John Long of London?

[Joe Gargery]

I've come across a long case clock with the name John Long London on the face. But cannot seem to find any information at all about the maker or company. Is anyone here familiar with this name? Any and all information is much appreciated.
Thank you again, Joe.

 

[novicetimekeeper]

There were two, but the first died in the 18thC so this is the second, working until around 1725. I don't think that is the original case but have you more pics?

 

[jmclaugh]

Lovely early 18th C dial, the matching hands aren't original. Loomes has four entries with that name in London, one is too early and a couple are too late which leaves a John Long a. 1690, CC 1698-1725.

 

[Joe Gargery]

I searched for hours and only came up with this John Long clock from a Christie's auction from 12 years ago. While the case is more elaborate the dial looks very similar and it is listed as ca. 1690.
I decided to try searching English sites and found a site called Riversdale Clocks that lists hundreds of English and European clock makers. Among them are two references to a clock maker named John Long of London as you can see in the partial list below the Christie's listing. This also places John Long in the late 17th century.

1. 
   LIVE AUCTION 5997CHRISTIE'S INTERIORS

https://www.christies.com/en/lot/lot-5390728
LOT 417
https://www.christies.com/en/lot/lot-5390731

[IMG alt="A WILLIAM AND MARY WALNUT AND ARABESQUE MARQUETRY INLAID STRIKING LONGCASE CLOCK OF MONTH DURATION
"]https://www.christies.com/img/LotIm...try_inlaid_striking_long081707).jpg?w=1[/IMG]


A WILLIAM AND MARY WALNUT AND ARABESQUE MARQUETRY INLAID STRIKING LONGCASE CLOCK OF MONTH DURATION

JOHN LONG, LONDON. CIRCA 1690

Price realisedGBP 5,750
Estimate
GBP 2,000 – GBP 3,000


Closed: 6 Dec 2010



RIVERSDALE CLOCK MAKERS LIST "L"

Lodowick, Peter. London. Clockmakers' Company. 1689.

Lofter, J. Stadthoff. 1725-50.

Logg, M. Vienna. 1726

Logge, J. Amsterdam. 1680.

Logie, Robert. Edinburgh. 1784-1827. The business was sold in 1827 to Andrew Millar.

Long, John. London. Clock-makers' Company. 1677.

Long, John. London. Clock-makers' Company. 1698.

Long, Thomas. London. Clockmakers' Company. 1653.

Longford, Ellis. London. Clockmakers' Company. 1672.

Longford, Thomas. London. Clockmakers' Company. 1760-80

Longland, John. London. Clockmakers' Company. 1677.

Loomes, Thomas, "at The Mermayd in Lothbury." 1649-74. An apprentice to John Selwood. Admitted a brother of Clockmakers' Company.

Loon, William. Dordrecht. 1720.

 

[jmclaugh]

Apprenticeships typically lasted 7 years so John Long would have been free in 1697 which is very likely the earliest he would have been making clocks in his own name.

 

[Joe Gargery]

That seems to make sense with what I just found JM. I just came across this from the "LIST OF MEMBERS OF THE CLOCKMAKERS' COMPANY OF LONDON, FROM THE PERIOD OF THEIR INCORPORATION IN 1631 TO THE YEAR 1732.1 By C. OCTAVIUS S. MORGAN, F.R.S., F.S.A." and, if I'm reading this correctly, it shows John Long admitted as a "Brother" in 1677 (highlighted below) as designated by the lower case "b" accompanying his name for that year and again in 1698 which could be the year of his incorporation although I cannot explain the 21 year gap.


