527 MARCH 2002

THE traditional view of thedevelopment of the clock trade inBritain is that brass-dialed longcase

clocks (the movements at least) were con-structed by the ‘maker’ named on the dial, whilepainted-dial clocks, made after about 1770, hadmovements manufactured in Birmingham‘factories’. A typical statement is that:

standard-design movements [were pro-duced] in the first ‘steam factories’ duringthe industrial revolution, and these move-ments were sold in their thousands toisolated clock factors in country towns,either for replacement or for fitting to newenamel [i.e. painted] dials.1

Given that there was a revolution in man-ufacturing, initiated in industries such asceramics and textiles – particularly as the newtextile machines were largely built using theskills of clockmakers2 – about the time that thenew fashion began for clocks with colourfulpainted dials, this view was a reasonableassumption. But it was an assumption, largelyfostered by the now-discredited notion thatpainted dials were introduced as a cheaperalternative to the traditional brass dial. It doesnot take the examination of many movementsfitted to painted-dial clocks, before it is realizedthat, while they do not have the individualityand downright quirkiness of many of the earlierones, these ‘standard’ movements do show awide diversity in the shapes of their com-ponents, particularly the strikework. Very fewmovements are identical, and even those that arevery similar and clearly come from the sameworkshop, such as the Harlow movementsdiscussed here, are rarely the same in everydetail. If they had been manufactured in a few

SAMUEL HARLOW OF ASHBOURNEAND HIS LONGCASE MOVEMENTS

by John A. Robey

large factories, then much smaller divergenceswould be expected.

Current opinion is that these movementswere sometimes made by the person named onthe dial, but increasingly by a large number ofsmall workshops making movements primarilyfor sale to others, who would retail themcomplete with bought in dials and with locally-made cases. It has often been assumed that thiswas a phenomenon brought about by theintroduction of the painted dial, but in realitymany clockmakers sold movements to othermakers, while at other times may have evenbought movements back from these sametradesmen. This practice had been going onsince the seventeenth century – even clocksbearing the names of well-known Londonclockmakers sometimes have movements withall the signs of having been made in theworkshops of others. It has also been proposedthat many lantern clocks from the seventeenthcentury were made by a few London makerswho wholesaled them with the name of theretailer on the dials, rather than the name of theactual maker.3

The introduction of the painted dial merelyaccelerated a process that had been in existencefor almost a century. Initially, those clockmakersthat made their own movements continued todo so, and they can be recognized by the frontplates still showing planishing marks, or evensand marks from the casting mould, and usuallythe scribed lines and circles indicative of anindividually-made movement.4 Examples ofmovements made individually by the clock-maker for his own customers, as well as thosebought from movement manufacturers, haverecently been published.5 The actual makers of

1. K. Ullyett, In Quest of Clocks, (London: Spring Books, 1968), p. 248.2. J. A. Robey, ‘Of Clocks and Cotton’, Clocks, (March 1992), 14-17.3. G. White, English Lantern Clocks, (Woodbridge: The Antique Collectors Club, 1989), pp. 204-5.4. J. A. Robey, ‘Marking Time’, Clocks, (August 1994), 12-16.5. J. A. Robey, The Longcase Clock Reference Book, (Ashbourne: Mayfield Books, 2001), chapter 8.

� � �

528ANTIQUARIAN HOROLOGY

some of these ‘standard’ movements have beenidentified, but most are anonymous.

Although it is difficult to quantify, it appearsthat about 1800 was the watershed, beforewhich many clockmakers still made their ownlongcase movements. After the turn of thecentury, clockmakers increasingly turned tomovements manufactured primarily for sale tothe clock trade, but some made their ownmovements to the end of the longcase era.

Movements made for the trade, i.e. the typethat we are considering here, are generallycharacterized by the following features:

• Rectangular plates with no arched gaps orextensions. Usually relatively squat, typically6¼ in. tall by 5 in. wide, compared to earlierones with plates about 7 in. by 5 in. (Shapedtop corners sometimes occur, but are moreusually associated with the movements ofnineteenth-century spring clocks.)

• Plain pillars, sometimes rather slender withsmall knops, particularly on late movements.

• Smooth front plates, with no casting orplanishing marks. (But the plates are variablein thickness, as they were made fromcastings, not rolled sheet. Striations wherethe scraper marks have not been completelysmoothed away are sometimes seen, in-dicating that these movements were stillmade by hand, not machine.)

• No marking-out circles or lines scribed onthe front plates.

• Very competently made, with square edgesand a good finish to all the iron work.

• Collets with long extensions.

• Standard layout with rack striking andpallet-tail locking.

• Wheels (invariably slit with the same widthcutter) have counts and diameters that giveadequate tooth thickness to all wheels. Incomparison, many earlier movements havevery thin teeth on some wheels, especiallythe warn wheel.

It must be emphasized that traditionalclockmaking techniques were still used: wheels

were rounded by hand filing to suit pre-drilledpivot holes, rather than depthing wheels withpre-shaped teeth and then drilling the pivotholes, as is done nowadays. The main im-provement to speed up production rates appearsto have been an increased used of jigs, inparticular for marking out the positions of allthe pivots and other holes in the plates. Whilea drilling jig could have been employed, itwould have been subject to wear. Instead amaster plate fitted with a number of centrepunches was possibly employed, so that theposition of all the holes could be marked withone swing of a fly press. The holes were thendrilled through with a bench-drilling machine.Master ‘spotting plates’ like this were certainlyused in the early twentieth century at theAshbourne works of William Haycock, whichcan trace connections with one of the Harlowfirms.

The identification of the actual maker of anyindividual nineteenth-century longcase move-ment is frustrated by the lack of distinguishingnames or initials stamped on the plates of mostmovements. Although some are known, they areoften the name of a wholesaler, rather than theactual maker. While some of these manu-facturers were based in Birmingham, a majorsource of painted dials, many were workingelsewhere. In Bristol an important firm wasThomas Hale, who in partnership with RichardWasbrough traded as Wasbrough, Hale & Countil 1848, than as Thomas Hale & Co. It wasclaimed that they, or their predecessors, hadmade 39,861 house clocks since their esta-blishment in 1726 to 1858 – an average of 300clocks a year over the whole period.6

Another important location for clockproduction was Newcastle-under Lyme in northStaffordshire, which ‘employed about 150clockmakers, manufacturing for the trade indifferent parts of the kingdom – a greaternumber than any other provincial town if weexcept Birmingham’.7 One of these was WilliamBayley, a clock manufacturer and brass founderemploying eight men and three apprentices in1851, but only four men and two boys ten yearslater. Despite the fact that several thousand

6. C. N. Ponsford, ‘The Independents of Bristol’, Clocks, (May 1979), 20-1.7. M. H. Miller, Old Leeke, vol II, (1900), based on the evidence of the nineteenth-century Leek clockmaker William Travis.

