Searching for knowledge about my James Fleet, London mantel clock

[Erdetenhjort]

I've inherited this beautiful, perfectly working James Fleet of London clock from my grandfather that i've adored since childhood. However, i cannot find any info about it online. I recall seeing an auction result of a very similar James Fleet-signed clock that i think i remember described as late-1700's. Other than that, i cannot find anything about the name. No seemingly visible age stamps.

If anyone has any info, knowledge or facts about the clock, the maker or an age estimate in general i'd greatly appreciate it. Cheers!

 

[Mike Phelan]

It's not a lantern clock, but a mantel clock. Nice

 

[Erdetenhjort]

It's not a lantern clock, but a mantel clock. Nice

Cheers, edited. Says something about my clock knowledge ;-)

 

[novicetimekeeper]

It looks like it is a 19th century take on 18th century bracket clocks.

 

[jmclaugh]

A James Fleet is listed in London, apprenticed 1776 (so he'd likely have been free by 1783), CC 1813.

 

[bruce linde]

nice clock that needs professional servicing and cleaning... frayed cables are not a good thing.

 

[Chris Radano]

Not bad. There are extra holes on the backplate that are where the original movement brackets used to be. The case looks like the wood is new. The signature dial engraving doesn't look period somehow, but it isn't bad. The frets in the top corners of the dial are made from back door screening material, which can be purchased aftermarket today from clock supply retailers, the design based on Victorian era fusee table clocks. In summary, I think the case and dial were put together later. The dial possibly made from older elements. The movement is an original Regency era movement. Just my opinion.

 

[gmorse]

Hi Erdetenhjort,

In summary, I think the case and dial were put together later. The dial possibly made from older elements. The movement is an original Regency era movement.

I agree, looking at the signature on the back plate, it's confidently and fluently engraved; compare it with the one on the dial, which is quite pedestrian and hesitant, and on the strike/silent ring it's positively amateurish.

Regards,

Graham

 

[everydaycats]

I am no clock expert, but the dial engraving and that on the movement are from the same hand IMHO. "The wood looks new?" What part looks new? The wood joinery is no where close to being new or even recent, and the wood has no visible area that ring dating or even guessing could be made.
Regards

 

[JTD]

Hi Erdetenhjort,

I agree, looking at the signature on the back plate, it's confidently and fluently engraved; compare it with the one on the dial, which is quite pedestrian and hesitant, and on the strike/silent ring it's positively amateurish.

Regards,

Graham

I agree 100%.

I am no clock expert, but the dial engraving and that on the movement are from the same hand IMHO.

Sorry, I disagree. The formation of the letters is different, as are the ligatures. As Graham says, the engraving on the dial is hesitant and not of the quality of that on the back plate.

JTD

 

[bruce linde]

the back of the movement has that gleam of authenticity... except for the additional holes that indicate the movement was not originally in that case. seems lame to me that they wouldn't at least make up mounting arms that matched the holes in the back plate instead of drilling new ones... especially since there are no other marks in the wood of the case.

as for the engraving, compare (and contrast) the disconnected and non-elegant 'e' in 'James' on the dial with the 'e's in 'Fleet' on the back of the movement:



the strike and silent plate is amateur hour, and the quality of the case is not commensurate with the movement.

i don't mean to beat up on it, as it is a lovely movement and a nice clock. if it were mine, i would think about cleaning up the case a bit (gojo non-abrasive hand cleaner and natchez solution beeswax), sourcing a new silent/strike ring, and seeing if i could find an engraver who might be able to clean up the dial engraving subtly... especially because it was inherited.

 

[Erdetenhjort]

Thank you everyone for your replies!
I am not going tohave the clock changed in any way, except for maybe a proper service. I think it adds to the story of the clock that the engravings appear so different, and that several "modifications" has been made. I of course would have preferred it to be all original, but to me, as it is not, i would like to keep it "original" to how i recieved it, but will likely have it serviced. I guess i will likely never know the full story of what was done when - i have no knowledge of the story of the clock before my granpa recieved it from a coworker in the 80's, but wish i did.
If more knowledge can surface about the maker or the clock, i will gladly appreciate it! Thank you again, everyone.

 

[Chris Radano]

If it is a free clock there is nothing wrong with that. It is what it is. I see made up clocks on the internet from time to time that are similar. The movement is original. Maybe someone made up a case for it if the original case did not survive. We may never know exactly what happened. The hands are late 19th or early 20th c. That could be a clue when the case was made. Somebody cared enough to give the movement a home.