This page is under construction.
A Royal 'HAAGSE KLOK'
 

 
Severijn Oosterwijck Haghe met privilege

 Table of contents:

Type Ctrl+F to find any word on this page.

• INTRODUCTION.
• Huygens' authorities.
    Huygens'Pendulums
    Collections and Exhibitions
    DidacticScholarship
    Who was Severijn Oosterwijck.
• General observations.
     The Inspection    
     Originality   
     Unique Features.
     Plomp's Charateristics Properties
     Comparables
    

• PART I  HOROLOGIUM  The Clock
     The velvet fronted brass dial plate.
     Signature Plate
     Chapter Ring
     Coster Hands
     Dial Latch
     Pendulum Holdfast

INTRODUCTION

Severijn Oosterwijck’s, earliest known, spring-driven pendulum clock was first published by clockmaker-restorer Paul Shrouder Hon.FBHI, ("A Mantle Clock", Horological Journal, BHI, Sept. 2008). He recorded his restoration and alluded to its history. I recognised its real significance and contacted the BHI. Subsequently, at Mr. Shrouder’s workshop, I met the owner with his rare Hague-Clock (NL.Haagseklok).

Fig. 1 (click to enlarge)
Oosterwijck's Aristocratic Haagse Klok
(view high res picture)

Pf.003
● First Impressions [Fig.2].

Some works of art, also clocks, have the power to hold the viewer; this is one such. At first sight, the regularity and quality of the movement and the dial presented features and components I had not seen in a Hague clock. I also observed the evidence of an ancient accident involving both the case and its movement.

Its workmanship is outstanding, superior to Coster’s pendulums, notwithstanding the latter's superb watches and table clocks  in the balance-era. Now I better understand why, in March 1662, Alexander Bruce (Earl of Kincardine), then Christiaan Huygens (Monsieur Zulichem)  in 1663, each chose Oosterwijck to make their Longitude ‘sea-clocks’, (inherently flawed by pendulum control in first instance), then to add Huygens’ too complex (also flawed) weight-remontoir in 1664.

Oosterwijck’s 'Haagseklok' or 'Haagseklokje' ("little Hague clock") deserves the fullest appreciation. Its privileged owners would remain anonymous, yet know more of  their heritage and its context; the restorer would publish via the BHI, a technical audience not versed in Huygens; and I would bring this rare Hague clock into the antiquarian fold, via the Dutch Horological Foundation website, (www.antique-horology.org), with meaningful images also vital dimensions to promote new research. Knowing that I cannot succeed equally, I offer my findings, (PART I, "HOROLOGIUM"), also my historical perspectives and new hypotheses, (PART II, "OSCILLATORIUM").

Fig. O2V
King Charles the Second of England (1630–1685)

HUYGENS, AUTHORITIES

Readers not familiar with Christiaan Huygens (1629-1695) and the early pendulum-era will find the Horological Foundation website invaluable. It includes a Compilation on the Hague Contract of September 3rd, 1657, between young John Fromanteel (1638-1692) and established Hague clockmaker Salomon Coster (1623-1659) the pendulum patentee appointed by Huygens as inventor. One long misread, still misunderstood clause alludes to a ‘secreet’, that cannot be the pendulum or crutch which John already had seen and made. It taxes us yet. This clock may have great relevance.

● Collections and Exhibitions.
G.B.Shaw once wrote, “if I had had more time, I should have written a shorter letter!” But gone are the days when Drummond Robertson could review two neglected Coster clocks in just two paragraphs, (“Robertson J.D., "The Evolution of Clockwork”, Chap.VI, pp.76-81). Scholarship has moved on apace, with specialist articles, new reference works; magnificent Dutch exhibitions, “Octrooi op de Tijd” (Museum Boerhaave, 1979), “Huygens Legacy” (Paleis Het Loo, Apeldoorn, 2004); also great private collections. Mr H.M. Vehmeyer’s astonishing catalogue, Hans van den Ende’s museum at Edam -- I was privileged to attend its opening, I stayed three days! My own study of Hague clocks was helped by many, especially by the late Willem Hana and the Dutch restorer Mr. L.H.J. ‘Berry’ van Lieshout; many rely on his wide knowledge and unique archives.