Quoted by A. A. Treherne, ‘British Clocks, 1700-1900, A Review’, Antiquarian Horology, 11/2 (Winter 1978), 184-205.

529 MARCH 2002

movements must have originated from hisworkshop, no clocks are known signed by himand no movements can be attributed to him.8

Fortunately, the movements made by one ofthese trade manufacturers, Samuel Harlow ofAshbourne, can be identified, as he publisheda booklet containing details of both hiscomponents and finished movements, eight-dayand thirty-hour, with some quite distinctive andrecognizable features. The frequency with whichthese movements are seen indicates that Harlowwas one of the most important, if not the mostimportant, of these movement manufacturers.

SAMUEL HARLOW ANDCLOCKMAKING IN ASHBOURNE

Ashbourne is a small market town on thewestern side of Derbyshire, close to theromantic scenery of Dove Dale and other placesin the Peak District. It was on the mainturnpike road from Derby to Manchester, andthere was also a regular coach service toBirmingham, via Uttoxter and Lichfield everySunday, Tuesday and Thursday. In the eight-eenth century it became a fashionable town,having associations with Dr Samuel Johnson,Jean Jacques Rousseau, and Dr ErasmusDarwin, and while it could not compete withlarger places, such as Nottingham, Derby orLichfield, it became popular with fashionablesociety, and many fine Georgian buildings wereerected.9 There was thus a ready market foritems such as clocks, so it is not surprising thatAshbourne became an important centre for theirmanufacture, and its clockmakers developedinto making movements for the trade, ratherthan just the local gentry. Over seventyclockmakers have been recorded in the town –only exceeded in the county by Derby andChesterfield, both much larger places and outof all proportion to its size.10

Surprisingly, although Derby is only aboutfourteen miles from Ashbourne, there seems to

have been very few horological connections withthe county town, despite the influence of theapprentices of John Whitehurst and hissuccessors on the region. In the first half of thenineteenth century clock production in Ash-bourne concentrated on longcase movements,but later the town’s manufacturers mademovements for spring clocks and skeletonclocks. When one of these firms closed in 1913,the sale included 600 fusee dial-clockmovements, 500 incomplete pressure gaugemovements in cases and 100 turret clocks.

Most published information on Ashbourne’sclockmakers has been derived from a smallbooklet by W. Smethurst, published in 1940.11

While the information for the nineteenth-century and later appears to be reliable, that onthe eighteenth century is less so, and appears tohave been based on oral tradition. Furthermore,it is not always clear which particular memberof a family is being referred to, and this hascaused confusion. Recent searches of theInternational Geneological Index (IGI) haveconfirmed some facts, disproved other details,and provided vital new evidence.

It is said that Joseph Harlow introduced:

the trade of Brassfounding and Clock-making, for which the town eventuallybecame a noted centre. He learned thetrade in Birmingham and commenced thesmall business at Summer Row, andAshbourne in 1740, these being afterwardsgreatly developed by his son Samuel.12

But there is no record of a clockmakingapprenticeship,13 nor with whom he worked,nor references to any other relevant Harlow inBirmingham directories or rate books.14 In anyevent Summer Row did not exist in 1740, andeven on Thomas Hanson’s plan of Birminghamin 1781 it was still an unnamed hedge-linedlane in open countryside, being an extension ofCongreve Street. Summer Row only began tobe developed around the time of Hanson’s

8. Information from A. A. Treherne.9. A. Henstock, A Georgian Country Town, Ashbourne 1725-1825, Vol 1, Fashionable Society, (Ashbourne Local History

Group,1989), passim.10. R. G. Hughes, & M. Craven, Clockmakers & Watchmakers of Derbyshire, (Ashbourne: Mayfield Books, 1998).11. W. Smethurst, The Old Clockmakers of Ashbourne, (1940), 15pp., (reprint of articles from the Ashbourne Telegraph).12. ibid., p. 213. Information from D. Moore, Prescot Museum.14. Information from J. McKenna.

530ANTIQUARIAN HOROLOGY

survey, as businesses here were first mentionedin directories in 1780, and by the middle of thedecade it was the location for a number oftradesmen. It was not Joseph Harlow, but hiseldest son Samuel who had business connectionswith Birmingham in the early nineteenthcentury (see later), which gave rise to thetradition that Joseph introduced clockmakingand brassfounding to Ashbourne from Bir-mingham. But Ashbourne had had a thrivingclockmaking tradition from the early eighteenthcentury, the main concern being the Ashtonfamily, who came to the town from Macclesfieldin Cheshire, via Tideswell, Derbyshire. JosephHarlow appears not to have been a clockmaker,more likely a builder, as the family erected andrepaired many of the town’s Georgian buil-dings.15 If Joseph had been a clockmaker hewould have trained his eldest son himself, ratherthan indenturing him to one of the establishedAshbourne clockmakers.

In 1750, when aged forty-five, JosephHarlow was married (for a second time) to MaryBoulton, who does not appear to have beenrelated to Matthew Boulton, the noted Bir-mingham industrialist, as Smethurst suggested.Instead of following the family trade as buildersand bricklayers, three of Joseph’s sons becameclockmakers: Samuel Boulton Harlow (1751-1820/25), John Boulton Harlow (1753-1817)and Benjamin Boulton Harlow (1764-c. 1809).The middle christian name of Boulton was laterdropped.

John Harlow traded as a clockmaker inSmith’s Yard, Compton, Ashbourne, and wassucceeded by his son Thomas, who retired in1826 after selling his business to two brothersJohn and Thomas Haycock, who had learnedthe clock trade with the Harlows. The des-cendants of Thomas Haycock are still active asclockmakers in Ashbourne.

