Marine clocks

[rmarkowitz1_cee4a1]

I thought I would start a thread devoted to "marine" clocks and timepieces.

What is my definition of a "marine" clock or time piece? Well A. Lee Smith in his wonderful overview Bulletin article which all should read (go to it via this link: http://www.nawcc.org/images/stories/2000/articles/2009/379/379_179a.pdf ) uses the definition of "balance wheel clocks and timepieces meant for use on moving vehicles, where pendulum clocks were not practical." He then goes on to include those used in the home as well. He excludes marine chronometers.

This is basically the definition I'm going to use. I believe that the CT clock makers of the 19th Century often referred to any clock or time piece, wall or shelf, with a balance wheel movement which was portable as a "marine" clock. Certainly some could be and were intended for use on a boat, barge, coach, train or a moving vehicle. However, I think they were also meant as decorative, versatile, often small, spring driven clocks and time pieces with the flexibility to be used most places and without the limitations of a pendulum, weights, etc. Don't tell me a wonderful Jerome Botsford under a glass shade was intended for use on a locomotive.

They were made by a wide range of makers. They could be cased in wood, iron, papier mache, porcelain, milk glass, etc. The cases were decorated with ripple modeling, paint, MOP, etc. They often have interesting movements. In fact, for me personally they often epitomize what I seek in clocks. A neat movement in a pretty case.

I've already devoted a separate thread to Kirk marines which can be accessed using this link: https://mb.nawcc.org/showthread.php?62891-Kirk-marine .

I thought it would be fun to see what other interesting examples and yes, hopefully of American manufacture, can be flushed out and shared.

If it's something you've already posted, please post a link to your previous one and include a "teaser" pic rather than reposting clocks. One goal is to consolidate and cross link information rather than just replicate.

I will kick things off with a timepiece made by the Litchfield Manufacturing Co. of Ct. This was a company which operated from about 1850-1856 when it became entangled in the affairs of P.T. Barnum. It employed immigrant British artisans. The quality of their products, which included clock cases and many other wares, was considered to be of high quality.

For a great Bulletin article about these clocks, see this one by Dr. Pechin: http://www.nawcc.org/images/stories/1980/articles/1989/262/262_387.pdf . Also see Toller's book, "Papier-mache in Great Britain and America", pages 97-103.

It is a miniature "gallery" time piece in a papier mache case decorated with free hand floral decorations highlighted with MOP inlay.

The back board is wood and bears a rather nice example of their label. Note the reference at the bottom to the Ansonia Clock Company with sales offices in NYC and Baltimore. Don't recall seeing that on the other published examples of this label?

The original dial is painted zinc and is signed. It is protected by a spun brass glazed bezel which opens with a push button on the side.

The movement is a signed brass plate steel spring 8 day time only movement. The plates of these movements are unique and unmistakable. The marine version of these movements (there is a pendulum driven one, too) all have the Sully-type escapements. The movement in this particular clock is classified in Pechin's article as "Litchfield type I". Please see that reference for much more about it.

For a similar timepiece albeit with snazzier case decoration but otherwise with similar dial, label, movement, etc, see this reference: http://www.nawcc.org/images/stories/1990/articles/1996/300/300_74.pdf . Scroll down to page 78.

I've shown you mine. Now show me yours..clocks and timepieces that is.

RM

 

[rmarkowitz1_cee4a1]

HOT OFF THE PRESSES! As they used to say when newspapers where the major source of breaking news.

This wonderful article about "marine" or "lever" movements is in the latest NAWCC Bulletin.

http://www.nawcc.org/images/stories/2010/articles/2013/406/406_572_593.pdf

Clocks with examples of a number of the movements discussed in this article will be posted over time.

Maybe even more if others are persuaded to participate.

The story of these movements represent a significant aspect of the development of the American clock industry.

RM

 

[Bruce Barnes]

Here is an old Welch and a Jerome, ca. 1852 +- both lever action and running................
Bruce

 

[harold bain]

This one is an unknown make (so far), with a Laporte Hubbell 30 hour lever movement. I've had it about 15 years, never seen another like it. Note the hinge on the back, to use for attaching to a wall when on a ship. It has the dial patent May 10, '59, for Samuel Root. First one I've seen with a wooden bezel.

 

[rmarkowitz1_cee4a1]

Thanks for posting your clocks and your interest.

Bruce: never owned a marine movement calendar. Like your 2 clocks.

Harold: that's one I've never seen before. Looks like a wood version of the No. 2 Tucker Bronze? The closest I can find is in Tran's "Ansonia" Book. I have the 1989 version. There's a clock on page 149, # 701 called the "Eureka Lever". The clock and turned base remind me of your clock. That's where the similarities end.

Also on that page is a clock called the "Boudoir Lever", # 696. I've posted an example I've owned for years below. Mine is the only actual example I've seen.

The crest and brackets, which are original, were carved by hand. Note the ebonized highlights. The base looks like one that could have been used for a clock with a glass dome if a groove for it had been made along the perimeter but it never was.

Not sure who made the unsigned movement. Note how in my clock it is mounted with blocks the edges of which have been rounded to match the contours of the round case. I've had the movement out and there's no evidence that this isn't all original.

See Richard Hubbell's recent article I linked to below. To me it looks most like movement "H" in figure 8, page 577. The biggest difference to my eyes is that the plates on my movement are screwed not pinned. Interestingly, the example in the article is if from a Daniel Pratt milk glass cased clock. I've previously posted one but it is labeled by Daniel Pratt's Sons. See this thread here: https://mb.nawcc.org/showthread.php?74545-Post-your-HENRY-J-Davies-clock&highlight=milk+glass .

Getting back to the Boudoir Lever, there's a fragmentary label on the back, very dark and under a sheet of mylar so it's tough to photograph. The company is the Ansonia Brass and Copper Company. Mentions marine clocks.

RM

 

[Bruce Barnes]

Hi RM, both clocks are lever action and carry the label of Marine...................I always had the impression that Marine clocks were used almost exclusively in a sea going environment primarily based upon the action.
Every day I learn.
Bruce

 

[harold bain]

Hi RM, both clocks are lever action and carry the label of Marine...................I always had the impression that Marine clocks were used almost exclusively in a sea going environment primarily based upon the action.
Every day I learn.
Bruce

Bruce, the last master clock made by IBM before Simplex bought their clock department was said to have a "marine escapement" in the repair manuals, but its use was not often in boats. It's a very rugged lever escapement with a 9 hour run time. The clock was normally driven by a telechron rotor and field (which also wound the mainspring), and the balance wheel was held up by a caging mechanism that released and gave the balance wheel a push when the power went off. It pretty much took the place of the large wooden pendulum master clocks, although they were still made for the customer who preferred the look of a traditional pendulum clock.
But, the escapement being suitable for a moving environment doesn't limit it to only be used on boats or trains. Probably about half the high schools in North America had a 91 master clock with an 090 marine escapement movement.
I suspect these movements were cheaper to make than the pendulum movements of the day.

