Oyster-veneered Parquetry Longcase This luxurious longcase, with its olivewood oyster veneers, parquetry inlay and distinctive carved walnut cherub-head cresting, represents a sea change in clock case design that took place towards the end of the 1600s.[1] With its prototypical movement, it is also an impressive early production of the by then established London clockmaker, Henry Jones. Jones became professionally active as a clockmaker in 1663, after finishing his apprenticeship with Edward East and becoming a Free Brother of the Worshipful Company of Clockmakers. He immediately went to work as a journeyman for his former master East. Just three years later, in 1666, Jones managed to sell an extravagantly expensive clock to King Charles II. This royal commission cemented his reputation and put him on the map as a London clockmaker. That same year, on the heels of this success, he secured his own premises at Hercules Pillars Alley, a small alley off Fleet Street, near St. Dunstans Church. By 1672, he had moved on to improved premises at the Inner Temple, which he took up jointly with George Petty.[2] Sooner after, around 1673, he produced this longcase. By this time, Jones was an experienced and capable maker working for himself.[3] Although there is consensus among horologists that the quality of Jones work went down during the latter part of his career, after 1685, there is widespread agreement that this longcase represents the height of Jones’ production.[4] A prototypical production The most well-regarded phase of Jones’ career, in which the Olivewood Parquetry Longcase was made, has been identified by horologist C. Stuart Kelley as Jones’ ‘Phase I’, which encompasses time in which Jones worked for East and then transitioned to working for himself, between 1662 and 1685.[5] This is seen as Jones’ highest quality and most interesting phase of production.[6] This is widely attributed to the fact he was still doing all his own work and quality control. In terms of movement making, there is no evidence of standardisation in Jones’ Phase I clocks. For these productions, he steadfastly followed and adopted the widely admired East School of movement making, ‘with little or no deviation from this method’.[7] East was one of the most successful clockmakers during this time and played a major role in the advancement of horological technology. In 1658, the London clockmaker Ahasuerus Fromanteel had pioneered the introduction of the pendulum domestic clock in London, gaining a serious but brief advantage over his competitors. By the early 1660s, East and other London makers were also producing pendulum clocks. In turn, these makers experimented with and refined their designs as they strove to deliver more accurate clocks for less costs up front. This drive to innovate and increase profit produced two competing schools of pendulum clock design: the Fromanteel school and the East school. Within a few short years, by 1665, the ‘East school’ had caught up technically with the ‘Fromanteel school’, with East producing clocks of near-equal refinement to Fromanteel’s.[8] Horologist and collector Dr John C. Taylor explains that ‘the “East School” spring table clocks are built on fundamentally different principles to those of Fromanteel – the backplates are pinned on, while the pillars are of asymmetric baluster form are rivetted onto the frontplate.’[9] Also, the backplate is fixed with taper pins. Further, East School clocks have no centre wheel, nor is there an arbor used by the minute hand. Thus, the motion work enabling the hour and minute hands has a ‘loose feel’.[10] Also, the East school generally used the flag-on-chain system, while the ‘Fromanteel school’ favoured the twin-disc system.[11] Jones came of age as a clockmaker in this cultural landscape, and, in this way, he produced ‘East Style’ movements. What is even more impressive is that all his movements were prototypes: bespoke, fit-for-purpose mechanisms made to order for each individual commission. Kelley explains that Jones’ Phase I movements tend to include double baluster pillars ‘of striking beauty’, a decorated potence for the verge escapement, square arbors, square dial feet, and large rimmed barrels (like those used by East). He also favoured using the Dutch Striking method.[12] The 8-day movement that Jones produced for his Olivewood Parquetry Longcase is in keeping with almost all the above.