Benjamin Harlow, who was thirteen yearsyounger than Samuel, probably trained with oneof his two brothers, before he married in 1788at nearby Mayfield and moved to Lane End,

Longton, to become one of the leading clock-makers in the Staffordshire Potteries. He tookan apprentice while he was at Lane End in1790, and at Stoke-on-Trent in 1793 and 1794.In 1803 he advertised for two journeymenclockmakers ‘wanted principally for the retailtrade’, so he may not have attempted tocompete with his two older brothers in Ash-bourne as a movement maker. He had diedprior to 1813 when his widow, who had run thebusiness for a while, handed over to their sonBenjamin Harlow II (born about 1793), whenhe would have been twenty or twenty-one yearsold and just out of his apprenticeship. BenjaminHarlow II also worked in Macclesfield, Che-shire, for a while, as a son was born there in1832 and he is recorded in Pigot’s Directory atMill Street, Maclesfield, in 1834. By 1851 hewas back in The Potteries, living in Shelton,next door to John Massey, dentist and clock-maker, father of Edward John Massey ofLiverpool, clock and chronometer maker, andprobably a brother of Edward Massey ofNewcastle-under-Lyme, Hanley, Coventry,Prescot and London.16

Joseph Harlow’s eldest son, Samuel Harlow,was apprenticed to John Litton, a prominentAshbourne clockmaker, who had himself beenapprenticed to Samuel Ashton. Samuel Harlowwas apprenticed in 1767 for the usual sevenyears, so he would have started work on his ownin St John’s Street, Ashbourne, some time after1773. In June 1777 he advertised in the DerbyMercury for a journeyman clockmaker (i.e. onewho had finished his apprenticeship and wasfully qualified), and also announced that hesupplied ‘the standard weights for weighing goldcoin and scales properly adjusted by MrWhitehurst’. Three months later he marriedElizabeth Bottom of Derby.17 He advertisedagain for two journeymen clockmakers in 1788and for another in 1797. By 1791 he wascasting brass parts for clocks, textile mills, etc,as evidenced by the following advertisement:

Samuel Harlow takes the oportunity ofinforming all Cotton Manufacturers,

15. A. Henstock, A Georgian Country Town, Ashbourne 1725-1825, Vol. 2 Architecture, (1991), pp. 45, 48.16. Information on Benjamin Harlow from Alan Treherne.17. Smethurst is confused about Samuel Harlow’s wife. He states: ‘His wife’s surname is unknown, supposed to be

Richardson, but it cannot be proved definitely, her christian name was Elizabeth Hannah.’ The IGI has shown that,like his father, Samuel married twice, firstly to Elizabeth Bottom, secondly to Hannah Howard, while it was Samuel’syounger brother, Benjamin, who married Hannah Richardson.

531 MARCH 2002

Clockmakers, and others that he has latelyerected a complete ‘Foundery’ for thepurpose of casting brass, etc.

In 1802 a ‘sober steady man’ was requiredas a brass caster by Harlow & Son, i.e. Samueland his son Robert, who was born in 1779.18

Samuel Harlow made many good-qualityclocks, both thirty-hour and eight-day,19

supplied the trade with both parts and move-ments, and was described as:

a remarkable clever clockmaker of his dayand generation, he introduced the prin-ciples of efficiency when rule of thumbmethods were employed, by doing this heproduced a better clock and a greateroutput, which enabled him to meet thecompetition of those days.20

In 1794 he invented and patented (PatentNo. 1708) a key to prevent damage to watchesif wound in the wrong direction, often att-ributed to Breguet. Only one apprentice isknown: David Smith in 1791 for seven years,but there must have been a number of otheremployees at the Ashbourne works, as two othernineteenth-century Ashbourne clockmakerstrained with Harlow. It was said that: ‘His mainoutput of clocks and materials was supplied tothe trade at Birmingham and elsewhere’.

Samuel Harlow’s wife died in 1799 and thefollowing year, aged forty-nine, he marriedagain. He was still alive in 1820, but was deadby 1825. The business was continued by his sonRobert, then by Robert’s sons Benjamin andWilliam, the latter trading with his motherAmelia as A. W. Harlow & Son, after anaccident lead to Benjamin’s early death in 1845.In 1851 the business, was sold to WilliamRobert Davenport. Despite being only twenty-seven years old, William Harlow appears not tohave had any enthusiasm for the clock trade, forthirty years later he was a grocer employing five

men, in the Potteries town of Burslem. WilliamDavenport had learned the trade with theHarlows and had commenced business underhis own name in 1837. The Davenports wereanother important Ashbourne clockmakingconcern, one branch continuing until 1939.The Harlow works was behind his house at 37-39 Upper St John Street, where it was continuedby William Davenport, who ‘employed quite anumber of men there’, but how many is notknown. The workshop was pulled down in the1930s when the roof fell in.

SAMUEL HARLOW’S BIRMINGHAMCONNECTIONS

The only known occurrence of SamuelHarlow in documents relating to the clock tradeis in the Stubs papers, when he twice wrote toPeter Stubs of Warrington on behalf of JohnMasgreave of Birmingham: in October 1812regarding the supply of cast brass clock parts toStubs, and in May 1814 chasing an overdueorder for pinions.21 Masgreave (or Masgrove)was a brass and bell founder and movementmaker working in Summer Row, Birmingham,from at least 1812 to 1818, and was animportant supplier of clock parts to Stubs. In1807 John Masgreave married an ElizabethHarlow in Ashbourne, almost certainly SamuelHarlow’s daughter.22 John Masgreave is notrecorded as having been apprenticed as aclockmaker, more likely he trained as a brassfounder.

It seems likely that, sometime prior to 1807,during a business visit to Ashbourne, JohnMasgreave met and susequently married SamuelHarlow’s daughter. While there is no evidencefor a formal business partnership, it may havebeen on a more informal father/son-in-law basis,as Samuel Harlow was certainly helping JohnMasgreave with some of his correspondence.The division of work between Asbourne and

18. Extracts from the Derby Mercury and other information on the Ashbourne Harlows from Adrian Henstock.19. For example, Hughes, & Craven, op. cit., Figs 107-110.20. Smethurst, op. cit., p. 3.21. Stubs Papers, Manchester Archives & Local Studies. I am grateful to Alan Treherne for this reference.22. Samuel Harlow ‘the younger of Ashbourne, Gent and batchelor’, son of Samuel Harlow of Birmingham, brassfounder,

died in 1815, aged twenty-two, but he was ‘Clerk to Johnson & Wise’, and did not enter the family business. Smethursthas confused the death of Samuel jr with that of Samuel sr, and the exact date of the death of the later remainsunknown. There is no trace of this son in the Ashbourne parish registers, nor in the IGI, so if this son has goneunrecorded it is highly probable that Elizabeth Harlow is also an unrecorded child of Samuel, particularly as shecannot be connected with any other Harlow in Ashbourne and her birth in 1781 (she was aged fifty-one when shedied in 1833) was just a couple of years after that of Robert Harlow, Samuel’s eldest son and sucessor.