 

[Bruce Barnes]

Thanks Harold for the interesting "ground school".................but wouldn't those movements would be considered as temporary versus the Lever Action design and what the original design and use was for?
Thanks,
Bruce

 

[harold bain]

I suppose so, in that the movement is powered electrically through the planetary gears at the back, and only uses the escapement as back up for power failures. None the less, IBM does call it a marine escapement movement. It was one of my favorite clocks to service, and was quite reliable. The basic movement seldom caused any problems. Unfortunately the case style isn't something you would want to display on your wall. Battleship grey steel case.

 

[rmarkowitz1_cee4a1]

Mr. Bain's recent postings illustrate how important and persistent the innovations associated with the development of a cheap and reliable "marine" movement by CT makers of the 19th century were!

There's a nice miniature gallery timepiece with a movement signed by Laporte Hubbell posted on this thread:

https://mb.nawcc.org/showthread.php?87069-Laporte-Hubbell-Timepiec

Love them mini's.

Lifted a "teaser" pic from the thread to post here.



There's also a nice novelty clock in a cruciform case from Mr. Bain's collection pictured on that posting, too.

Take a look.

RM

 

[Bruce Barnes]

Now that is one cool clock !!
Bruce

 

[rmarkowitz1_cee4a1]

Elisha Manross is an interesting maker. Clocks containing his movements have been the subject of a number of postings on the MB.

He has been described as the "clockmaker's clockmaker", supplying movements to a number of firms as well as producing his own clocks. It is felt that he never received the attention nor prominence that he deserved.

For much more about him, see another wonderful article by A. Lee Smith using this link: http://www.nawcc.org/images/stories/1990/articles/1993/286/286_541.pdf

More information about what I will discuss can be found in that article as well as in the other links already posted.

The example I'm posting today is a wall octagon.

The case is mahogany veneer on pine.

The dial is painted on zinc and signed. The diameter is about 8 1/4 inches. It has been subjected to some rather poor retouching mostly around the "slow-fast" aperture. Thankfully the signature is untouched. Check out the flourishes on the "E" and the "M". That stuff never comes out right when retouched. It is protected by a glazed spun brass bezel with a brass push button on the side.

The outer surface of the backboard bears a rather degraded paper label for Manross. Note the mention of the 1849 patent.

The case contains a rather unusual time only double spring 8 day movement is based upon an 1849 patent by Levi Beach. It is signed and makes note of the 1849 patent. I think it's the "SE 10.1" (see above reference, page 549, figure 14 and Hubbell, page 580, figure 13). These movements were made from about 1850-1853. They were used in shelf and wall timepieces. I did not measure the springs to see if they were 3/4 or 1 inch in width. This double spring configuration was also used in Hubbell's "Christmas tree" movement. But more about that in a future posting!

RM

 

[rmarkowitz1_cee4a1]

First, some old business.

"Forestville Clockmakers" by Roberts and Taylor is a must have in the library of anyone who has any interest in American clocks.

This publication has nice sections devoted to Manross, the Hubbell firms and other makers of marine movements and clocks.

Now for the new business.

The subject timepiece has a cast iron case of what is I think a rather interesting design which is embellished with paint and MOP inlay. Some might say it's for the birds??

The case is unmarked.

The dial is original. It has been repainted with skill (though the numerals are a bit heavier than as they would have been originally) but not properly as the paint is lifting and flaking badly. This is one that I will probably need to have redone. It is protected by a spun brass glazed bezel.

The brass steel spring time only movement was made by Noah Pomeroy. It is signed by Wm J. Hill on the front plate.

Noah Pomeroy is another whom I would consider to be a clock maker's clock maker. His firms made both marine and pendulum clocks.

He produced some of the earlier marine movements in both 30 hour and eight day versions.

Note the placement of the balance wheel outside of the front plate rather than between the plates as is encountered more often. Also note that the great wheel is partially solid, partially spoked.

See the article by A. Lee Smith linked to earlier in this thread, pages, 182-183 and figures 10 and 11. The latter figure shows a virtually identical movement also signed by Wm J. Hill found in an iron octagon case. Possibly also by Otis?

For a virtually identical clock and movement (unsigned), see this: http://www.nawcc.org/images/stories/1990/articles/1990/267/267_359.pdf

Scroll down to pages 365-356.

See "Forestville Clockmakers" by Roberts and Taylor, pages 145, 150-151 and page 152, figure 118. Pictured therein is another virtually identical clock. The authors attribute the case to Frederick S. Otis.

Frederick S. Otis appears to have been in business in Bristol, CT for a rather brief period of time in the mid-1850's. He manufactured primarily iron and iron front cases for the trade. It has been reported that his cases had "pearl" (actually most likely MOP) inlay.

RM

 

[Albra]

RM, you startet a wonderful thread. Even the Germans copied these "Marine-Uhren" and sold these clocks under this model-name. Junghans was the first German maker of Marine-Uhren- we find Marine-Uhren in Junghans-catalog Nr. 1 in the year 1878.

The movements of Marine clocks are technologically nothing new, because movements with balance are known for a long time before. But in the production technology, the production of the balances and their springs were a challenge. Because one need special machines for the production of the balances.

The technology of marine movements then found its direct sequel in the movements of the alarm clocks: Since there is no pendulum present, the flatness of the surface is no longer so important. Thus, a more accurate function of the clock movement is assured.

albra

 

[rmarkowitz1_cee4a1]

RM, you startet a wonderful thread. Even the Germans copied these "Marine-Uhren" and sold these clocks under this model-name. Junghans was the first German maker of Marine-Uhren- we find Marine-Uhren in Junghans-catalog Nr. 1 in the year 1878.

The movements of Marine clocks are technologically nothing new, because movements with balance are known for a long time before. But in the production technology, the production of the balances and their springs were a challenge. Because one need special machines for the production of the balances.

The technology of marine movements then found its direct sequel in the movements of the alarm clocks: Since there is no pendulum present, the flatness of the surface is no longer so important. Thus, a more accurate function of the clock movement is assured.

albra

Thank you for your interest and kind comments.

Your observations re:marine clocks and their descendants are right on target.

RM

 

[Albra]

In this thread, not only very beautiful but also very early marine clocks are shown. I am surprised that there has already been Marine clocks in America in the 1850s. I didn´t know that. And the outs are already very elaborated in the 1850s!

