Re: LONG reply to "C." <jcalvin44@hotmail.com> ..... ( was What does "original finish" mean, exactly? )

In rec.antiques  "C." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Ronnie McKinley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> In rec.antiques  "C." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>

>> >The time of George  the Third was also the time of Flood, and Gratton,
>and the Union Act of 1800. Maybe these roses and oak leaves mean something
>> >different?  Maybe they just look pretty together.
>> >
>>
>> Just look pretty I think :)  Act of Union motifs would generally have
>> been reflected in the dial paintings and would have included th
>e rose, thistle and shamrock.
>
>Have you, in your experience, come across the shamrock as part of the
>ornamentation very often?

Not on too many longcased clocks :) Having an interest in late 18th
century Anglo-Irish glass I've had a few examples of 'Act of the Union'
glass. But the shamrock does pop up from time to time on its own on most
everything  ...  well on some things.

Here's another interest, 'Killarney work' -  at one time I used to buy
and sell a lot of this but is now becoming very hard to buy.

http://www.georgestacpooleantiques.com/killarneywork/
http://www.morganodriscoll.com/killarney_wood.htm
(George is a great guy and a knowledgeable dealer ... albeit a bit of a
pounce :-) )

>I have usually been able to spot provincial pieces three ways:  Proportion,
>material, and detail. None of those would have helped me in this case. 

No I think they would have. I believe if you had the opportunity to see
the oval dial and the brass faced 'Irish Chippendale' side by side (in
real life) it would be obvious. Whilst this oval dial clock does have
good proportions and reasonable build, when compared to the Dublin
clock/s it's a bit of a joke. 

Look at the Irish Chippendale clock pix again. Note the camera angle?
That's not me crouching down for fun, but the clock towering above me
and I may add it had a beautiful long slim proportioned trunk to match,
the trunk door seemed to go on for ever. 

Most all Irish clocks (of the period) outside of Dublin would be short
and squat in comparison, even a Belfast clock compared to a Dublin clock
looks like a provincial piece. And when we start looking at the great
London clocks EVERYTHING looks provincial :)


>Is the maker well known to you? Hopefully he has other things out there to
>find.
>

I wouldn't say well known, but a recorded maker. For your interest this
is the clock's town of origin.

http://website.lineone.net/~w1ll0w/Portaferry/default.html

(some nice doorways :) )

http://freespace.virgin.net/mp.hearth/P'ferry.html

(short history)


>>
>> Out of interest here are a few typical Ulster arch painted dials.
>
>The Belfast faces align perfectly with the confines of the hood. The Dromore
>example has the face clipped, but equally clipped on four sides. However,
>the Lurgan example appears clipped only on one side. Do you think this was
>by design, or otherwise?

None of these clocks were properly set up. When bought and transported
the works are always removed from the case. In these pix the movement
was just plopped carelessly back onto the seat-board for a quick photo
record. Mostly to capture the painted dial not so much the case itself.
Cases sometimes are rather nondescript and not worth even a frame.

>.If you would allow me, I would like to capture your images so I could view them in
>Photoshop  and enjoy them even more, and reference them for the future.
>
 No problem. I'll leave them there for a day or two.

I've added this one, maybe a better shot of the Dublin (brass-face)
clock.

http://www.glenbourne-antiques.fsnet.co.uk/irish.jpg

and btw I've loads more  ;>))

>Thank you again for such a good study on something I know so little about.


No  ... thank YOU for the interest shown. And I do appreciate you
working through all this especially with my deplorable spelling and
unforgivable typos. I would have expected more comment on the
spelling-bees than on the actual content of the post, but then  IMO that
speaks volumes. Not in your case, of course ;>



-- 
Ronnie