532ANTIQUARIAN HOROLOGY

Birmingham is not clear. The Ashbourne workswas capable of producing both brass clockcastings and completed movements, yet SamuelHarlow was decribed in 1816 as ‘of Birminghambrassfounder’. In 1829 it was stated thatAshbourne had foundries where: ‘clock-brassesare manufactured by Mr. John Frith and by Mr.Robert Harlow, in so superior a manner thatthey are in request throughout the kingdom’.23

Masgreave only appears once in the Birming-ham directories, in 1818 as ‘caster in general,and bell founder, clock movements &c’. Hemay have acted as a more convenient tradeoutlet for the widespread distribution ofHarlow’s clock castings and movements thanAshbourne could provide.

In 1827 Masgreave owned a house inAshbourne, formerly belonging to SamuelHarlow, but how involved he was with theDerbyshire end of the business is not known.John Masgreave died in January 1835, agedfifty-one, at Great Barr, Birmingham, a coupleof years after his wife, aged fifty-two.24

Birmingham must have continued as themain sales outlet for Harlow movements, forwhen the Ashbourne business was finallydisposed of in 1851 ‘also the Birmingham stockwas sold’. It is possible that movements weresimply stored with their main wholesaler, ratherthan the Harlows having their own premises inBirmingham.

THE CLOCK MAKERS’ GUIDE ANDHARLOW’S MOVEMENTS

Samuel Harlow appreciated that clock-makers did not have the same freedom whenmaking movements to suit painted dials as theyhad had with brass dials, so a greater degree ofstandardization was necessary. A brass dial couldhave the holes for the winding squares andseconds arbor drilled to fit an already mademovement, but there was much less latitudewith a painted iron dial. While some painted

dials were supplied with just small windingholes to be opened up by the clockmaker to fitthe movement,25 the seconds arbor had to bein exactly the correct position (usually 2 in. or2⅛ in. above the centre). Problems associatedwith positioning the dial feet were largely solvedby the dialmaker supplying a falseplate of castiron, later of wrought iron, although manyclockmakers managed without them, even foreight-day movements.

To avoid such potential problems, in 1813Samuel Harlow published The Clock Makers’Guide (Fig. 1), a booklet of fifteen pages,ostensibly to encourage the standardization oflongcase movements.26 It was printed and soldin Birmingham by Orton & Hawkes Smith,‘also by the author, Summer Row, And at hisHouse, Ashbourn, Derbyshire’, as well as by theLondon clockmakers Handley & Moore inClerkenwell Close, and at Walker’s & Son toolshop, Red Lion Street, Clerkenwell. What

23. S. Glover, The History, Gazetteer and Directory of the County of Derby, (1829), p. 234.24. Death notices in the Birmingham newspapers, courtesy of J. McKenna. Apart from his marriage, there are no records

of John Masgreave’s birth or any children in the IGI.25. J. Ballinger, ‘Shedding Light on the Longcase White Dial’, Antiquarian Horology, 20/2 (Summer 1992), cover and

154-5. The author has seen another with the original small winding holes intact and knows of further examples.26. Copies exist in the British Library and Birmingham Central Library. A reprint, with biographical information taken

from Smethurst, and Harlow’s watch key patent was published in 1978. Unfortunately the plates were redrawn, notonly losing all the character of the original engravings and at a different scale, but errors were introduced. All theplates, including those not shown here, are reproduced in full-size facsimile in The Longcase Clock Reference Book.

Fig. 1. The title page of Samuel Harlow’s booklet,published in 1813.

533 MARCH 2002

influence this booklet had on other movementmakers is difficult to determine, as it is nowextremely rare, with only two copies of theoriginal known to exist. This might indicate thatit was not widely circulated among the workingclockmakers for whom it was intended, but itis likely that it served a dual purpose, also actingas a trade catalogue of Harlow’s clock move-ments and parts. He stated that:

S. Harlow respectfully informs the Tradethat he manufactures Moon Wheels, to fitany size dial, also Caliper Plates correct forDial Makers … Likewise may be had ofhim, Chime quarters, or plain Movements,made by the best hands (to go with Springor Weight) also engines, Lathes, Tools,Files, or Materials proper for the Businessof Clock Making.

This booklet has often been referred toregarding the standardization of movementlayout, and it has been said that:

Parts from one clock could not be fitteddirectly into another made by the samemaker, individual components had to bemade when replacements were required.Samuel’s methods enabled standard com-ponents to be fitted to all clocks, ensuringa greater output of parts for a givenamount of labour, enabling him to meethis rivals’ competition easily through lowerprices.27

In fact all that he advocated was ‘that if Dialand Movement Makers observe the rules herelaid down, the movements and dial will fit withthe utmost exactness – the Pinion Makers mayalso make their pinions to size’ and there is nomention of interchangeability of parts.

In the 1960s and 1970s, the argument as towhether it was the dialmaker or movementmaker who supplied the falseplates, was settledby reference to Harlow’s statement that ‘the backplate, commonly used by the Birmingham DialMakers, which if put on correct, might save theworkman a great deal of trouble.’

Other than this The Clock Makers’ Guidedoes not appear to have been studied seriously,and from the lack of comment it must havebeen assumed that the engravings of movementsand parts were merely schematic, rather than

realistic. This article demonstrates that they arein fact very accurate representations of Harlow’sown products. Without these illustrations it isdoubtful if the movements shown here wouldhave, or could have, been attributed to theiractual maker, and Samuel Harlow’s importantcontribution to the clock trade would have gonelargely unrecognized.

HARLOW’S EIGHT-DAY MOVEMENTS

Figures 2 & 3 shows Harlow’s engraving ofthe front plate layout of an eight-day longcasemovement and some of the parts. A number ofcharacteristics may be noticed.

• The most distinguishable feature is the shapeof the rack hook, particularly the C-curvenear the pivot. This is purely decorative, asis the additional small point on the hookitself. The latter is not very noticeable on theengraving (and was ignored altogether in theredrawn 1978 reprint), but is more pro-minent on actual movements. It is a veryimportant characteristic that can almost beregarded as a ‘signature’ to identify Harlowmovements. While it might be thought thatthe rack hook is of a traditional shape, it isa form that is not normally found in theeighteenth century.

• The rack has the stop pin on a raised sectionon the left-hand end, otherwise it is of arelatively simple shape. The rack is pivotedso that no cutout is necessary for it to clearthe winding square when it has droppedfully.

• The warning flag is a separate tab (shownseparately on the engraving) riveted to acircular end on the warning piece, ratherthan the end forged over at right angles, aswas done by many other makers. (A rivetedwarning flag appears to be more usual onnineteenth-century spring clocks thanlongcase movements.)