● Didactic Scholarship.
Professor Dr. Ir. Reinier Plomp has long been popularising Hague clocks, by numerous erudite articles and his standard reference work, “Spring-driven Dutch pendulum clocks, 1657-1710” (Interbook International BV, Schiedam, 1979). For the privilege extended to me, I presented copies of Dr.Plomp's book both to the owner also to Paul Shrouder. Lately, Dr.Plomp has identified “The Prototypes of Hague Clocks and Pendules Religieuse”, (Antiquarian Horology, June 2007); he also defined their significant characteristics, “The Earliest Dutch and French Pendulum Clocks”, (HF website, Op. Cit.). His matrix is based on 25 clocks, to determine both craft lineages also chronologies (‘D1’, etc., for Dutch pendulums; ‘F1’, etc., for French pendulums). Dr.Plomp's academic and horological credentials place him at the fore, currently he is about to publish his long awaited tome on "Pendules Religieuses", the French derivatives of Coster's pendulum clocks. Here, I follow his line; he may have to revise his chronology.

 Dr.Plomp's characteristics’ are not the only ones to be observed in a Hague clock. Several are too general to be useful; others too infrequent to compare yet still important. Among these is, or should be, the unidentified ‘secreet’’ construction– although many have made diverse attributions.

 In a paper for the Dutch  Horological Foundation, I cited research by Berry van Lieshout and myself, (HF website, Op.Cit. 2005). Implicitly, on Mayday 1658, a 'secreet' was to be shared between Fromanteel’s and Coster’s clocks. I pointed out, ‘secreet’ is not a Dutch word at all; “its etymon seems entirely English; if so what then?” I believe that overlooked etymon confirms a conspicuous and even important linguistic clue. Might that contractual secret also be found here in young Severijn Oosterwijck’s Royal Hague clock?

● Who was Severijn Oosterwijck .
Notable authorities, (Robertson, Morpurgo, Edwardes, Dobson, and Plomp), have cited his life and work. Berry Van Lieshout records, “Severijn Oosterwijck was born before 1637, son of Adam Oosterwijck clockmaker of Middleburg (employer of Pieter Visbagh from 1649, after completing apprenticeship with Salomon Coster); He died around 1694. In 1657, he married a Sara Jans van Dueren at Rotterdam”; [KP. Did he then know Mr Simon Douw, ingenious Clockmaker of Rotterdam? Already he was a fine clockmaker, see Huygens Legacy, exhibit 07, balance controlled and dated to 1655, but curiously bears a Hague signature]. Whereas, “Severijn is first mentioned in the Hague in 1658, when his first son Adam was born; he registered there in 1659, first renting near the Spui [river]; in 1660 he bought ‘De Drie Vergulde Mollen‘ and then took Pieter de Roo as apprentice”.  In 1662, he made two copies of Alexander Bruce's (Earl of Kincardine) first Longitude pendulum clock fitted with a double-fork F-crutch, shown to Huygens in London in 1661, both tested by Captain Holmes. He then constructed Huygens’ Longitude design and, by August 1664, he also had incorporated Huygens' ingenious but flawed weight-remontoir, for which Huygens would obtain a Dutch patent; but chided by Sir Robert Moray, that priority for the remontoir was [Ahasuerus] Fromanteel’s, he assigned his English Patent (3rd March 1665) to the Royal Society. Robert Hooke had scoffed; he understood that a pendulum is inappropriate for any sea-clock; as is the weight remontoir; but inherent defects do not reflect on Oosterwijck’s craftsmanship. In 1664 Lord Brouncker, first President of the Royal Society, had one of his seconds’ regulators; Sir Robert Moray in Maastricht had one too. “Severijn had four, sons, all were clockmakers; in 1687/8, he and Adam (1658-1695) petitioned the Hague Magistrates for a Clockmakers’ Guild; and upon its incorporation Severijn became first Master. Around 1690 he made a year spring movement for Jean Brisson’s monumental case (modelled on the more lavish Breghtel-van den Bergh case of 1665-1670, now in the V&A London). Later, with third son Jacobus (1662-1711), he adapted it into a musical clock, which they signed jointly”. [KP. It is one of Holland’s horological icons, (see P.C.Spaans Collection, Lot 421, Christie's Amsterdam, 19/12/07). I saw it with Eugene Stender in 1976].  

Any clock by this particular maker is of interest, and for several reasons; his part in the birth of the Dutch pendulum clock; his abilities as a craftsman; also his early part in experimental maritime navigation to determine longitude by pendulum time-keeping (see Appendix Three). The subject clock ticks the first two boxes, hence this Royal patronage; Bruce and Christiaan Huygens himself ticked the third box. His name never disappoints. 

GENERAL OBSERVATIONS

● The Inspection.
Paul Shrouder took down, measured parts, and counted teeth, as I made notes and shot images (of variable quality). The minutia of our record is essential towards a better understand of “the evolution of clockwork”. For researchers, the dimensions and wheel-counts are recorded at Appendix One; Appendix Two touches on conservation needed to preserve this unique case; Appendix Three offers new lines for study, and proposes an "open-research" Web project.