The development of stamping technology has progressed already exceptionally rapidly in America. Amazing!

The series production of the balances we should think of as quite difficult. The Germans were able to make the first movements with balance in serie 25 years later and some early German manufacturers, I suspect that they have purchased the balances from Switzerland or France.

albra

 

[rmarkowitz1_cee4a1]

In this thread, not only very beautiful but also very early marine clocks are shown. I am surprised that there has already been Marine clocks in America in the 1850s. I didn´t know that. And the outs are already very elaborated in the 1850s!

The development of stamping technology has progressed already exceptionally rapidly in America. Amazing!

The series production of the balances we should think of as quite difficult. The Germans were able to make the first movements with balance in serie 25 years later and some early German manufacturers, I suspect that they have purchased the balances from Switzerland or France.

albra

Thanks again.

Yes, it seems they moved right along. Almost like the Steve Jobs' of their day, they were always looking to profit from the next best technology.

And yes, I find some of these early marine movement clocks a combination I really seek. That is interesting movements often placed within a variety attractive of cases styles of a variety of materials (so far ranging from wood to papier mache to cast iron).

RM

 

[Albra]

Thanks again.

Yes, it seems they moved right along. Almost like the Steve Jobs' of their day, they were always looking to profit from the next best technology. RM

Yes, but when a new technology comes up, the older one disappears not yet automatically. There is always a phase in which the old and the new technology will be performed in parallel on. So I have also seen an American movement, in which all parts were of cast brass-no steel! (It was an American manufacturer from New York and I suspect that this movement is emerged only around 1890 or even later.)

And yes, I find some of these early marine movement clocks a combination I really seek. That is interesting movements often placed within a variety attractive of cases styles of a variety of materials (so far ranging from wood to papier mache to cast iron). RM

RM, in a newspaper of 1845, I've read that even the early American clock industry was divided. The movements were produced in Connecticut, the clock cases on the other hand came from specialized companies near New York. This might be the reason for your observation.

Also several German clock manufacturers (eg Carl Werner) at the beginning have only made ​​movements, but not the cases. Only later the clock manufacturers endeavored to produce both movements and cases.

albra

 

[rmarkowitz1_cee4a1]

RM, in a newspaper of 1845, I've read that even the early American clock industry was divided. The movements were produced in Connecticut, the clock cases on the other hand came from specialized companies near New York. This might be the reason for your observation.

Also several German clock manufacturers (eg Carl Werner) at the beginning have only made ​​movements, but not the cases. Only later the clock manufacturers endeavored to produce both movements and cases.

albra

To a certain extent. It's kind of a mix.

There were certainly those that produced mainly movements. Complete clocks with their labels are not often found.

In my opinion, the record on the earlier case makers/suppliers is not well documented. Of note, Jerome and Ingraham were cabinet makers first and not trained as clock makers.

Many makers produced complete clocks but also sold/traded movements and cases to others.

Cases were certainly made in and around NYC area, but also CT as well.

Yes, I would say that the larger vertically integrated clock company that produced all aspects of the clock was more typical after the middle 19th century

RM

 

[Albra]

To a certain extent. It's kind of a mix.

There were certainly those that produced mainly movements. Complete clocks with their labels are not often found.

In my opinion, the record on the earlier case makers/suppliers is not well documented. Of note, Jerome and Ingraham were cabinet makers first and not trained as clock makers.

Many makers produced complete clocks but also sold/traded movements and cases to others.

Cases were certainly made in and around NYC area, but also CT as well.

Yes, I would say that the larger vertically integrated clock company that produced all aspects of the clock was more typical after the middle 19th century RM

RM, thanks for your explanations!

In Germany we have the saying: "A beautiful case also sells an inferior movement". And therefore, in the Black Forest, the dial manufacturers have deserved better than the watchmaker. And in the 1890s, several case manufacturers have formed a cartel, to discuss prices.

I think that has led to that major clock manufacturers have set up their own production. Were there similar developments in the States?

albra

 

[harold bain]

Albra, if you can get a copy of the book written by Chauney Jerome, titled "History of American Clock Business for the past 60 years and Life of Chauncey Jerome, written by himself" it will give you a pretty good idea of American clockbuilding in the 1800's. It was originally published in 1860, and has been reprinted by Chris Bailey. It might also be available on the internet for downloading.
It gives a good look at American clockmaking. Chauncey Jerome at around 1850 was making more than 1/2 the total American production of clocks (mostly complete clocks, not buying New York cases), and within 6 years was broke.

 

[rmarkowitz1_cee4a1]

This thread started with a Litchfield Mfg. papier mache cased wall timepiece.

They also made marine time and strike movements. These appear to be less common than the time only movements. They were housed in both shelf and wall models.

Being trapped in the house by > than a foot of snow and temperatures in the teens, thought I might spend the time posting an example of one of a Litchfield Mfg. wall clock in a MOP inlaid and paint decorated papier mache case.

This is a large clock. How large is it? Well it's about 20 inches across with a 12 inch dial. I've posted a pic of the clock with others to get some sense of the size.

As mentioned, the octagon case is decorated with paint and MOP inlay. The decoration is original and quite intact but under a somewhat dark surface so I had some difficulty getting good pictures. In life it's not as dark as it appears here.

The outer surface of the pine backboard is painted black and has a good label. I've included a shot of the printer's credit.

The painted metal dial does have some extra holes around the perimeter from various campaigns to attach it after screws stripped out. Frankly, I was skeptical. However, based upon very careful examination which included looking at the alignment of arbours through apertures in the dial, shadows and that every single hole lines up perfect with a hole in the case, a few which are clearly chewed up, I am absolutely confident it is original. There are some great repair notations scrawled on the reverse of the dial. The paint on the dial is a bit dirty and someone (sigh) felt the need to touch up some chips. The touch-ups don't quite match and they've actually obscured some details, the best of which was a neat little detail around the s/f adjustment arbour of which some remains. Please stop doing that.

The dial is protected by a glazed spun brass bezel which opens with a push button latch on the side.

The open spade hands are a bit different and appear to be original. I really like them.

The movement is the 8 day time and strike version of the time only one I've posted earlier. See Pechin's article (I provide a link in the first posting). See pages 391-392 and the tables and figures therein. He classifies it as a Type III. It has the "Sully b" type of escapement with a single escape wheel and the pallets are 2 flat disks. These movements are unsigned. Note the additional U-shaped extension to the bottom of the plates which permit for the time and strike springs. The plate cut-outs are clearly different from those of the time only one. I have also seen a pendulum version of this movement.