• Other features are less distinguishable, andby themselves of little consequence, as somewere used generally throughout the clocktrade, but they assume greater significancewhen they occur together with the char-acteristic rack hook and warning piece. Aswill be seen, whenever a movement has the

27. C. K. Aked, & R. K. Shenton. Introduction to the reprint of The Clock Makers’ Guide, (1978), p. 2.

534ANTIQUARIAN HOROLOGY

Fig. 2. Front plate layout of an eight-day longcasemovement, as shown in The Clock Makers’ Guide. Notethe characteristic shape of the rack hook used on Harlow’smovements. The warn flag that is riveted to the end of thewarn piece is shown as a separate item. The click for thewinding barrel was presumably intended to be includedon one of the other plates.

Fig. 3. Eight-day components. The hammer shaft is shownin the centre of its arbor, with a separate counter (far left),but Harlow usually had the hammer at the end of thearbor and no separate counter. The spring for the windingclick has two lugs that are riveted to the greatwheel, asused on Harlow movements. Note the forked ends of thehammer shaft and the hammer tail, which fit into slots onthe arbor. This arrangement is sometimes found on Harlowmovements (Fig. 28), but not always.same major features as Harlow’s engraving,

then the minor ones are also identical, or atleast very similar. These minor featuresinclude:

* Waisted rack tail with rounded end.* Shape of the thin brass lifting piece.* Rack pivoted just above and to the right

of the winding square.* No crossings to reverse minute wheel.* Square-ended hour-wheel bridge pos-

itioned just a few degrees anticlockwisefrom the vertical.

* Warning flag through a slot in the frontplate, rather than a round or other shapeof hole.

* Position of the movement pillars.* The foot of the rack spring is screwed to

the front plate close to the winding square.* Springs for the winding clicks riveted edge-

on to the great wheels, rather than flat.

How does this engraving compare withactual Harlow movements? Figures 4 & 5 showa movement with a Walker & Finnemore dialsigned Robert Harlow, Samuel’s son, who wasprobably running the Ashbourne side of the

business by this time. Although they were veryprolific Birmingham dialmakers, Walker &Finnemore only worked together for three yearsfrom 1808 to 1811, hence this movementalmost coincides with the publication of TheClock Makers’ Guide, and is a good repre-sentation of the firm’s output at the time. Boththe major and the minor characteristics arealmost identical to Harlow’s engraving, and theresemblance is so close that the engraver wasprobably given a movement with instructions tocopy it precisely.

Having confirmed that Fig. 2 is an accuraterepresentation of a Harlow movement of the1808-11 period, when did Samuel Harlowproduce his ‘standard’ layout? Figure 6 showsthe movement of a clock with a round painteddial by James Wilson, Birmingham, signedSamuel Harlow. Many of the features of thismovement are quite unlike those used onHarlow’s later ‘standard’ design. For instance,the warn flag is forged on the end of the leverrather than a separate tab riveted on, the liftingpiece has a different shape, the reverse minute

535 MARCH 2002

wheel has crossings and is pivoted in a cock, thebridge for the hour wheel has rounded ends,while the slot in the front plate is trapezoidalrather than rectangular. The bell stand does notpass through the backcock, which is the usualHarlow arrangement. Unfortunately, in thephotograph the rack hook is obscured by the tailof the gathering pallet, so it is not known if ithas the ‘double hook’ characteristic of laterHarlow movements.

Figure 7 shows the movement of a clockwith a silvered round dial signed by TobiasFletcher of Barnsley, having all the featuresexpected on one by Harlow. As it has a brassdial this clock might be thought to be earlierthan Samuel Harlow’s with its painted dial, butassuming that the movement in the latter wasmade before his movement design becamestandardized, then the painted dial clock is

Fig. 4. Movement fitted to a dial signed by Robert Harlow,Ashbourne, made by Walker & Finnemore, Birmingham,1808-11. Note the similarity to the engraving in hisfather’s booklet, especially the C-curve and the doublepoint on the rack hook, the latter being a Harlow‘signature’. The warn flag is riveted to the circular end ofthe warning piece. Repeat spring fitted, but the upperextension to the lifting piece has been broken.

Fig. 5. Side view of the Robert Harlow movement, showingthe bell stand passing through the backcock, a Harlowcharacteristic. Hammer at the rear end of its arbor. Pillarswith undecorated rounded knops, and wheel collets of atypical nineteenth-century top-hat shape.

Fig. 6. Unrestored movement from a clock with a roundpainted dial by Wilson, Birmingham, signed SamuelHarlow, Ashbourne, probably from the 1780s. Thismovement differs from other Harlow movements in nearlyall respects. Unfortunately the gathering pallet obscuresthe rack hook.

536ANTIQUARIAN HOROLOGY

probably from the 1780s, while the brass dialis likely to date from the 1790s. There wasconsiderable overlap between painted and brassdials, nevertheless the movement in the Fletcherclock appears to be the earliest standard Harlowmovement seen by the author to date.

Exactly when Harlow’s standard layout wasproduced is not known, but it appears to haveemerged as a fully-developed design, withoutany evolutionary stages. There may well be otherearly Harlow movements on clocks signed byothers, and so not recognised as his work, hencethis point will not be clarified until other earlyclocks signed by Harlow can be examined.

Other examples of these movements, fittedto dials signed by other ‘makers’, are discussedin approximately chronological order, the datesbeing determined by dial features and/orbiographical information. Figure 8 shows themovement of a clock by Haylor, of Chatham,Kent, with a dial by Wilkes & Baker, Birming-ham, who were working 1815-20. The oak caseis typical of Kent from the early nineteenthcentury, with a Kentish cresting. William

Fig. 7. Movement of a clock with a round brass dialsigned Tobias Fletcher, Barnsley, probably from the 1790s.The rack hook is rather steeply upswept, and the rack hasa rounded left-hand end, and although the tail of thegathering pallet obscures the hook, it is of the characteristicHarlow type. Warning piece cut away to clear the topdial foot.

Fig. 8. Harlow movement fitted to a clock signed byHaylor, Chatham, with a Wilkes & Baker, Birmingham,dial, about 1815-20. Addition of a strike/silent lever,also a starwheel and 24-hour wheel (called by Harlow a‘month wheel’) for a pointer calendar.

Haylor has recorded dates of 1765-1851, so thisis probably two men with the same name,maybe father and son.28 The movement isidentifiable as by Harlow, with the addition ofa strike/silent lever and a starwheel for a pointercalendar. The side view (Fig. 9) shows featuresthat are not shown in the engraving: pillars withround knops, the rather thin hammer head, thebell stand on the outside of the rear plate andpassing inside the backcock, and the L-shapedhammer spring with no stop or counter for thehammer. Harlow movements do not have aspring clutch behind the hour wheel for settingthe hour hand.

