John Long London Long Case

[Joe Gargery]

Good Morning Fellows,
I've finally cleared my bench to start working on this long case clock I picked up 6 months ago. I've dropped the case with a friend who owns Museum Quality Restorations, here in the desert, for some much needed attention. The weights and pendulum were missing when I got the clock so I will be on the hunt for suitable replacements. I could use some direction in this area.
Question: Do all (or most) of the weights for this style clock from this period weigh approximately the same amount and, if so, what weight should I be seeking? Also, I'm assuming these would be rather rough looking rather than the finished look of an exposed weight?
Thank you again for any help you can offer.
Joe

 

[novicetimekeeper]

London clocks would have brass cased lead weights. earlier ones have thicker brass cases, later ones often split the cases. I can't see much detail of your clock to date it but the case does not look London.

The weights vary enormously but 10lb time and 12lb strike would be fine.

 

[Joe Gargery]

Thanks for the info ntk, I'm only going by the engraving on the face for parts inquiries.

 

[novicetimekeeper]

there were two John Long, father and son. It is said to be impossible to distinguish between the two but this is definitely later in their period and the son worked till 1725 so I think this is John II
The case would be all oak and veneered of possibly chinoisery lacquer. Your case looks like oak with crossbanding which would not be the original case.

 

[Joe Gargery]

Yes, you are correct, I believe we established this clock was made by the son when I first posted it here several months ago.
I can't speak to whether this is the original case or not. This is how I received it, so I'll certainly bow to your familiarity with this era clock over my limited knowledge. The case is quite old though as it and the hardware are put together with hand made nails, according to my friend who's working on the case and, as I understand it, they fell out of common use around 1800.
I'm not familiar with this term "chinoisery lacquer". Can you elaborate a bit please?

 

[novicetimekeeper]

Yes, you are correct, I believe we established this clock was made by the son when I first posted it here several months ago.
I can't speak to whether this is the original case or not. This is how I received it, so I'll certainly bow to your familiarity with this era clock over my limited knowledge. The case is quite old though as it and the hardware are put together with hand made nails, according to my friend who's working on the case and, as I understand it, they fell out of common use around 1800.
I'm not familiar with this term "chinoisery lacquer". Can you elaborate a bit please?

If not veneered in burr walnut or marquetry then you would expect it to be lacquered and painted with chinese style decoration.

 

[Joe Gargery]

I see. Thank you.
I found that Bernhard J. has posted a clock over on the "Your Newest Clock Acquisition" forum with a very similar face.

 

[novicetimekeeper]

I see. Thank you.
I found that Bernhard J. has posted a clock over on the "Your Newest Clock Acquisition" forum with a very similar face.

View attachment 764828

I can't see your dial properly but, no, they are not very similar.
This one has earlier spandrels, exceptional edge engraving, dialplate signature, tudor rose centre, chapter ring minute numerals bisected. These features are far earlier, and then on top of that it is signed Christopher Gould, one of the best makers ever.

 

[Joe Gargery]

Oops, sorry, I thought I'd added this picture along with my post.
Yes, I see there are differences, I did not think they were identical, but very similar.

 

[novicetimekeeper]

Oops, sorry, I thought I'd added this picture along with my post.
Yes, I see there are differences, I did not think they were identical, but very similar.

View attachment 764829

The half hour markers are similar but that's where it ends. Changes in brass dial design features are subtle over time but they make an enormous difference. We use them to help dating, and date plus signature can mean everything when it comes to value, especially if the dial and movement are all original and in their original case.
Brass dials are all brass dials but the differences are what makes some stand out, like all cars are cars, they have wheels and a body.

 

[jmclaugh]

Nice longcase, imo the hands are later incorrect replacements, the twin cherub spandrels are listed as in use 1690-1725 by Loomes, the half quarter markers are an early feature. Loomes lists four with that name in London, of those two can be discarded and the most likely candidate is one apprenticed 1690, CC1698-1725.

 

[Joe Gargery]

The half hour markers are similar but that's where it ends.

Hmmm?
Like I said, I'm not very experienced at this but my untrained eye I saw similarities in the chapter ring, the half hour markers, the smaller seconds ring, the brass escutcheons over both arbors, the little day of month window. They both seem to have a very similar layout to me.
So if I understand you correctly, all clocks produced in this period had this same basic dial design and the differences are in the subtleties that accompany this basic format, whether they were made by a more exclusive maker like Gould or a lesser known maker like Long?
If that is the case, I understand now. Thank you for the clarification.
Joe

 

[Joe Gargery]

Nice longcase, imo the hands are later incorrect replacements, the twin cherub spandrels are listed as in use 1690-1725 by Loomes, the half quarter markers are an early feature. Loomes lists four with that name in London, of those two can be discarded and the most likely candidate is one apprenticed 1690, CC1698-1725.

Thank you for this info jm. I believe someone else had also pointed out that the hands were likely incorrect for this one.

 

[novicetimekeeper]

Hmmm?
Like I said, I'm not very experienced at this but my untrained eye I saw similarities in the chapter ring, the half hour markers, the smaller seconds ring, the brass escutcheons over both arbors, the little day of month window. They both seem to have a very similar layout to me.
So if I understand you correctly, all clocks produced in this period had this same basic dial design and the differences are in the subtleties that accompany this basic format, whether they were made by a more exclusive maker like Gould or a lesser known maker like Long?
If that is the case, I understand now. Thank you for the clarification.
Joe

There are always exceptions, makers had to compete after all, but London was a very fashionable place and these things cost an absolute fortune in the 17th and early 18th centuries, so they were only bought by a wealthy and discerning clientele.

Once you get to 1720 on then the provincial makers really got going while the London makers were concentrating more on bracket clocks.