Based upon my discussions with other collectors whom I would consider knowledgeable and looking through the literature, it would appears that this movement is scarce. Based upon my searching, they are all reported in shelf clock cases.

I also believe this large papier mache wall octagon case is scarce as well.

Would love to learn of others out there for comparison purposes.

RM

 

[rmarkowitz1_cee4a1]

Time pieces and clocks with movements by Terry, Downs, Burwell & Co are not often seen.

This Bristol, CT firm was incorporated about 1850 or 1851 and was taxed as a business for the years of 1851 and 1852. Burwell left the firm in 1853. The name then became Terry, Downs & Co.

They made both marine and pendulum movements. To my knowledge the marines are all time only. The pendulum ones are generally time and strike. The escape bridges and cross pieces of the plates have a rather distinctive shape.

TDB & Co sold their movements to a number of different firms. They can be found in a number of different case styles including cast iron shelf clocks, wall octagons, cottage, and scrolled fronts.

I've posted an example of their time only signed marine movement in a paint decorated MOP inlaid miniature cast iron shelf case as well as one of their time and strike movements in a scroll front wooden case.

The cast iron miniature marine time piece appears to never had had a label. Under that dark, crackled finish one can make out some gilt decoration. I'm reluctant to clean the case as I don't know what I'm doing and I'm afraid to lose what ever decoration survives under that darkened finish. Also note that the escape wheel is outside of the front plate which is a less common location.

The scroll front is rosewood veneer on pine with, I think, killer gilt stencil decoration. So often this is faded, refinished away, or gone over with gold radiator paint with the desire to freshen it up (stop doing that). It has a ripple molded door with the remains of the decalcomania dial surround in the upper glass. The lower is a nice period cut and frosted tablet which fits well but probably is not original. Ok label and dial signature of E&A Ingraham. This firm did not manufacture their own movements. They purchasing them from a variety of other makers. This clock was a junk shop find. Rougher than I usually go for, but oh boy what a case and what great potential.

For an example of the lever movement in a wall clock as well as additional information about these firms, see:

http://nawcc.org/images/stories/1980/articles/1987/248/248_231.pdf

Scroll down to page 232.

For more info and examples a very similar iron cased shelf clock with the lever movement and examples of E&A Ingraham scroll fronts with the pendulum movement, see:

http://nawcc.org/images/stories/1990/articles/1992/277/277_184.pdf

Scroll to pages 188-189.

RM

 

[rmarkowitz1_cee4a1]

Here's a recent Bulletin reference that some might find interesting and relevant:

http://www.nawcc.org/images/stories/2010/articles/2013/403/403_320_331.pdf

Scroll down to page 328.

There's much interesting information presented. Shown is the pendulum version of the 8 day time and strike movement by Litchfield manufacturing. The marine version has been posted earlier on this thread.

It is compared to the 8 day time only movement. Not quite the correct one to compare it to.

With the information on this thread, now you can compare apples to apples.

RM

 

[rmarkowitz1_cee4a1]

I guess the recent overwhelming focus of the MB has been making me, uh, a bit "cuckoo"?

So for the sake of a bit of a change of pace, thought I would post another marine clock.

Apparently in the late 1850's, Hubbell was working on a new movement that had a third or middle plate which provided a number of advantages. This became the well known "umbrella movement". It takes its name from the umbrella shaped cut out in the front plate. The movement went through a number of design changes between 1857-1865.

Below, I've posted an example of the later form of this movement as it appears in a previously posted Kroeber plush front wall clock. For more about this clock, use the link to the Kroeber thread provided below.

For more details about the Hubbell umbrella movement including features and "specs", please see Richard Hubbell's very nice article (except he spells "Welch" as "Welsh"). I've provided a link previously. Scroll down to pages 580-584 and the various figures and tables therein.

It came in a pendulum version too. To my knowledge, they are time only. They were used by Kroeber in some of his models, including the # 46 Regulator (see this thread https://mb.nawcc.org/showthread.php?63971-Post-your-Kroeber-Clocks-Here and scroll down some and Tran's "Kroeber" book for a pic of the movement) as well as in the advertising clocks made for Reed's Tonic.

Steve Thornberry has pointed out in a previous thread that the movements Kroeber used in his "Angel Swing" clocks, which are quite scarce, have the same umbrella cut outs. He has suggested that they were also Hubbell products. I feel this idea has much merit. I've posted some pix below. For more about those clocks, see this thread:

https://mb.nawcc.org/showthread.php?63553-Kroeber-The-Angel-Swings

RM

 

[rmarkowitz1_cee4a1]

The NAWCC Message Board is in desperate need of more than postings about cuckoo clocks and Vienna regulators. Truly they're great. But it gets profoundly monotonous when there's almost nothing else, IMHO. Isn't the Message Board meant to appeal to a range of interests?

In that spirit, I am continuing the foolish ridiculous and most futile effort to post something about American clocks. I guess unlike a few with whom I've spoken about this, I'm not going to give up.

The American marine movement was versatile. It could fit into any number of case styles.

Tonight, I thought I would post some miniature shelf timepieces by both Chauncey Jerome and some by his sons, Samuel Bryant and Augustus Smith. Clocks by the latter are less often seen in my experience. I have posted some of these before and information about them and others can be found in Chris Bailey's Bulletin supplement about Jerome. So this will be mainly pictures which should please most.

The last grouping (oops, screwed up the order of the pix) are minature marine movement shelf timepieces, the one in the center is wood, the others cast iron. I love mid-19th century decorated cast iron.

In the first grouping, the first three timepieces are in wood cases designed by S.B. Jerome. Wall marine timepieces in cases by him have previously been posted on the MB. The one with the brass handle and 4 decorative brass bosses on the front is labelled by Kroeber. The last clock in this grouping is a decorated tin cased time piece with a printed paper dial. It is rough. The bottom shows what the rest of the case once looked like. It is as close to a disposable clock that I have ever seen (besides that quartz junk). I've seen similar clocks where the case is made from a paper board covered something like a black oil cloth.

RM

 

[Kevin W.]

Great clocks RM i enjoy seeing yours. The three smaller ones in the picture are quite nice. And yes seen enough cuckoo clocks lately.

 

[rmarkowitz1_cee4a1]

Great clocks RM i enjoy seeing yours. The three smaller ones in the picture are quite nice. And yes seen enough cuckoo clocks lately.

Thank you for your kind comments!

RM

 

[rmarkowitz1_cee4a1]

Earlier on this thread, 2 developments in American marine movements were discussed. Manross developed a double wind movement. Hubbell developed his third or middle plate movement.