It might be argued that some of the move-ments that have been attributed to Harlowmight have been made by other clockmakers toHarlow’s specifications in his Clock Makers’Guide, and possibly using parts bought fromHarlow. If this was the case then some of the

28. M. Pearson, Kent Clocks & Clockmakers, (Ashbourne: Mayfield Books, 1997), p. 161.

537 MARCH 2002

features not illustrated might be expected to bedifferent. In practice if a movement shows themajor features, then it invariably has all theminor ones as well, notably the position of thebell stand. Pillar shape, which is sometimesregarded as a good indicator of the maker isvariable, often having a rounded central knop,but also a cylindrical knop was used, especiallyon later examples. All the movements shownhere (with one exception) have the hammer atthe rear end of its arbor with an L-shaped springalso acting as a stop or counter, yet theengraving of eight-day parts in The Clock

Makers’ Guide (Fig. 3) shows a central hammerwith a separate counter. These features allconfirm that the movements discussed herecame from the Harlow workshops, and were notmade by others to his published designs.

The bottom edge of the front plate of theHaylor/Harlow movement, where it sits on theseatboard, is stamped ‘H. Knight’ (Fig. 10).One possibility is the clockmaker Hugh Knightof Stone, Staffordshire, who took five app-rentices during 1786-93, and is probably thesame man listed in directories in Stafford in1818 and 1822.29 A more likely possibility isHenry Knight, a maker of turret clocks, brassand bell founder, clock forge work and pinionmaker, in Summer Row, Birmingham in 1818-20 and at Ann Street in 1821-50. A movementfitted to an S. Baker dial (1830-50) signed byJ. H. Smith, Wrexham (1830-68) has beenreported stamped ‘M. Knight 2267’,30 but asillustrations are not available no opinion can bemade of the source of the movement.

Why should H. Knight stamp his name onwhat is ostensibly a Harlow movement, and insuch an inconspicuous place? The possibilitymust be considered that he made the movementto Harlow’s published designs and usingHarlow’s castings and forgings. In this case themovement would be similar to Harlow’s, butunless he had been trained by Harlow it is mostunlikely that he would have made it so similar,and even included the Harlow ‘signature’ of theextra point to the rack hook. The most likelyexplanation is that Knight was one of a numberof middlemen, buying movements from Harlowand selling them on to retailers, who would fitthem into locally made cases. If the movementwas returned for whatever reason, then Knightneeded to be able to identify it as having beensupplied by him, and not by another mid-dleman.31 The name was certainly not forpromotion, otherwise it would have been in amore prominent place. Who fitted the dial:Harlow the movement maker, Knight thewholesaler, or Haylor the retailer, is not known.

Another movement attributed to Harlow(Fig. 11) has ‘O & J’ with a crown above it, plus

Fig. 9. Side view of the Harlow/Haylor movement, withthe falseplate and dial in position.

Fig. 10. The front plate of the Haylor clock, with ‘H.Knight’ stamped on the bottom edge and ‘1111’ above it.

29. Information from D. Moore and A. A. Treherne.30. Clocks, (Jan 1983), 45.31. I am grateful to Tom Spittler, who has come across a similar situation regarding late nineteenth/early twentieth

century mass-produced clocks sold by middle-men, for this suggestion.

538ANTIQUARIAN HOROLOGY

three other attempts at the crown alongside,stamped on the top edge of the front plate(Fig. 12). It has not been possible to identifyO & J, but they are likely to have been anotherintermediary concern, supplying movements toretailers, and stamping their identifying mark forexactly the same reason as H. Knight. Themovement has the Harlow features, but the endof the rack hook is wider and swept up more thanshown in The Guide, the left-hand end of therack shows differences, while the lifting piece nearthe pivoting stud shows some variation.

Four movements stamped ‘J. E. Bagnall’have been reported on American-cased clocksone dated 1837, while another is clearly aidentifiable as a Harlow movement.32 James

Eustace Bagnall is first listed in Birminghamdirectories in 1843 at Great Hampton Street, asa ‘manufacturer of spring, skeleton and weightclocks, movements & clock materials of everydescription, bell founder, caster & lock manu-facturer’, although he was clearly working atleast six years earlier. By 1855 he was only listedas a bell founder and had disappeared from thedirectories three years later. It is not known ifall the wholesalers whose names appear onmovements attributable to Harlow sold them incompetition with each other, or if they hadexclusive rights to their distribution. If the latter,then it may only have been on a regional basis,as a Harlow movement is known with the nameof a Manchester ‘clockmaker’ stamped on it.

A number of movements are known onAmerican-cased clocks with ‘Wainwright No 1’stamped near the bottom of the front plate, oneof them, dating from 1834-7, being a typicalHarlow movement. It is quite likely that all themovements reported with both the Bagnall andWainwright stamp are by Harlow, but furtherexamples are needed to confirm this. Wain-wright may be the well-known Nottinghamfamily of clockmakers, but another possibilityis James Wainwright of Birmingham, listed asa factor in 1829-32. ‘No 1’ does not indicatethe movement number, but is probably its type,i.e. eight-day. It is likely that ‘No 2’ would referto thirty-hour movements, but none are known,which is hardly surprising as thirty-hourmovements with countwheel striking, ascommonly made in England, were rarely usedin the USA, rack striking being preferred.George Jones of Wilmington, Delaware, used aHarlow movement on at least one of his tall-case clocks in the 1820s.33

Figure 13 shows a movement with typicalHarlow characteristics, but stamped with thename of Edward Scales, Manchester. Scalestraded in Manchester from 1835 to 1881, andin 1863 he advertised:

Quadrants for cotton spinners; manu-facturers of plain, spring, quarter, turretand chime clocks, skeleton and watchmen’stimepieces, regulators with mercurialpendulums, lever watches and etc. Manu-

32. B. R. Forman, Clockmakers of Montgomery County [Pennsylvania], (Historical Society of Montgomery County, 2000),p. 218. The name has been misread as T. E. Bagnall, rather than J. E. Bagnall.

33. Photographs by William Jones, Illinois.

Fig. 11. Harlow movement fitted with a Finnemore & Sondial (1828-36) signed by Joseph Wilson, Chichester,Sussex.

Fig. 12. ‘O & J’ and crowns stamped on the top edge ofthe front plate of the Harlow/Wilson movement.

539 MARCH 2002

facturers of telegraphic instruments;jeweller, dealer in electro-plate. EdwardScales begs to call the attention of watch-makers and the public to his establishmentwhere every description of clocks andwatches are manufactured in the bestmanner possible and at as low prices as iscompatible with first-rate work. Clocksand watches cleaned and repaired on thepremises. Improved portable roasting jack.Public and private clocks wound and etc.by the year.33

Despite claiming to be a manufacturer, it isnot clear how much he actually made himself,as the movement illustrated here was certainlybought in from Harlow. If he was a genuinemanufacturer would he not have stated that theclocks and other items he sold were made ‘onthe premises’, like his repairs? This emphasisesthat advertisements, particularly in the nine-teenth century, and even names stamped onmovements, cannot be taken at face value andcorroborative evidence is necessary to establishthe actual maker.