● Originality. 
Antiquarian catalogues rarely reveal the extent of any ‘restorations'. For the benefit of researchers, my examination found Oosterwijck’s movement to be very original. The few exceptions are; the mainspring is replaced; the original four-spoke escape-wheel's collet and pinion are newly made; the original four-spoke contrate wheel now has a new collet; the original pendulum-rod has a new bob, it now also has a suspension hook - (the original pulley mount sadly removed); door glass is replaced. A restorer’s defacing scribbles infer he moved the hammer and adjusted its clapper, the strike-lever is untouched One function has been lost, a strange ‘cam’ on the barrel arbor and vacant pivot holes offer cryptic clues of a unique feature, (see 'Wind-Me' - Part.II, "Oscillatorium").

Fig. 2 (click to enlarge)
Oosterwijck's Aristocratic Haagse Klok
(view high res picture)

Oosterwijck's spring clock has the typical strike-gates and central countwheel, with early internal bell, but also unique features like the pendulum holdfast (Fig.2).

● The Unique Features:
Among Hague clocks, Oosterwijck’s movement has features that I believe to be unique, namely;

Having early strike work and a split-barrel* (one spring serving multiple trains) also mark it out as special. [*Tandem-barrel misleads, being two or more barrels serving just one train].

Notwithstanding the cited changes, this is a most original Hague clock and whilst not virgo intacta, undoubtedly it is of huge academic significance. But how does it square with Dr Plomp's earliest characteristic properties?

(Table of contents continued)
 
• The movement proper.
     The Plates
     Octagonal Pillars
     The Motionwork
• The four-wheel trains.
• The watch (going) part.
     An Astronomer’s Pendulum.
     Crutched-Verge
     The Verge-Cock
     Suspension Cheeks
     Strap Potence
• The strike part.
     Strike ‘Gates’
     The Fly
     Count wheel, Detent and Spring
     Hammer
     Bell on Dial
     Split (Going and Strike) Barrel  (the strike part??
     Ratchet-work  (the strike part??
     Stop work  (the strike part??
     Concealment  (the strike part??
     The ‘Wind-Me’ Option?  (the strike part??
• The unique box case
• First Assessments.

• Dimensions and construction. 

• PART II  OSCILLATORIUM  Perspectives & Hypotheses
• Concluding Perspectives.
     Coster’s Other Contracts?
     Makers of Coster Striking Clocks?
     Fromanteel Connections?
     Hidden ‘Secreet’ Constructions?
     Personal Associations?
     A Seconds’ Hiatus?
     Claims to Priority.
• Sebastian Whitestone's discovery.
     Reflecting on the 1657 contract
• General Conservation Issues & Valuation?
     Oosterwijck's Box Case    
• Open research projects.
     Early pendulum clocks matrix
     Significant early makers
     Comparable Wheel Trains 
 
• Acknowledgements.
• Oosterwijck Bibliography.

• Picture Gallery  (the author's original untouched pictures)

Reviewed by: Keith Piggott

Back to end of previous section.

● Suspension Cheeks.
Huygens' famous ‘Cheeks’ were not part of his design, he claimed for Christmas Day 1656, (Plomp R, Op.Cit. Fig.4). However, he quickly identified circular-error (periods of oscillations varying, due to the changing amplitudes of fixed-radius pendulums) that Galileo and Wendelin had observed, but had not resolved. Seeking to cure that significant defect by empiric means, early in 1657, Huygens first arrived at cheeks to change the radii of a suspended pendulum with changing amplitudes, to minimise circular error.

Huygens' privilege also extended to Oosterwijck using pre-cycloid cheeks, evidently without any allegation by Coster or Huygens of plagiarism or litigation: which indicates to me their full cooperation in this English Royal commission.

Oosterwijck's two laminae (Cheeks) are set higher on the back plate than Coster's. Each separate cheek has a round cock (foot), fixed by elongated ball-head screws, joined at their contact point by a single screw clamping the thread. These original unmodified cheeks are an incredible rarity. [Van Lieshout identified the baroque Van Ceulen repeating movement as another, no less rare in that later period].

Fig. 18 (click to enlarge)
The pre-cycloid suspension cheeks.

Each cheek has two pinholes at its lower end, I had not seen that before although Coster ‘D1’ does have single larger holes at the top. Paul Shrouder neatly resolved these pinholes, by threading the silk suspension so as wear occurs new thread may be pulled through.