Hubbell combined these features into one movement

Tonight, I am going to rudely interrupt DMBH by posting a gallery clock with this interesting and almost elegant appearing marine movement.

It's a fairly big clock.

The case is walnut with a concave ebonized inner and outer boarders.

The dial is white painted zinc with Roman numerals. It is protected by a glazed spun brass bezel.

The outer backboard bears the printed paper label of "Jerome & Co" with a NYC address. In this case, it's used to refer to an American firm, not an English one.

For a bit more about that point go to:

http://www.nawcc.org/images/stories/1990/articles/1994/291/291_483.pdf

Scroll down to pages 486-488.

The movement which combines the double wind and the 3 plate features is called the "Christmas tree movement". It takes its name from the unusual shape of the front and back plates. It was patented in 1865.

This movement was manufactured in both a marine and a pendulum version. Both versions were used in calendar clocks. There was at least one industrial use of the marine version in a time lock mechanism.

For much more about both versions of this movement, please see Hubbell's article. I've posted a link previously on this thread. See pages 585 to 589 and the figures therein.

RM

 

[rmarkowitz1_cee4a1]

Despairing of this seemingly endless frigid snowy winter and DMBH, thought I would post another American "marine" clock.

The American marine movement was quite versatile. I could be placed into an amazing variety of cases.

One application to which it especially lent itself was novelty and figural clocks of all sizes.

The one posted is called the "Topsy".

Topsy was a character in the book "Uncle Tom's Cabin" by Harriet Beecher Stowe.

She seems to often be depicted dancing. Here is one image of her:



By the way, another popular blinker was named after a character in the same book. It is called the "Sambo".

The case is cast iron. It is unmarked. It is believed to have been produced by Bradley and Hubbard. The movements were Waterbury products.

The Topsy is one of the more common American "blinkers".

What prompted me to pay a truly stupid price for this one is its condition. Virtually all of the ones I have seen offered privately or at public auction have been partially or entirely repainted. The attempts to "fake" the age have been quite impressive but just miss. This is one of the few I have seen where I truly believe the paint is original and untouched. My photos don't capture the great patina and wear. Great colors too. Love the mustard dress with red dots and boarders. I've attempted to show a close-up of the eyes. These are almost always incorrectly repainted.

Also, the dials and bezels are often replaced. Not here.

RM

 

[Jerome collector]

Using a recent Chauncey Jerome 30-hr marine octagon timepiece acquisition as the motivation, I’ll contribute an example to the thread on marine clocks. As a general rule, my focus is more on weight-driven clocks by Jerome, but I have been known to acquire some spring-driven clocks for a variety of reasons. Often, it’s because the movements are typical weight-driven movements that have been adapted to fit in smaller cases (like steeples) through the use of springs to drive them. That’s clearly not the case, though, with balance wheel movements, and I can’t really explain my attraction to them. The Chauncey Jerome example below caught my eye from far across the room in an antique mall. I have run across any number of octagon clocks with simple (yet beautiful) veneered surfaces, as well as others with faux shagreen surfaces. This one was notable for the decorative elements, which are still reasonably well preserved. From a distance, I had no idea of the maker. The sales tag wasn’t much help either, as it identified the clock as a mid-19[SUP]th[/SUP] century product from England. The “C. JEROME” on the dial quickly put to bed any claims that this was an English clock. Unfortunately, the label on the back has not survived. Removing the dial revealed the “CHAUNCEY JEROME” maker’s stamp. The dial measures 8 inches and the case 11.

Condition-wise, the case exhibits some wear, especially along the edges and at the octagon points. There are some gouges on the front, most noticeably below the hinge on the right. It originally had four mother-of-pearl flakes, but only one survives. The dial doesn’t look too bad from a distance, but it has had some restoration work done on it over the years (readily apparent in the close-up showing the Jerome maker’s mark). Whoever did the work did a pretty good job of matching paint color. Presumably prior to touching up the spots where paint had flaked off, the dial was cleaned. In the process, some of the numerals bled. The hands are clearly mismatched, and at this point, I’m uncertain which (if any) is original.

In my initial thoughts on describing the clock, I was inclined to refer to the decoration as stenciling. However, I’m actually not certain how the decoration was applied. Was it a stencil? A transfer process? Freehand? I’d appreciate enlightenment, if anyone knows.

Thanks to RM’s links, I was able to compare the movement to the Hubbell examples in Richard Hubble’s Dec 2013 article in the Watch & Clock Bulletin. I was intrigued by the author’s speculations on movement design evolution. The version in my clock, though possessing all of the hallmarks of a Barnes/Hubbell movement, doesn’t match the examples shown in the article. Hubble indicates that the earliest movements have adjustable steel “bushings” for the verge and balance wheel, as does mine. He also indicates that the very earliest appear to have a keyhole-shaped brass mount on the front plate that holds the fast/slow lever. Mine has the later and simpler brass washer, and it lacks the screw hole for the earlier keyhole-shaped retainer that apparently lasted for awhile during the transition from one to the other. He also notes that the original Barnes design may have had the minute wheel at the 2 o’clock position, as does mine (retaining washer probably not original). However, he doesn’t feel that there’s enough data to use minute wheel position to aid in dating the movements. The last feature of my movement that suggests early is the amount of brass in the wheels. Later movements use much less brass; not surprisingly, because costs could be shaved by reducing the amount of brass in the movements. Summarizing, then, I think this is an early (but not earliest) movement that could be a product of Hendrick, Barnes and Co. (1848-51) or Hendrick, Hubbell and Co. (1851-55).

Mike

 

[rmarkowitz1_cee4a1]

Using a recent Chauncey Jerome 30-hr marine octagon timepiece acquisition as the motivation, I’ll contribute an example to the thread on marine clocks. As a general rule, my focus is more on weight-driven clocks by Jerome, but I have been known to acquire some spring-driven clocks for a variety of reasons. Often, it’s because the movements are typical weight-driven movements that have been adapted to fit in smaller cases (like steeples) through the use of springs to drive them. That’s clearly not the case, though, with balance wheel movements, and I can’t really explain my attraction to them. The Chauncey Jerome example below caught my eye from far across the room in an antique mall. I have run across any number of octagon clocks with simple (yet beautiful) veneered surfaces, as well as others with faux shagreen surfaces. This one was notable for the decorative elements, which are still reasonably well preserved. From a distance, I had no idea of the maker. The sales tag wasn’t much help either, as it identified the clock as a mid-19[SUP]th[/SUP] century product from England. The “C. JEROME” on the dial quickly put to bed any claims that this was an English clock. Unfortunately, the label on the back has not survived. Removing the dial revealed the “CHAUNCEY JEROME” maker’s stamp. The dial measures 8 inches and the case 11.