[13] It is unique and features 6 latched baluster pillars, bolt-and-shutter maintaining power, and an anchor escapement with seconds pendulum. Jones also chose to use a more streamline hour striking system for this clock, foregoing the use of his usual Dutch striking method. A style icon Jones’ Olivewood Parquetry Longcase is also significant because it represents a distinct stage in the development of the longcase style. The longcase style was introduced during the late 1650s. Prior to this clocks were table clocks with box-like cases, typically ebony-veneered and constructed as plain framed Puritan cases. For an example of a simple box clock, see the Early Pendulum Box Clock made by Fromanteel around 1659 (exhibited on Clocktime). There were also ebony-veneered cases that were designed as miniature buildings with Classical architectural features, such as Corinthian columns and pediments.[14] For an example of this case style, see The Denton Hall Fromanteel, also made by Fromanteel around 1657 (exhibited on Clocktime). Almost immediately, the design of the case evolved. These box-like cases were followed by hooded wall clocks and then, within a couple of years, the longcase form was introduced. The ebony-veneered Norfolk Fromanteel, which was made by Fromanteel around 1660 (exhibited on Clocktime), is one of the first of these early longcases, and its case is also the earliest known example of an architectural format case.[15] By the time Jones’ longcase was made, the clockmaker had already developed his own distinctive style of table clock.[16] Unsurprisingly, his take on the longcase style form was vibrant and visually adventurous. Jones decorated the clock’s oak carcass and boxwood longcase with barley twist columns, olivewood oyster veneers, and star-shaped parquetry inlays. The inlays were incredibly striking, as they produced a three-dimensional visual effect. Jones’ use of olivewood veneers and walnut for the carved crest at the top of clock’s hood was part of wider trend in which exotic woods, such as olivewood, walnut and rosewood, began being used for high end clock cases and furniture during the 1670s. Their use also marked the sea change in clock case style, as their rich warm hues and intricate, graceful grain patterns were in stark contrast to the more sober presentation of the earlier ebony-veneered cases mentioned above. Thus, Jones’ use of olivewood oyster veneers was on trend for its time. It was also expensive. Olivewood is sourced from the olive tree (Olea europaea), which has been cultivated for its fruit and oil for thousands of years. The farming of olive trees probably first began somewhere in Asia Minor, perhaps as early as 12000 BC, and quickly spread to Greece and the wider Mediterranean. Historically, olivewood is expensive. Although plentiful, its availability for manufacturing is quite limited due to the fact most olive trees are cultivated as crops. Despite this, it is coveted because of its distinct grain patterns, durability, and pleasant aroma and used widely for the making of furniture, sculpture and utensils throughout the world, For another example of a sumptuously presented olivewood clock, see the Olivewood Tompion made by Thomas Tompion around 1673 (exhibited on Clocktime). And, for another example of parquetry inlay decoration on a walnut longcase made around the same as Jones’ longcase, see the Knibb Walnut Parquetry-Marquetry Longcase, made by Joseph Knibb around 1675 (exhibited on Clocktime). Jones also finished off his clock with a combination of convex and concave mouldings between the longcase’s base and trunk.[17] This detail, more than any other, firmly places this clock’s production within the shift between the use of convex mouldings in early clocks and the use of single concave mouldings in the later clocks of the 1690s. In this respect, the Jones Olivewood Parquetry Longcase is stylistically transitional, an in-between clock. Skills reserved for a high-end production This very fine clock’s prototypical movement, expensive olivewood oyster veneers and bold parquetry decoration is complemented by the exquisite execution of its beautiful gilt brass dial.