 Oosterwijck’s suspension cheeks already display his empiric form but are, technically, still ‘pre-cycloid', like Huygens' original 1657 timepiece (see 'DØ1' below) and, oddly, still depicted in Horologium Oscillatorium (Part I, Fig.II); a true cycloid form is also shown, (Pt.I, p.21, Fig.2).  [Note. Huygens' original and patented Seconds' clock had his suspension cheeks, but he abandoned cheeks in subsequent 'OP' design, intended to reduce its half-second pendulum arc to eliminate circular error (Horologium, 1658, Op.Cit.). By 1660, he had determined its ideal shape was a Cycloid. Probably, some cheeks were reshaped retrospectively; or even replaced (like D8) but his geometrician’s, incremental evolutes, proof was only published in 1673; he credited Christopher Wren as the first to determine the cycloid's arc-length, ('Horologium Oscillatorium', Op.Cit. Part II, Proposition xv, and Part III, Propositions VII, IX)].

● Strap Potence. [Fig.19]
Dr.Plomp regards the simple verge-cock as an English tradition (Plomp R, “Earliest”, Op.Cit. Conclusions, pf.3). He says nothing about the typical Dutch escapement 'potence block' (riveted or screwed) used since Gerardus Vibrandi's time - derived from earlier German watches. Pertinently, Coster was firstly a trained watchmaker, who later took to making table clocks before Huygens fortuitously offered him his pendulum Patent and rights.

 Oosterwijck's four-wheel train’s high escape wheel and extra long verge does not follow Dutch practice. He has resolved his higher geometry with a strap-potence, of wrought brass, mounted on the going side, its foot fixed by integral steady-pins and a screw; its curved pivot-arm bends under the verge to the escape wheel’s top pivot. This part, too, appears to follow an entirely English tradition.

 I believe this strap form is unique among Hague clocks. His novel strap potence has an external screw, which enables the escape wheel to be detached without needing to separate the plates. It seems much closer to the English form adopted by the Fromanteels for their horizontal verge with pivoted-pendulum, ie. suggesting a contemporary English pendulum existed. Déjà vu, Fromanteel!

Fig. 19 (click to enlarge)
The cast strap potence.

● Post Potence.
The lower potence is a long, tapering, brass post, riveted into the back plate, having inferior dovetail jaws holding a steel wedge to bear the escape-arbor's pivot. [Coster's lower strap-potences all have similar dovetails, D1’ and ‘D4’ still have steel pivot wedges, ‘D3’ now has a brass rivet through the dovetail].

Fig. 19a (click to enlarge)
Escape Wheel and 'English' Potences.

Oosterwijck's might be mistaken for English potences; that might prove significant. Among Hague clocks this is an isolated even unique, appearance of the upper strap-potence Ahasuerus Fromanteel favoured, (Lee, Ronald A, “The First Twelve Years of the English Pendulum Clock” 1658-1670, Exhibits 3,13,30).

Whereas all ‘Costers’ and his acolytes' clocks have the typical Dutch riveted escapement block, with a lower strap-potence, Fromanteel's distinctive potences had originated from the English vernacular lantern clock. [Note. as happens in research, I have learned of a second Oosterwijck movement with a strap-potence, and a fusee, (exceptional in early examples). After 1680 some Hague clocks were fitted with fusees, as, by then, several English makers, Joseph Norris, the Fromanteel brothers, and Steven Tracy had set-up in Amsterdam and Rotterdam; they first adopted Hague going-barrels but later introduced fusees as standard, even with Cheeks - "when in Rome"].

 However, Coster's form is also seen in the rebuilt dated Fromanteel, (Plomp R, Op.Cit. Fig.22), yet Simon Bartram’s pendulum watch-clock now has Fromanteel’s strap-potence, (see “Horological Master-works”, Exhibit 6, AHS, Oxford, 2003). However, the authors cite evidence of a “Dutch type top stud [potence] as illustrated by Huygens in Horologium Oscillatorium which carried the crown wheel and front verge pivots". A caveat to those who would impose their own agenda.

 Among Huygens' many sketches and diagrams, only one depicts a strap-form top potence, (see Horologium, Fig.1, Sept.1658). Uniquely intended for Huygens' verge-pendulum, was that strap form known to him from an English model, or from Oosterwijck’s extant clock? The latter might suggest that his design was only prepared after seeing the subject Royal clock; the former implies that Fromanteel’s pendulum, in fact, was contemporary with Coster’s, or earlier?