Condition-wise, the case exhibits some wear, especially along the edges and at the octagon points. There are some gouges on the front, most noticeably below the hinge on the right. It originally had four mother-of-pearl flakes, but only one survives. The dial doesn’t look too bad from a distance, but it has had some restoration work done on it over the years (readily apparent in the close-up showing the Jerome maker’s mark). Whoever did the work did a pretty good job of matching paint color. Presumably prior to touching up the spots where paint had flaked off, the dial was cleaned. In the process, some of the numerals bled. The hands are clearly mismatched, and at this point, I’m uncertain which (if any) is original.

In my initial thoughts on describing the clock, I was inclined to refer to the decoration as stenciling. However, I’m actually not certain how the decoration was applied. Was it a stencil? A transfer process? Freehand? I’d appreciate enlightenment, if anyone knows.

Thanks to RM’s links, I was able to compare the movement to the Hubbell examples in Richard Hubble’s Dec 2013 article in the Watch & Clock Bulletin. I was intrigued by the author’s speculations on movement design evolution. The version in my clock, though possessing all of the hallmarks of a Barnes/Hubbell movement, doesn’t match the examples shown in the article. Hubble indicates that the earliest movements have adjustable steel “bushings” for the verge and balance wheel, as does mine. He also indicates that the very earliest appear to have a keyhole-shaped brass mount on the front plate that holds the fast/slow lever. Mine has the later and simpler brass washer, and it lacks the screw hole for the earlier keyhole-shaped retainer that apparently lasted for awhile during the transition from one to the other. He also notes that the original Barnes design may have had the minute wheel at the 2 o’clock position, as does mine (retaining washer probably not original). However, he doesn’t feel that there’s enough data to use minute wheel position to aid in dating the movements. The last feature of my movement that suggests early is the amount of brass in the wheels. Later movements use much less brass; not surprisingly, because costs could be shaved by reducing the amount of brass in the movements. Summarizing, then, I think this is an early (but not earliest) movement that could be a product of Hendrick, Barnes and Co. (1848-51) or Hendrick, Hubbell and Co. (1851-55).

Mike

Mike,

Thanks for your excellent contribution to this thread.

I would be thrilled to add that clock to my own collection.

I don't have much to add to your excellent analysis of the movement.

With regards to the case. It appears to be an ebonized wood case with gilt decoration and MOP inlay. I have seen other Jerome wall octagon clocks in these cases including a calendar!

I've always believed the decoration to be free hand.

It was a style rather popular in the period and it appears that Jerome often used it on cases made from wood, cast iron and papier mache. Other makers used it, too.

Interesting re: the attribution to England. Jerome appears to have included what he described as papier mache clocks (though I suspect based upon surviving examples, many were actually wood and cast iron) in his trade flyers from the early 1850's. "Detached lever" round and octagon wall clocks are pictured in those flyers. Where the cases are described, it would appear they were veneered. See Bailey's Jerome supplement, pages 79 and 87.

See below for some pix of clocks previously posted showing a similar style of decoration. The first 2 pix are wood cases, then papier mache, the last cast iron.

Enjoy your lovely clock!

RM

 

[Jerome collector]

RM,

Thanks for the comments on the clock. And for indicating that the gilt-work was hand applied. That certainly adds a personal touch to each clock that exited the factory. The other examples you included are exquisite.

I checked Bailey's Jerome supplement (as you did) and was surprised not to see this version shown or mentioned. I just got around to actually looking through my reprints of the trade catalogs and was intrigued to see in the 1853 catalog a clock described as "Octagon Papier Maiche Lever." The picture shows a gilt-decorated clock. The catalog shows three sizes: 6 inch dial, 8 inch (see below), and 10 inch.

Mike

 

[rmarkowitz1_cee4a1]

RM,

Thanks for the comments on the clock. And for indicating that the gilt-work was hand applied. That certainly adds a personal touch to each clock that exited the factory. The other examples you included are exquisite.

I checked Bailey's Jerome supplement (as you did) and was surprised not to see this version shown or mentioned. I just got around to actually looking through my reprints of the trade catalogs and was intrigued to see in the 1853 catalog a clock described as "Octagon Papier Maiche Lever." The picture shows a gilt-decorated clock. The catalog shows three sizes: 6 inch dial, 8 inch (see below), and 10 inch.

Mike

Thanks for your kind comments.

That's great information.

I have what I believe are clocks listed in those trade sheets wherein they are said to be papier mache but they're actually ebonized wood. I also feel that, with all due respect, Chris has mismatched some of the listed clocks with extant clocks.

I would bet that could be yours.

RM

 

[Steven Thornberry]

Some while back I acquired this 8-day E.N. Welch marine lever clock. It has a fairly decent label remaining on the back showing a patent date of December 11, 1855. This refers to the only patent granted to J. C. Brown during his career. It was granted for an octagon case with oval front corners. Roberts and Taylor’s book, Jonathan Clark Brown and The Forestville Manufacturing Company, has a discussion of the patent on page 62. A copy of the patent is on page 63; here is a link to the patent document as found in the USPTO database.

The label indicates that the maker was the E. N. Welch Manufacturing Company. The movement on the other hand shows simply:

E. N. WELCH
FORESTVILLE, CT
U.S.A.​

This suggests that it may have been made prior to the formation of the E. N. Welch Manufacturing Company on July 6, 1864.

Tran’s 2d ed. of Welch Clocks shows a few examples of the movement that is in my clock. The clearest is on page 209, figs. 483 and 484. The movement pictured there is marked:

E. N. WELCH
M’F’G. CO.​

It is said to be an “eight-day, 8-inch, time, duplex movement for Octagon,” but it seems to have nothing to do with anything else on that page, which is in the Calendar Clocks section (Simple Calendars). It does not appear to be set up for a simple calendar mechanism. The plates on that movement are held together by nuts, while the plates on mine are held together by machine screws.

Although Tran shows several Octagon lever clocks, I was not able to find a satisfactory match for mine. I don’t have access to his first edition, so can’t say what might be there. But on the basis of the label and the movement, I am positing a date within a few years after the formation of the E. N. Welch Manufacturing Company, i.e., 1864 – 1870 (perhaps a bit later).

I’ll finish by mentioning a curiosity in Tran’s second edition of Welch. On page 234, fig. 585, is a photograph of an octagon lever clock dated “ca. 1885.” The description of the clock states, in part: “E.N. Welch Manufacturing Company. Patented Lever Escapement – December 11, 1885.”
The back of the clock is shown on page 235, fig. 588, and has a label that carries the December 11, 1855, patent date. (The unmarked movement for this clock is shown on page 235, figs. 589 and 591, but is different from that in my clock.) There seems to be a misreading of the patent date in the clock description, and I wonder whether that may have led to a misdating of the clock as “ca. 1885,” and whether the actual date might be somewhat earlier.