[18] Probably the most impressive feature on the dial is its wide skeletonised chapter ring. A skeletonised chapter ring is named as such, because the brass background has been filed away, leaving only the ‘bones’ (e.g. engraved numbers and markers). For his clock, Jones delicately filed around the engraved Roman numerals, half hour markers and thin inner and outer rings, producing a single continuous cut-out. This is akin to making a very costly paper snow flake out of metal, while using handmade tools. The margin of error is razor thin. Skeletonised chapter rings are not only extremely difficult to make, they also consequently require close-edged dial matting – a process that is also difficult as well as time consuming. Due the difficultly of these two tasks, only the finest of the London clockmakers took on such a challenge. Even then, these skills were reserved only for their most high-end productions (and highest paying clientele). Jones’ skeletonised chapter ring and pristinely matted centre work in the harmony with one another as well as the rest of dial, which includes finely pierced blue steel hands, fine gilt-caste corner spandrels and a chamfered square calendar aperture just above the VI. The final effect is stunning, a master class in balanced restraint and artfully rendered skill. To produce the Jones Olivewood Parquetry Longcase, Jones clearly harnessed all his training, skill and artistry to deliver such a distinctly individual, stunning, high-end, quality clock. Dr Kristin Leith, Curator of Clocktime November 2025 End Notes [1] Carter 2022, 100–105, Catalogue No. 15; Garnier and Hollis 2018, 270–274, Catalogue No. 74; Ende et al. 2004, 148–149, Exhibit No. 54; Kelley 2002, 183, fig. 27. [2] Kelley 2002, 188. The Inner Temple is an area of London near Fleet Street, that is now one of the four Inns of the Court, a professional association for barristers and judges. As for George Petty, not much is known of him. He may or may not have been a clockmaker. [3] Carter 2022, 103. [4] Dawson (1954, 20) argues that Jones was at his best his early years, when he was on his own, and that his work became mediocre in his later career. Dr John C Taylor concurs with Dawson’s assessment in the video that accompanies this exhibit. [5] Kelley 2003, 518. Kelly’s phases are based on stages of operation in the Jones’ workshop over the course of his career, as well as changes in quality and method of selling. [6] Dawson 1954, 20; [7] Kelley 2003, 518.. [8] Carter 2021a, 36. [9] Taylor 2018, 15, Catalogue No. 33. [10] By way of contrast, East’s longcase made around 1665 has no East school features (Taylor 2018, 15, Catalogue No. 33). Its mechanism looks like it might have been designed and made by Fromanteel. It has an early bob pendulum, while the countwheel is attached to the great wheel arbor. The bob pendulum is an early feature, while the countwheel attachment is a later improvement. [11] Carter 2021a, 58, Exhibit No. 12. [12] Kelley 2003, 518, no. 7. [13] Carter 2022, 100. [14] Garnier 2018, 81–114. [15] Garnier and Hollis 2018, 175. [16] Carter 2022, 103. [17] Dr John C Taylor discusses Jones’ use of convex and concave mouldings in Chapter 3 of the video that accompanies this exhibit. [18] Carter 2022, 103. References Carter, J. 2021a. The John C Taylor Collection: Part I (Selling Exhibition Catalogue, Carter Marsh & Co). Winchester: Carter Marsh & Co. Carter, J. 2022. The John C Taylor Collection: Part III (Selling Exhibition Catalogue, Carter Marsh & Co). Winchester: Carter Marsh & Co Catalogue, Carter Marsh & Co). Dawson, P. G. 1954. ‘Henry Jones in the Temple’ in The Antique Collector (February). Ende, H. van der, J. C. Taylor and F. Van Kersen. 2004. Huygens’ Legacy: The golden age of the pendulum clock (Exhibition Catalogue). Isle of Man: Fromanteel Ltd. Garnier, R. and L. Hollis. 2018. Innovation & Collaboration: The early development of the pendulum clock in London. Isle of Man: Fromanteel Ltd. Garnier, R. 2018. ‘The Fromanteel Architectural Early-Pendulum Clock Case (c1660-c1673) in Garnier, R. and L. Hollis (editors) Innovation & Collaboration: The early development of the pendulum clock in London. Isle of Man: Fromanteel Ltd.Kelley, C. S. 2002. ‘Henry Jones – Clockmaker of London, part I of IV: His life’ in Antiquarian Horology 27/2: 179 – 195. Kelley, C. S. 2003. ‘Henry Jones – Clockmaker of London, part II of IV: His workI’ in Antiquarian Horology 27/5: 518–545. Taylor, J. C. 2018. Innovation & Collaboration: Exhibition guide. Isle of Man: Fromanteel Ltd.