THE CLOCKMAKERS COMPANY.
Page 207
1682 Knight, Richard 1684 c
Kenning, William b
1685 Knight, Charles 1686 Kenton, Joseph 1688 Kemp, Charles 1689 King, Jonathan 1701 Kinning, John Kemp, Richard 1712 Kissor, Samuel Kanns, John 1715 King, John 1717 Keddon, Daniel 1719 Kendrick, John 1720 King, William King, Henry 1722 Kirby, Robert 1723 Knight, Henry Kelton, Simon 1726 Kendrick, John 1729 King, John'L.oh.
1631 a Lynaker', Samuel,
one of
the
first Assistants)
ante "16501632
a Lambe, Thomasa Lord, Richard 1641 Le Grand, James
b Louarth, Jasper b 1642 Laxton, Thomas b
1647 Le Grand, Francis b
1648 Light, John b
1649 Loomes, Thomas 6152 Langford, Goring b
1653 Laxton, Thomas La-well, Paul b
. Layton, John b
Long, Thomas 1655 Lochard, John 1656 Lello, James b .
1663 Lucie, John 1664 Langley, Thomas Legrand, James, junr. 1668 Lloyd, William 1669 a Lucas, William 1670 Lynch, Robert Lloyd, William 1672 Longford, Ellis 1673 Lloyd, Joseph 1674 Lake, Bryan 1675
aLambe, Edmund 1676 Lee, Cuthberta Leconte, Daniel b
1677 c Longland, John
b Long, John
b Lloyd, David 1680 a Lounde, Jonathan 1681 Lloyd, Richard 1682 a Loundes, Isaac
b 1683 a Laughton, William
b 1685 Leake, Eaith1687 a Le Comte, James bc
Le Feburg, Charles (French)1689 Lodowick, Peter 1691 Lloyd, Charles 1693 Leake, George 1694 Lumpkin, Thomas Lee, Samuel 1697 a L'Estrange, David b
a Lester, Thomas b
1698 a Littlemore, Whitestone (ap.Tompion)Long, John 1700 Lloyd, James Latham, John 1701 Lushbrook 1702 Lovett, William 1703 Lyne, William 1705 Lewis, John 1706 Langley, Cornelius Ludlow, Samuel Leroux, Alexander 1709 Ladd, Ladd 1711 Lens, William Ley, William 1712 Limoniere, Stephen h 1713 «Lamp, John 1715 Lashbrook, Henry 1718 Langcroft, Richard 1719 Lee, John 1720 Lany, John Leffin, Thomas Luttman, William 1721 Le Sturgeon, David 1722 Lloyd, James 1724 Legg, John 1725 Lewis, Ambrose 1726 Layton, Francis 1727 Lucas, Edward 1730 Leigh, Thomas Latour, Rene 1731 Lucas, Henry Lewin, William

 

[jmclaugh]

The CC entry for John Long in 1677 is listed as "CC 1677 - dead or gone by 1697". He's the one I think is too early as mentioned above.

 

[novicetimekeeper]

The clock in the auction listing is by the first John Long, the clock you have started the thread about is by the second John Long.

 

[Joe Gargery]

Thank you both for the information.
When comparing the two clocks I've posted pictures of, the cabinetry difference is obvious but the dials are remarkably similar. In fact they look pretty much identical to my untrained eye.
Could theses two John Longs have been father and son perhaps?

 

[novicetimekeeper]

I can only see limited similarities, though none of the pictures is particularly clear. The differences in dials are fairly subtle but they are a good indicator to date, particularly for London clocks.

 

[zedric]

Welcome to the world of English clocks.. I think the more you get used to looking at these longcase dials, the more you can see the differences. As novice says, while your clock has a general resemblance to other longcase clocks (there is a chapter ring, spandrels and dial plate with matting in the centre and a date), if you look closer, the differences between the clock sold at Christie's are clear - the style of spandrels, the size and position of the minute numbers etc all tell the tale that your clock is quite a bit younger that the Christie's clock.

 

[JimmyOz]

Any chance of a few photos of the movement with the dial off?

 

[Joe Gargery]

Well, I was intrigued by this clock so I purchased it this afternoon. It was very inexpensive and the seller was a super friendly fellow who'd inherited it but simply had no interest in it and didn't want to leave it sit in his garage. As a bonus he he tossed in a Mauthe wall clock free of charge! I will post up some pictures this evening.

 

[Joe Gargery]

Here are some pictures of the long case clock I picked up today.

I posted pictures of the Mauthe over on the "Post your Mauthe" thread:

Post your MAUTHE clocks here

Hello Mike! The dial most probably was originally silvered brass, but it lost the coat and now highly corroded and patinated. As per the age I suppose it is from 1920-s era. best regards, Oleg

mb.nawcc.org

This John Long, London clock is reasonably solid for it's age. Missing the pendulum, weights and both keys, but hunting down the missing things is half the fun. Nice vintage hardware. It has a couple of pencil marks inside that I'd like to understand (see pics) they are approximately where the bob of the pendulum would hang. The one on the left side looks like an "S" or perhaps an "L" and the one on the right looks like a "Y" or "Ye". Any ideas what they may have meant?
I will remove the movement tomorrow and post pics of it here.
Appreciate any and all input.
Cheers, Joe

 

[novicetimekeeper]

I guess the marks are Slow and Fast to regulate the pendulum. The case is a nice provincial one of quarter sawn oak with mahogany crossbanding.

The half hour markers on the dial are of a very unusual form.

 

[Joe Gargery]

Do you mean the Fleur de lis markers? I see these are present on quite a few of the so called "William and Mary" era clocks. I wonder if this shows the influence of the Huguenots emigration from France in the same time period? The Clockmaker's List that I posted above has a footnote at the end of the article pointing out the heavy influx of French clock makers around this period due to the revocation of the Edict of Nantes.