 When Oosterwijck made his Royal striking-clock it was ‘state of the art’, and approved by Huygens, certainly not a pirated copy. His next striking clock (Plomp D9) has similar cheeks but these (now) mimic the true cycloid shape. (see Huygens’ Legacy, Op.Cit. nr.11, p.35); the authors date that lavishly decorated clock, “c.1660”. Here I stress, it is exceptional for any extant Hague clocks to have original also unmodified cheeks. So many cheeks have been modified, improved or even added, mostly during commercial restorations. When discovered, even Coster D8 had Fromanteel's imperfect pivoted verge-pendulum escapement; Dutch pride has required its present Huygens' escapement to be reconstructed. [Conversely, superb English turntable clocks by East, Matcham, Ebsworth, all recently found in Europe, had all been converted to Huygens'  improved escapement]. <Refer Ebsworth>

THE STRIKE PART

Huygens had always disclaimed striking systems as being already well known and not part of his invention, (Horologium, 1657, p.15). Here I can find no evidence for any case mounted alarm work, unlike Coster 'D5', nor an integral alarm such as was added to the plates of Coster 'D8'' by a different yet contemporary hand. But, this is one of the first Hague clocks to have striking, if not the first!

 Like Coster’s extant striking clocks, Oosterwijck’s clock strikes the full hours only, not the half-hours; now called ‘English striking’. Like Coster’s, his 4-wheel strike-train runs diagonally across the plates, (see Fig.13 above); Dr.Plomp suggests that Coster 'D10' is “actually a timepiece with a striking train added”, (Plomp R, "Prototypes", Op.Cit. p.202, Fig.8). Curiously, for that decorated, therefore later clock, D10's plates (109 x 84 mm) are smaller than the earlier D8 plates (120 x 98 mm), and are also smaller than the subject Oosterwijck's plates (115 x 94 mm). It needs considering.

 Is there an anomaly here? It would seem so, generally smaller is earlier. Only the plates of Pieter Visbagh’s first known Hague clock, circa 1659/1660, are smaller ('D18’ at 100 x 78 mm). Might Coster 'D10' be using early plates, set aside then used later? Or is it new evidence of sparing expensive materials? We may expect anomalies. Here I suggest, if Oosterwijck's subject clock had lost its signature plate, then its dimensions, plain gate arbors and steelwork would now see it lauded, indisputably, as ‘earliest’  in Coster's striking clock chronology. [One Johannes Van Ceulen clock suffered just such a misattribution].

● Strike ‘Gates’.
Hague clock strike-gates, (or warning and pinwheel detents), are relics of their Renaissance table-clock antecedents. A long weighted steel strike-lever goes, from its hooked barb at the minute-wheel, down and across the front-plate to the lower of two plain arbors bearing the original scroll gates crafted in steel, mounted across the plates.

 Oosterwijck's gates are of scroll form, on simple round arbors, and are comparable to Coster's - but being on plain arbors are earlier. Among comparables, Coster's 'D8' has more central reversed 'C' scrolls, set upon decoratively turned arbors, with plain locking detent and steel spring - now with replaced fancy detent and spring, like subsequent striking clocks by Oosterwijck, Hanet, Pascal, and Visbagh. (Plomp, “Pendulums”, Op.Cit. nr. 38). Coster 'D10' has even more ornate gates, and bolder baluster arbors, also an untypical (if original) rudimentary steel spring to a stubby angular locking detent. Details differ, but layouts comply.

Fig. 20 (click to enlarge)
The strike 'Gates'.
(view high res picture)

Evidently, in their pendulum clocks, the English makers omitted these strike gates. Even Claude Pascal’s first gates are rudimentary; but subsequently, Dutch and French gates soon became most elaborate, later becoming vestigial, finally discontinued after 1700. 

● The Fly. [Fig.21] 
A heavy, cast-brass, lozenge (Rhombus) section fly is held by a narrow leaf-spring, slotted across its edges at the rear pivot. Its arbor has a 5-leaf pinion. This heavy fly's inertia, also momentum, must be considerably more than any thin-vaned fly.

Fig. 21 (click to enlarge)
The heavy cast brass fly.

This same lozenge fly is also found in the seventh Coster ‘D10’.  Coster ‘D8’ has an unreduced profile with a wider open section, to further reduce the fly rotation speed with its 6-leaf pinion? Coster fly-chronology seems reversed but Dr.van Grimbergen, director of the Museum of the Dutch Clock, Zaandam, suggests that Coster 'D8' had originally possessed a 5-leaf pinion. Was its consequently slower fly then a lozenge? Van Lieshout suggests the subject fly-pinion, of 5 off 48 teeth, is unusual; he also suggests its heavy lozenge fly was probably to counter a stronger, second, mainspring post-accident. KP. In view of the clock's  long English provenance, why does its Rhombus fly exactly match Coster's lozenge on ‘D10’, and be so similar to Coster 'D8' too? I regard these facts as clear evidence of an uninterrupted single-path evolution].

● Count wheel, Detent and Spring. [Fig.22] 
The long front plate strike-lever, with a large barbed drop, resembles English lantern clock practice. Like early Fromanteel also Knibbs, the lever is directly tripped at the minute-wheel, not from the reverse-minute wheel.

