock book by Morris, and multiple Ives resources, I have found a lot of uncertainty on Ives 8-day roller pinion tall clock movements. There doesn't seem to be any consistency between movements. I've seen several clocks attributed to Amasa Ives Jr. & Company, and several others attributed to Joseph Ives himself, but there is no consistency between the movements pictured with these attributions. Obviously the clocks with paper labels are the correct attribution, but even among those positively labeled have differences. 1) There seems to be a series of movements with two posts, and a series of movements with three posts. There does not seem to be a positive attribution that Joseph made two posts and Amasa made three, vice versa. 2) On the strike side, the location of the fly is in a different location on majority of movements. Some have the fly between the two posts near the top of the plates, some have the fly closer to the corner of the plates, and some have the fly lower than the wheel turning it closer to the hammer. 3) on some movements, the front plate has a section of wood cut out where the strike side hammer spring hits the plate. 4) some clocks have the calendar mechanism, which tend to be attributed to Amasa (due to a calendar paper with Amasa's label on the calendar label itself), however, it also seems that most of these tall clocks have hour wheels with the calendar spikes intact, but no calendar mechanism ever produced on the final product. Is there anyone, or any way, to actually know which clocks are made by who? It seems that Joseph Ives's name is attributed onto clocks because he is more well known. Check Delaney's website (I'm not going to post their photos here), they have two Ives examples which I described, one with two posts and a cut out on the front plate for the hammer spring, and one with three posts and no cut away. Pictured below are two Ives clocks, one in my collection and one in the ACWM collection, both have three posts, but one has a cutout and the other doesnt. Another combination. The combinations I've noticed are: 1) Three posts, the fan at the top of the plates between two of the posts, and a cutout on the front plate (this clock has no pegs on the hour wheel for a calendar mechanism (no calendar on dial obviously). (ACWM) 2) Two posts, the fly closer to the side of the plates, a cutout on the front of the plate, hour wheel pegs with no calendar mechanism. (Delaney) 3) Three posts, the fan at the top between two of the posts, no cutout on the front plate, pegs on the hour wheel, but cut off. 4) Two posts, the fly closer to the corner of the plates, no cutout on the front plate. 5) Three posts, fan at the top between the posts, no cutout on front plate, no pegs on hour wheel (Delaney) Obviously there is no consistency in any of these clocks, each one seems to have minor differences from the rest. I have yet to see two that are exactly the same. This must be where this confusion with attribution comes from. It seems that a study is needed to get the layout of as many Ives movements possible, and then go for attributions from there. I'll share pictures of two movements below but they will add no clearance to the subject as many, many more movements are needed to be pictured to get any answers through images.