"NOTE.—It will be noticed in the foregoing list how many names of Frenchmen appear immediately after 1685, the date of the Revocation the Edict of Nantes, that ill advised and intolerant measure which caused so many skilled artizans to leave their native land for England, greatly to the benefit of this country.—ED."

 

[jmclaugh]

Your latest pictures show the spandrels better. They are the twin cherubs supporting a crown with a Maltese cross above, a popular pattern. In my sources dates for them vary slightly, the earliest being from around 1690, others from about 1700/1705, they were typically in use until around 1720/1725. The hood door when closed appears to slightly obscure them which indicates the case and dial aren't well matched.

Btw the fleur-de-lis was in use in England well before the arrival of French Hugenots immigrants, it was depicted on the Royal Coat of Arms from the 14th C to 1800.

 

[novicetimekeeper]

Do you mean the Fleur de lis markers? I see these are present on quite a few of the so called "William and Mary" era clocks. I wonder if this shows the influence of the Huguenots emigration from France in the same time period? The Clockmaker's List that I posted above has a footnote at the end of the article pointing out the heavy influx of French clock makers around this period due to the revocation of the Edict of Nantes.

"NOTE.—It will be noticed in the foregoing list how many names of Frenchmen appear immediately after 1685, the date of the Revocation the Edict of Nantes, that ill advised and intolerant measure which caused so many skilled artizans to leave their native land for England, greatly to the benefit of this country.—ED."

Yes, the development of half hour markers is well documented. However the design of the half hour markers on your clock is unusual.

 

[Bernhard J.]

Sorry for the off topic, but how about this one?



I do note that the ones on Joe´s clock look nicer made than most others I have seen.

 

[jmclaugh]

Sorry for the off topic, but how about this one?

View attachment 736963

It's a nice one, the dial looks to have an arcaded/Dutch wavy minute band which afaik was popular around the mid 1700s.

 

[novicetimekeeper]

Sorry for the off topic, but how about this one?

View attachment 736963

I do note that the ones on Joe´s clock look nicer made than most others I have seen.

Those are very different and, judging by the arcaded minute ring , considerably later.

 

[Joe Gargery]

This morning I received this partial list of a journal from a very helpful friend in England named Pierre. It shows an entry for John Long with the dates 1690 - 1725. Can anyone here help with the information in this entry?
Do the years listed show the time he was in business?
What do the following abbreviations mean: CC, app., t/o, Bai?
Do you think it is reasonable to assume the earlier John Long shown with the date 1677 could be the father in the same trade?

 

[novicetimekeeper]

This is the information already given. CC is clockmakers Company, to carry out a liveried trade in the City you had to be in a livery company. Not necessarily the clockmakers to make clocks.

App is apprentice. I think those are working dates, though the second is usually death.

I have not seen evidence they were related, but the dates suggest they may have been.

 

[gmorse]

Hi Joe,

t/o, Bai?

't/o' means 'taken over'; if an apprentice moved from one master to another for various reasons, it was described like this. Sometimes it was the death or incapacity of the original master which caused this, but there were other reasons. John Long is shown as being taken over twice, which may be just bad luck, or could also indicate that he may have had an awkward relationship with his masters!

'Bai' refers to 'Bailies' a reference book on watch and clock makers.

The 'f' means free of the Clockmakers Company on 4th July 1698, in other words, no longer an apprentice bound to a master, but from that point, a journeyman who was still working for a master and couldn't set up in business on his own account for another few years.

Regards,

Graham

 

[Joe Gargery]

Thank you Graham.
So the entry means John Long apprenticed under Jno Sweby, then to Ambrose Gardiner and then to George Wilson?

 

[Joe Gargery]

Pictures of the movement.
I can see no markings anywhere. A few obvious repairs.

 

[gmorse]

Hi Joe,

So the entry means John Long apprenticed under Jno Sweby, then to Ambrose Gardiner and then to George Wilson?

Yes, that's right, ('Jno' was the usual but illogical abbreviation for 'John' at this time).

It's very common for these movements to be completely unsigned.

Regards,

Graham

 

[Joe Gargery]

Got it. Thank you again.

 

[zedric]

Do the years listed show the time he was in business?

Not quite. They are often a best guess based on the style of clocks seen with that signature. Some information may come from newspapers or dates of wills etc. So always be careful about using the dates as absolutes. But it is at least a good indicator

 

[JimmyOz]

Looking at the movement, the back plate has 2 sets of pivot holes and the back cock screw holes have been filed out.
The front plate also has 2 sets of holes for the verge and the second's arbors. there maybe more under the motion works.This looks to me that the time train has been altered to accommodate the dial front plate?