 The large central count-wheel (7.2 cm diam.) is set on the back plate, mounted onto a central steel stud secured by a circular brass key-plate. It has a flat profile, it is un-numbered and ringed, being controlled by a simple steel detent having a looped brass spring. Vacant holes below the detent were possibly for a trial or prototype spring that obstructed the operation.

Fig. 22 (click to enlarge)
Count wheel, detend and spring.

A thick round brass spring, is fixed to the back plate, held by integral steady pins, its reversed tail tensions the spur of the vertical locking-detent; like Coster D8. Whereas, D10 has much smaller detent and spring components. <Compare Backplates>

Fig. 22b (click to enlarge)
Riveted to the reverse of the count wheel is a large (5.0 cm) four-spoke wheel with 78 teeth, driven by a small brass pinion of 10* leaves set on a squared pinwheel arbor,
(view high res picture)

Riveted to the reverse of the large count wheel is a four-spoke driving wheel of 5.0cm diameter. having the standard 78 teeth, but driven by a small brass pinion fitted onto the squared end of the pinwheel arbor and having only 10* leaves (see Figure 22a). The pin-wheel too has only 10* steel pins. The warning wheel has two brass pins, one pin being re-sited by 18mm, probably due to the cited accident. I suggest the use of tens is evidence towards an earlier chronology.

*Evidence for chronology? 
Coster ‘D8’ and ‘D10” each have 12 pins and 12-leaf pinions, not the Royal clock's 10' pins and 10-leaf pinion; otherwise all three have identical gearings.

Therefore the change from 10s, henceforth to the new standard using 12s, again points to Oosterwijck's Royal striking clock as being earlier in Dutch chronology than Coster's D8. It is not the derivative I first assumed.

This new evidence, infers that Hague clocks having 12 pins also 12 leafs in the ubiquitous new standard, are actually all derivatives of Oosterwijck's new pattern.

Anomalies such as these, I put it no higher, do make the case for a well supported open-research project to assemble and collate the physical data for custodians and researchers to access, (See Appendix Three, open-research matrix).

● Hammer. [Fig.23] 
The brass drop-hammer, with steel striker, is dovetailed to a long steel stem, which pivots along the plate like early horizontal table clocks. The hammer arbor is now mis-planted in secondary pivots, (Figure 23), requiring the brass clapper to be extended along its dovetail stem, to clear the frontplate cut-out.  Note the original stop-pin, and former shape of the hammer-spring. At first we took these vacant pivots to be for a half-hour passing strike, but that would not require the unique barrel-cam probably associated with vacant pivots, also screw holes and posts for cocks, (see 'Wind-me'). Fig.24 shows the hammer in correct pivots.

Fig. 23 (click to enlarge)
The hammer now wrongly planted.

The Royal clock's nearest comparables, Coster 'D8', has the same general layout and very similar proud rivets to the four pillars. Its diagonal strike lever is of thinner steel, its hammer is all steel having a thick flat-stem to a rebated pear shape clapper -needing no front plate cut-out, and also pivots along the plate from right. Its long diagonal hammer spring is set high on the left with a stubby stop-spring below. Coster D10 is very similar but with a brass strike-lever. Whereas the winder squares of both D8 and D10 have unusual cross-pins at the front plate. <Compare Frontplates>

[Vertical hammer-posts first appeared in 1659-1660, probably introduced by Hanet or Pascal, and soon became the Franco-Dutch standard, even having a short lived English manifestation with Fromanteel and his acolytes, including the famous Samuel Knibb and renowned nephew Joseph Knibb, even Tompion].

Pf.066
● Dial Mounted Bell. [Fig.24]
The undisturbed bell stand with its original high-domed heavy bell, is mounted on the rear of the dial plate, on a beautifully crafted obelisk, with the dome facing out like the two known striking clocks which bear Salomon Coster's name.

Fig. 24 (click to enlarge)
Bell on dial.

● Split-barrel (Going and Strike).

Overview.
The single advantage of the “going-barrel”, over the fusee system, is uninterrupted power to its going-train on rewinding; it needs no maintaining power but its varying force is uncompensated. Therefore, historically, it was solely used for subsidiary trains, not for timekeeping. The ancient spring-barrel evolved to drive two trains, I give it nomenclature of ‘Split-Barrel’, or pedantically, ‘Split-Subsidiary-Barrel’.  Certainly, this did not first appear during the mid-1650's, coincident with Coster's new 'Haagseklok'.

Fig. 25  The split-barrel

Jost Burgi (1552-1632) of Kassel, (later Prague), is now credited with inventing the first known 'split-barrel', driving separate Quarter and Hour trains in his famous series of Globes, circa 1582.

fig. 25a (click to enlarge)
Split-barrel in Burgi's (Anton Eisenhoit)
Armillarsphäre, 1585.
Nordiska Museet Stockholm.