 

[rmarkowitz1_cee4a1]

Some while back I acquired this 8-day E.N. Welch marine lever clock. It has a fairly decent label remaining on the back showing a patent date of December 11, 1855. This refers to the only patent granted to J. C. Brown during his career. It was granted for an octagon case with oval front corners. Roberts and Taylor’s book, Jonathan Clark Brown and The Forestville Manufacturing Company, has a discussion of the patent on page 62. A copy of the patent is on page 63; here is a link to the patent document as found in the USPTO database.

The label indicates that the maker was the E. N. Welch Manufacturing Company. The movement on the other hand shows simply:

E. N. WELCH
FORESTVILLE, CT
U.S.A.​

This suggests that it may have been made prior to the formation of the E. N. Welch Manufacturing Company on July 6, 1864.

Tran’s 2d ed. of Welch Clocks shows a few examples of the movement that is in my clock. The clearest is on page 209, figs. 483 and 484. The movement pictured there is marked:

E. N. WELCH
M’F’G. CO.​

It is said to be an “eight-day, 8-inch, time, duplex movement for Octagon,” but it seems to have nothing to do with anything else on that page, which is in the Calendar Clocks section (Simple Calendars). It does not appear to be set up for a simple calendar mechanism. The plates on that movement are held together by nuts, while the plates on mine are held together by machine screws.

Although Tran shows several Octagon lever clocks, I was not able to find a satisfactory match for mine. I don’t have access to his first edition, so can’t say what might be there. But on the basis of the label and the movement, I am positing a date within a few years after the formation of the E. N. Welch Manufacturing Company, i.e., 1864 – 1870 (perhaps a bit later).

I’ll finish by mentioning a curiosity in Tran’s second edition of Welch. On page 234, fig. 585, is a photograph of an octagon lever clock dated “ca. 1885.” The description of the clock states, in part: “E.N. Welch Manufacturing Company. Patented Lever Escapement – December 11, 1885.”
The back of the clock is shown on page 235, fig. 588, and has a label that carries the December 11, 1855, patent date. (The unmarked movement for this clock is shown on page 235, figs. 589 and 591, but is different from that in my clock.) There seems to be a misreading of the patent date in the clock description, and I wonder whether that may have led to a misdating of the clock as “ca. 1885,” and whether the actual date might be somewhat earlier.

Steve,

Thanks for your excellent contribution to this thread.

Now some of my usual rambling stream of consciousness.

That double wind configuration reminds me of the double wind marine movement patented by Levi Beach in 1849. See earlier on this thread. That double wind configuration was also used by Hubbell in his "Christmas Tree" movement. That movement has a roughly triangular plate configuration, too. Also see earlier on this thread.

Earlier on this thread, Bruce Barnes posted a Welch calender with a marine movement. He doesn't mention if time and strike or double wind. Makes me curious to see what's behind that dial.

Often there were pendulum versions of the marine movements.

Check out these links to Burt's Welch, Spring Supplement.

http://www.nawcc.org/images/stories/publications/PubSupplementsPDFs/sup_12_25.pdf

See figure 35. Almost the pendulum version of your movement? Double wind, 30 day.

http://www.nawcc.org/images/stories/publications/PubSupplementsPDFs/sup_12_43.pdf

See figure 52. Pendulum version also used in the Titiens.

Just throwing things out to see what might stick.

RM

 

[Steven Thornberry]

RM, thanks. Your two links to Burt's supplement are to the same pages. The first one should be this. (I went ahead and corrected it in your post.) Welch seems to have liked this style of movement.

Looking again at Lee Smith's article cited in the first post of this thread, I see what appears to be the same movement as mine, but attributed to Waterbury (p. 191, fig. 34) and stated to be from a round metal-cased clock shown in fig. 1, p. 179. Curious. Have a look and see what you think.

A somewhat more elaborate adaptation of this movement is shown in Tran's second ed. of Welch, p. 158, figs. 360 & 361. There it is adapted for use with a Gale Calendar. See picture below.

BTW, I have included a link to this thread in the "Post Your (Maker's Name) Clocks" sticky at the top of this forum - second post, titles Marine Lever Clocks.

 

[rmarkowitz1_cee4a1]

RM, thanks. Your two links to Burt's supplement are to the same pages. The first one should be this. (I went ahead and corrected it in your post.) Welch seems to have liked this style of movement.

Looking again at Lee Smith's article cited in the first post of this thread, I see what appears to be the same movement as mine, but attributed to Waterbury (p. 191, fig. 34) and stated to be from a round metal-cased clock shown in fig. 1, p. 179. Curious. Have a look and see what you think.

A somewhat more elaborate adaptation of this movement is shown in Tran's second ed. of Welch, p. 158, figs. 360 & 361. There it is adapted for use with a Gale Calendar. See picture below.

BTW, I have included a link to this thread in the "Post Your (Maker's Name) Clocks" sticky at the top of this forum - second post, titles Marine Lever Clocks.

Thanks for fixing the link and for creating a "sticky".

Interesting about that Waterbury movement in figure 34 of A. Lee Smith's article. Gotta wonder about his attribution.

Yes, it's a very similar movement in the Gale!

RM

 

[Steven Thornberry]

Interesting about that Waterbury movement in figure 34 of A. Lee Smith's article. Gotta wonder about his attribution.

RM

Coming back to this, I briefly looked both Tran's 2nd ed. Welch and both vols. of his Waterbury. In the Welch, I found three examples of clocks called Metal Case Lever, Metal Lever, and Nickel Lever, on pages 232 & 233, figs. 576, 578, and 582, respectively. They were dated from 1878 to 1885 (catalogues). I saw nothing similar in the Waterbury volumes. So, yes, perhaps a misattribution. If a misattribution, I wonder whether it was corrected as some point later.

 

[rmarkowitz1_cee4a1]

Coming back to this, I briefly looked both Tran's 2nd ed. Welch and both vols. of his Waterbury. In the Welch, I found three examples of clocks called Metal Case Lever, Metal Lever, and Nickel Lever, on pages 232 & 233, figs. 576, 578, and 582, respectively. They were dated from 1878 to 1885 (catalogues). I saw nothing similar in the Waterbury volumes. So, yes, perhaps a misattribution. If a misattribution, I wonder whether it was corrected as some point later.

Interesting.

I don't recall seeing one.