The side view (Fig. 14) shows that themovement has small ungrooved line barrels,

only 1⅜ in. diameter, instead of the usual 2 in.diameter. The lack of grooves means that abouttwenty-four turns of line can be accommodated,compared with the usual sixteen, giving anextended period between winding. The smallbarrels necessitate heavier weights, which aredumpy and of lead, each of 14 lb, rather thancast-iron ones of about 12 lb. This movement

Fig. 14. Side view of the Harlow/Scales movement, witha central hammer and a separate counter screwed to thetop pillar. The small diameter winding barrels withoutgrooves indicate that this was originally from a clock witha short weight drop – either a long-trunk wall clock or,more likely, a cupboard clock.

33. Information from Edmund Davies.

Fig. 13. Harlow movement stamped with the name ofEdward Scales, Manchester, fitted with a Fletcher falseplate(1841-55).

Fig. 15. The Scales name stamp.

540ANTIQUARIAN HOROLOGY

Fig. 16. Harlow movement on a clock with a dial madeby S. Baker, Birmingham, signed Edward Thompson,Ellesmere, Shropshire, about 1830.

Fig. 18. Movement from a clock with a replaced Victorianor Edwardian brass dial, in a typical Midlands case(probably made in Uttoxeter, Staffordshire) of the 1840sor 1850s. The top corners and lower edge of the platesare shaped, otherwise it is a typical Harlow product.Stamped ‘H’ (Harlow?) at the bottom right.

Fig. 17. Movement fitted with a Wright, Birmingham dial,signed Samuel Owen, Carnarvon, from the 1830s. Thedouble hook has virtually disappeared, but all the otherHarlow features are present.

was not made for a longcase clock (it is currentlymarried to an earlier brass thirty-hour dial), butfor a clock with a short weight drop, such as acupboard clock or a long-trunk wall clock(popularly known as a ‘Norwich’ clock). Scalesis known to have made a couple of long-trunkwall clocks, but the pendulum bob is shaped,probably to enable it to swing within theconfines of the drawer frame of a cupboardclock. This movement also has the hammershaft central on its arbor, with a counter screwedto one of the top pillars. Despite being themethod shown in The Clock Makers’ Guide(Fig. 3), this is the only example that has so farbeen seen on a Harlow movement. As oftenoccurs in horology, there are exceptions to everyrule.

A number of other similar movementsattributed to the Harlow workshop have beenseen by the author (Figs 16-18). To avoidtedious comparisons any differences withHarlow’s engraving are discussed in thecaptions. In addition a number of Harlowmovements have been illustrated in variousissues of Clocks magazine, but without theirorigin having been appreciated. The mainconclusion is that while all these movementsare clearly from the same workshop, being

made to the same design, there are somedifferences. Some of these variations areattributable to them have been made over a

541 MARCH 2002

sixty-year period. For instance new patternsmight have had to have been made for pillars(three different styles can be recognized) dueto loss or damage. Other differences might bedue to the personal preferences of the indi-vidual workmen – some might be moreinclined to make a decorative rack thanothers, for instance. The racks certainly showmore variation than any other componentand al lowed the workman to show hisindividuality, but they all usually have thestop pin for the pallet tail on a raised-uppiece. This confirms that, despite the obviousstandardization in the layout, thesemovements were still individually made bytraditional clockmaking methods. The pallettail usually locks on a rack pin behind, oroccasionally in front of the rack, possibly atthe discretion of the individual worker. AllHarlow movements are well made and neatlyfinished, and apart from the characteristicrack hook, the parts are elegantly shapedwithout unnecessary decoration. One

Fig. 20. Unrestored movement of a clock retailed byFrederick Heitzman, Cheadle Staffordshire, dated 1859.Probably made by William Davenport, Harlow ’ssuccessors, or one of the other Ashbourne movementmanufacturers. The rack hook has lost the C-curve, butit still has a vestigial double hook.

Fig. 19. Movement of a clock signed by WilliamDavenport, Ashbourne, probably from the 1850s after hehad taken over the Harlow works. The C-curve on therack hook is no longer evident, but there is still thevestige of a double hook. Virtually the only other differencefrom a Harlow movement is a small hole and a verticalslot in the back plate for removal of the pallet arbor,instead of a round aperture.

35. Ernest L. Edwardes, The Grandfather Clock (4th ed.), (Altrincham: John Sherrat and Son Ltd, 1980), p. 143.

movement, clearly recognizable as havingcome from the Harlow workshop, butassumed to have been made by JamesWhitelaw of Edinburgh, the ‘clockmaker’named on the dial, has been praised as ‘amovement that is notably well made andfinished throughout’.35

Figure 19 shows the movement of a clockwith a dial signed by William Davenport ofAshbourne, about 1850, and Fig. 20 is anotherone which was probably also made by Daven-port. As he was trained by Harlow and boughtthe works in 1851, the similarity with Harlowmovements at this period is not surprising.Apart from the lack of the C-curve on the left-hand side of the rack hook, these two move-ments have most of the Harlow features. By the1840s it may be better to describe these asAshbourne movements, rather than specificallyby Harlow. At present not enough movementsby the town’s other makers have been studiedto make any firm conclusions.

542ANTIQUARIAN HOROLOGY

Fig. 21. Front plate layout of a thirty-hour three-wheel(‘shake-minute’) movement from The Clock Makers’ Guide.

Fig. 22. Back plate of a shake-minute movement with pin-countwheel striking, and some of its components. Note theapproximately triangular shape of the lifting piece.