Jobst Burgi 1552-1632

Within Burgi's Armillarsphäre, for Anton Eisenhoit circa 1585, is the 'split-barrel' he had developed to drive two trains, striking Hours and Quarters. (Acknowledgement to Nordiska Museet, Stockholm).

 Subsequently, for decades, German clock makers used the split-barrel exclusively for that purpose; never for going trains; the Fusee alone reigned supreme in their dominant City Guilds; In 1657/8, Philip Treffler of Augsburg even added a fusee to Coster's early going-barrel, as did Bruce's sea-clocks (see 'Hollar' 1667).

 Exactly when, where and who adapted Burgi’s split-striking-barrel for Going and Striking is not known. Significantly, the going-barrel, also its variant the  split-going-barrel, were only possible assuming  an erroneous premise that Galileo’s new pendulum, used in Huygens’ way, had no need of regulated power. All Dutch and French makers relied on that; but German, and English makers ultimately, did not. Fromanteel was one of the first to use the going-barrel, then one of the first to re-divide his trains, and barring Treffler was probably first to re-introduce the fusee (with his spring maintaining power; being derived from his 1649 spring-remontoir).

It is almost written in stone, Salomon Coster made the first Dutch pendulum clock, also the first to have strike work. His strikers, D8’ and ‘D10’, share Oosterwijck’s split-barrel. It became ubiquitous in Holland, French makers adopted it too but soon re-adopted multi-barrel formats, like the English had before them, and both before the Dutch. Dr.Plomp has the "tandem-barrel" as Coster’s contribution (Plomp R, “Prototypes”, Op.Cit. p.202). That hypothesis would depend on the nature of his supposed contribution.

Having studied Oosterwijck's work, I now suggest that this seemingly mundane device is actually fundamental to any understanding of ‘Hague-clocks’, and very probably the Hague Contract of September 3^rd,1657, between Coster and Fromanteel, or Fromanteel and Coster. In the light of Oosterwijck's construction, Coster's priority must now be re-examined. I shall examine and consider the device as, potentially, the secret device, and I will review the circumstantial evidence to discover whose intellectual property it might be, and whose it is not, citing 'priorities' with all consequences. (See concluding Perspective, Nr.4)

● Pendulum Applications.
Oosterwijck’s split-barrel (diameter 4.3 cm, 2.5 cm long), drives separate first-wheels for his going and strike trains. Its weaker new mainspring (the clock’s third) has thirteen turns but just six are useable. That gives it a duration of 30 hours; or much longer without strike. (G1 has 72 teeth, S1 has 80 teeth).

 Oosterwijck’s new split-barrel has a deceptively simple appearance, showing bold ratchet-work at the front. But, it is much more complex than is apparent. Here I describe its parts, so that its underlying characteristics and unique intellectual property is made clear.

Having by this time already formed a considered view, that both of Coster’s extant striking clocks are later than the subject clock, and on the basis of features I shall disclose, this may well be the earliest "split-going-barrel" yet observed in any pendulum clock.

The going-wheel,
(G1, 72 teeth, 4.94 cm diameter), is riveted onto the rear of the barrel. It drives the centre pinion (6 leaves) with a shaped arbor having a centre-wheel (70 teeth) at the front; unlike any of Coster's movements. The barrel's rearmost cap has been left roughly filed.

The strike-wheel,
(S1, 80 teeth, 4.95 cm diameter), forms a front cap, being pinned onto the squared arbor. A now internal set-up ratchet is affixed to the wheel, unlike Coster’s timepieces with ratchets set on the front plate. (Coster 'G5', early Pascal timepieces and later Hague clocks set the ratchet-work onto the back-plate). Oosterwijck’s 'split-barrel' appears to be conventional. It is not!

● Ratchet-work.
[NL.Palrad, Ger.Sperrad, Fr.Rochel,]. The purpose of ratchet-work is to set up a minimum spring tension, to get a more equal mid-range force. Further, if a strike train is fitted, to always reserve sufficient spring-power to operate the strike to the full duration. Comparable Coster strikers, D8 and D10, have ratchets on the front cap, behind the front plate. (Both have cross-pinned winder squares - which at present I cannot fully explain without dismantling - although one Van Ceulen has  its winder squares pinned to round barrel arbors].

Fig. 26 (click to enlarge)
Ratchet work
(view high res picture)

The solid and seemingly ordinary strike-wheel (S1) forms the front barrel-cap. Set proud, it mounts a thick circumferential brass-spring to a steel click, engaging with the domed steel ratchet (3.44cm, 21 teeth), secured by a stubby steel collar, having an unusual 'spur-cam', at the lower of the two stepped squares below the winder.  This appears to be a typical split-barrel, having a typical set-up ratchet and click pegged onto the barrel, like Coster D8 and D10, but having no stop work.  It is not!