RM

 

[Steven Thornberry]

Interesting.

I don't recall seeing one.

RM

Well, I'm wrong (as ever)! Turn the page Steven. In the Waterbury book, there are some listed under "Ship's Clocks," pp. 537-38, figs. 2073-77. I'm still not clear that the movement Smith identifies as coming from a Waterbury is actually a Waterbury. FWIW, I'll add that the Welch Metal Case Lever carries a mention that it was used by Ansonia and New Haven as well. So, back to square one, I guess.

Perhaps it's a situation of cases from one source, movements from another, seller yet another?

 

[rmarkowitz1_cee4a1]

Well, I'm wrong (as ever)! Turn the page Steven. In the Waterbury book, there are some listed under "Ship's Clocks," pp. 537-38, figs. 2073-77. I'm still not clear that the movement Smith identifies as coming from a Waterbury is actually a Waterbury. FWIW, I'll add that the Welch Metal Case Lever carries a mention that it was used by Ansonia and New Haven as well. So, back to square one, I guess.

Perhaps it's a situation of cases from one source, movements from another, seller yet another?

Could very well be.

RM

 

[rmarkowitz1_cee4a1]

Manufacturers of marine clocks also produced pendulum versions of their marine movements. For example, this was true of the "Christmas tree" movement produced by Hubbell and the movement produced by Terry, Downs and +/- Burwell & Co. Hubbell also produced other pendulum movements with his unique "umbrella" plate cut outs. For more info, see earlier on this thread.

Litchfield Manufacturing also made a pendulum version of their time and strike marine movement. I thought I would post an example. In my experience, clocks with this movement are fairly scarce. I know. Not truly a marine movement. But I feel that it belongs here for continuity.

The case front is paint decorated and MOP inlaid cast iron under a darkened original finish.

The singe divided door is wood and bears paint decoration matching that of the iron front.

The lower glass is reverse paint decorated. The catalog of the auction house from which it was acquired stated that it had been retouched. I don't agree that it was.

The painted zinc dial has a raised chapter ring with a pretty good scratch.

The movement is like the 8 day time and strike Litchfield Manufacturing marine movement posted earlier on this thread. Scroll back to see that large papier mache gallery clock. I've posted a pic of the movement to permit comparison.

The label is a bit unusual in that it is a smaller than typical and is a small cut out. I have provided a pic of the printer's credit...can anyone provide a date for them?

A virtually identical clock was recently reported in the Bulletin. See this: http://www.nawcc.org/images/stories/2010/articles/2013/403/403_320_331.pdf . Scroll down to pages 328 to 330 and the figures therein. I will say I confidently believe that the case was misidentified in that article as papier mache. Yes, Litchfield did make a similar scroll front paint decorated and MOP inlaid papier mache version. But I strongly believe that that clock is in fact, like mine, an iron front!

Finally see: http://www.nawcc.org/images/stories/1990/articles/1991/274/274_542.pdf . Scroll down to pages 545 to 548 and the figures therein. Shows the same movement in a "beehive" clock by Terry and Barnum (as in PT!). Also discusses in some detail the interesting and unusual features of this movement.

RM

 

[harold bain]

Nice find, RM. Just looking at the case, I would have suspected Ingraham or Brewster and Ingraham, from the early 1850's, which fits the timeline for this company. Just copied? I don't know that Ingraham used iron cases.

 

[rmarkowitz1_cee4a1]

Nice find, RM. Just looking at the case, I would have suspected Ingraham or Brewster and Ingraham, from the early 1850's, which fits the timeline for this company. Just copied? I don't know that Ingraham used iron cases.

Thanks for your kind comment and interest.

RM

 

[rmarkowitz1_cee4a1]

Thought I would post a couple of "marine" movement clocks just for the sake of completeness. Nothing that terribly exciting but I do want a somewhat comprehensive reference.

The first is a rather nice octagon gallery clock containing a movement signed by Noah Pomeroy. Please see an earlier posting for an iron front with a movement by this maker but signed by William J. Hill. I've posted pix of the movement from both clocks for your viewing pleasure. Return to that earlier posting for more info and links to references.

I do think the original dial is a good repaint or maybe just underwent reblacking of the numerals and minute track. If a total repaint, they got those slender numerals of the period pretty spot on.

The case is mahogany veneer on pine. Nice original finish which has been rubbed down some. It really does not appear to have ever had a label. The outer pine back board has a thin red wash which I have seen on other clock cases and furniture of that period. There is NO evidence that a label was once there.

Someone really polished up the plates of this movement. I have always liked the Noah Pomeroy lever movements with the balance wheel on the outside of the front plate rather than between the plates as is more typical and the dial aperture to view it. Adds visual interest.

The next clock is a Manross shelf clock. Also see earlier on this thread for a wall octagon duplex time piece by this maker with references. This is a clock, ie, it strikes which is a bit different. I have posted pix of the movement of the earlier clock with the duplex time only movement for comparison.

The case is nicely book matched veneer on pine.

Movement is interesting in that the strike side has a brass spring! Manross certainly used brass springs for his spring driven movements. I have owned mini ogees and full sized steeples by this maker with brass springs. Of further interest to me is though the time side spring appears to be replaced with a relatively modern steel spring, the thickness of the time side was clearly always meant to be greater. Any info?

The outer back board bears a label fragment indicated it has a polished garnet bushing for the escapement. I've taken a pic of the balance wheel bushing...not sure it's not been replaced. Garnet is a red stone. Thoughts/opinions?

Note the small hole in the dial. I have had this clock apart multiple times and I have no doubt as to the originality of all components and that that hole has been there for a very long time. When I acquired the clock, I thought it might have been placed there to permit advancing the strike. If you go to my Kirk thread, you will see clocks with holes in the dial, albeit between the X and XI, through which a pin may be inserted to advance the strike. That's what I thought this hole was for. Nope. Any thoughts?

Otherwise, a nice example of a Manross lever movement clock.

RM

 

[Tinker Dwight]

Maybe a lever to silence the bell.
Tinker Dwight

 

[rmarkowitz1_cee4a1]

Maybe a lever to silence the bell.
Tinker Dwight

H'mmmm...I dunno.

You can access through the opening "wire" to which the round metal bit that strikes the bell is attached.

RM

 

[Tinker Dwight]

The one clock doesn't seem to have a count wheel.
How does that work?
Tinker Dwight

 

[Steven Thornberry]

The one clock doesn't seem to have a count wheel.
How does that work?
Tinker Dwight

Second row, third picture from left. Look closely and you can see the count wheel. The other two are time only.

One problem: too many different clocks shown in one group can be a bit confusing, without intervening text to help clarify.