HARLOW’S THIRTY-HOUR MOVEMENTS

While eight-day Harlow movements havebeen identified on clocks retailed in places aswide-spread as Sussex and Edinburgh, andmany places between, as well as some beingexported to America, his thirty-hour movementsappear to have been sold more locally inDerbyshire and Nottinghamshire, althoughexamples on clocks from South Wales andNorfolk are known. In 1809 Joshua Bullen, aNorwich merchant, wrote to Peter Stubs ‘If youdon’t make the 30hr forged work for bar frame[i.e. posted-frame] clocks you will not send anyas they make no flat frame clocks here’.36 EastAnglian clockmakers continued to make posted-frame thirty-hour movements for a while afterthis, but they were gradually superseded byplated-frame movements, including thosesupplied by Harlow. Harlow’s thirty-hourmovements with a three-wheel going train(‘shake-minute’ movements) are as distinctive ashis eight-day ones. Striking was either by meansof either a conventional slotted countwheel(with an integral countwheel and gear wheel as

a single casting), or a pin countwheel. Thewarning piece is pivoted on a stud on the left-hand side (Type 3 striking),37 with the warn flagpassing through a slot in the front plate. Witha slotted countwheel the link piece to connectthe action of the separate warning and lockingarbors is external; the link is not necessary witha pin countwheel, as all the strikework is on onearbor. The feature that distinguishes Harlow’sdesign is a brass triangular-shaped lifting pieceriveted to the iron warning piece. The bell standwould interfere with the countwheel if it passedthrough the backcock, as used on eight-dayHarlow movements, so it was screwed to theinside of the back plate.

Figures 21 and 22 show engravings of ashake-minute movement from The ClockMakers’ Guide, with actual movements, havingboth pin countwheel and slotted countwheel, inFigs 23-26. These movements are distinctlydifferent from other thirty-hour movementsmade in the nineteenth century.38 No thirty-hour movements attributed to Harlow areknown with the names of wholesalers stamped

36. Stubs Papers, Manchester Archives and Local Sudies, transcribed by A. A. Treherne.37. J. A. Robey, The Longcase Clock Reference Book, op. cit., p. 237.38. Ibid, pp. 412-15, 422-5.

543 MARCH 2002

Fig. 23. Front view of a Harlow thirty-hour movementwith pin-countwheel striking, fitted with a Wilson rounddial about 1800, signed Holliwell & Son, Derby.

on them, and it is unlikely that they wereexported to America, where, in contrast toEngland and Wales, thirty-hour clocks invari-ably used rack striking. Unfortunately, the onlyearly thirty-hour movement seen by the author,fitted with a round brass dial of the 1770s or1780s signed Samuel Harlow, has had the liftingpiece crudely replaced, although it may wellhave originally been of his distinctive triangularform. This movement has very deeply domedcollets (Fig. 27) and the same shape of colletswere used on the movement in Figs 23-24. Latermovements have collets with the more usual ‘tophat’ shape, typical of the nineteenth century.

Fig. 24. Pin countwheel of the Harlow/Holliwell movement.The countwheel detent is pivoted on the right.

Fig. 25. Thirty-hour movement with a Walker & Hughes,Birmingham, dial signed Hallam, Nottingham. Con-ventional striking using a slotted countwheel, with anexternal link piece on the right-hand side. Thecharacteristic brass lifting piece identifies this as a Harlowmovement.

Fig. 26. Integral cast countwheel and gear of the Hallamclock, with the countwheel detent pivoted on the left.

The Clock Makers’ Guide also includesengravings of a four-wheel (‘centre-pinion’)thirty-hour movement (Figs 29-30) of the typefavoured in southern England and South Wales,rather than further north. These movementswere used to eliminate the large degree ofbacklash in the minute hand, rather than simplyto indicate seconds, as many do not have aseconds hand. Harlow recommended that: ‘All

544ANTIQUARIAN HOROLOGY

Fig. 29. Wheel layout of a thirty-hour four-wheel goingtrain (‘centre pinion’) movement, as illustrated in TheClock Makers’ Guide. Note the straight lifting piece.

Fig. 30. The arbors for a Harlow centre-pinion movement.Note the internal warn flag (top left) and the lockingdetent and link piece (bottom).

Fig. 27. Deeply domed collets on a thirty-hour clock bySamuel Harlow, about 1780.

Fig. 28. Attachment of the hammer shaft to its arbor bymeans of a U-shaped slot, on a Harlow thirty-hourmovement with a dial signed by John Brown, Harleston,Norfolk, about 1810. This feature was commonly usedon Harlow movements, but was not universal.

thirty-hours centre pinion movements are bestmade with hoop wheel, and hoop locking’,rather than pin locking. The latter necessitatesa sloping leading edge to the countwheel slots

to assist the locking and countwheel detents tolift at the commencement of the strike.

Harlow’s engravings show Type 1a strikingwith internal warning and link. In contrast with

545 MARCH 2002

CONCLUSIONS

The Harlow workshop in Ashbourne was amajor producer of good quality longcasemovements, which were sold to ‘clockmakers’throughout Britain and also in America, oftenvia wholesalers in Birmingham and Manchester,and maybe elsewhere. Although the firm was byno means the only such movement manu-facturers it is one of the few whose products canbe identified, thanks largely to Samuel Harlow’sbooklet The Clock Makers’ Guide published in1813, although its present day rarity indicatesthat it may not have had a wide circulationamong working clockmakers. While it may nothave achieved its intended aim of regularizingproduction, so that painted dials could be fittedwith ease to movements from a number ofsources, its illustrations have enabled Harlow’smovements to be identified, so that hisachievements can be now recognized.

A study of these movements has shown thatdespite coming from the same workshop, eachone was individually made by traditionalmethods, and each one shows detailed dif-ferences. This research also emphasizes that aname stamped on a movement is not necessarilythat of the actual manufacturer, but is often thewholesaler or retailer. Likewise those whoadvertised themselves as ‘maufacturers’ were veryoften not the actual makers.

Further examples of Harlow’s work need to beexamined, especially those made early in his career,to determine when his typical design wasdeveloped, and to compare them with the workof other contemporary Ashbourne clockmakers.Likewise, it is hoped to study the movements oflater Ashbourne clocks, to determine whatinfluence Harlow had on those who followed him.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSGrateful thanks are due to Edmund Davies,

Paul Foley (Massachusetts), Adrian Henstock,Brian Loomes, Joseph McKenna, DennisMoore, Alan Treherne and Trevor Waddingtonfor information and assistance in the pre-paration of this article. My son Philip hasassisted in interpreting information on theHarlow and Masgreave families obtained fromthe IGI. Illustrations have been provided by B.Loomes (Fig. 6), P. Foley (Figs 8-10), and T.Waddington (Figs 11-12); the remainingphotographs are by the author.

Fig. 31. Four-wheel thirty-hour movement with a Walker& Hughes dial (pendulum dated 1814) signed JamesJarred, Devizes, Wiltshire. Very similar to Figs 27-28 andprobably a Harlow movement, although there are nounique identifying features.

Fig. 32. Rear view of the movement of the Jarred clock.

his other types of movement, Harlow’s centre-pinion movements have few distinguishingfeatures, the lifting piece being a simple straightarm. Nevertheless the movement shown inFigs 31-32 appears to be almost identical tothat in The Guide, and may well have beenmade by Harlow.