● Stop work.
[NL.Opwindbegrenzing, Ger.Stellung, Fr.Arretage,]. The purpose of stop-work is to limit spring tension and to prevent over-winding, that might bind the spring or damage its attachments.  (Britten, FJ.  “Watch and Clock- makers’ Hand- book Dictionary and Guide”,  SPON, 1938, p.415). If ratchet work were not fitted, the stop alone might also 'fix' a range of travel for the going, and maintain minimum power for strike if fitted.

Stop work is not invariably found in all Hague clocks, although the earliest extant Coster-Fromanteel ‘D1’ dated 1657 has it. Oddly enough, it is most uncommon in French  derivatives. Yet this unremarkable device warrants a special survey, it appears in Hague and London clocks c.1657, but has a long German ancestry.

German Origins.
Stop-wheels, early ones often shaped like a 'Maltese Cross', form an integral part of an ancient German craft device to modify the force delivered by a spring barrel. the ‘Stackfreed’. That combines a rotating barrel-cam, being limited by a stop-wheel, and having a sprung roller-follower that manages spring forces delivered to the train. (Baillie G.H., “Watches”, Chap.5, Plate XIV, pp.84-85; also Bassermann-Jordan, “Book of Old Clocks and Watches”, 4^th Ed. p.180, Fig.40b).

Much later, Hans Keining adopts it to regulate his verge pallet depths and incidence angles with spring power, (Lloyd H.A., “Old Clocks”, p.52 Fig.9). But Dr.Hans Von Bertele ascribes that clock to 1595, and he attributes the original ‘adaptation’ to Keining’s master Jost Burgi (again), first observed in his ‘aequating’  book-clock, circa 1591. (Bertele, Dr.H von, “Precision Timekeeping in the pre-Huygens Era”, Horological Journal, BHI, Dec.1953).

 Sometime later, either in the Hague or possibly in London, now without the cam and its follower, the stopwheel is itself re-adapted to a new purpose; not to manage power but to cut-off top-end torque and to prevent spring derangements at clients’ hands; a desirable feature in any clock, but especially in any destined for export.

When present, early Dutch stop-work usually takes the typical form, with a visible stop wheel set onto the barrel-cap, being turned by a pin or pinion on its arbor (see Plomp R, "Pendulums" Op. Cit. Fig.55). Coster's successor, Pieter Visbagh, continued to use it.

A curious variant may be seen in clocks by Christiaen Reijnaert, at Leiden, Coster's last apprentice who in 1660 was taken over by Pieter Visbagh, later to be his brother-in-law. Reijnaert's stop wheel, often occupies the full radius of large split-barrels. In this case 34+2 teeth engage a cross-drilled barrel-arbor to a massive spring-barrel, as an integral pinion of report, allowing eight turns for longer duration and more power. Reijnaert's known examples have 'twin-click' ratchet work, sited at the opposite end of his split-barrel.

Fig. 26a
Stopwork by "Christiaen Reijnaert Leijdae Fecit".

 [To digress, I am only surprised whenever this form of arbor-pinion survives intact, but several have. Relevantly, Coster's only alarum timepiece, 'D5,' with an external bell, probably had a form of 'Reijnaert' stopwork, under Coster's aegis, to maximise its duration; although it failed and was replaced with a plain arbor, that did not replace the integral pinion nor stop-wheel. Happily, it corroborates its Coster workshop pedigree, (see below, "Coster's Clockmakers")].

Pf.073
● Hidden Stp Work
Oosterwijck’s clock has already presented surprises; did it surprise Coster too? On removing its front ring-collar, with the spur-cam, its combined barrel-cap strike-wheel and ratchet, a hidden inner-cap is revealed. His split-barrel's concealed inner-cap is mounted with diminutive 'watch' stop-work, being unique in my experience, at least in Hague clocks. But why hidden in this fashion? Its construction is perplexing, it raises challenging questions.

 
Fig. 27(click to enlarge)
Split barrel, ratchet and 'hidden stopwork'

This stacked, hidden, arrangement is doubly unique, as, whenever ratchet work and stop work are fitted, they 'always' occupy the opposite ends of their barrel, or the ratchet work moves onto either of the plates. I should like to know of another such example, in any reader's experience.

 Whatever Oosterwijck’s intent, it was not for convenience of making. Might it be a purloined secret, or have been constructed around Mayday 1658 when the famous Contract terminated? Might it even be the actual model being there described?

A diminutive stop wheel, just 10.3mm, with six teeth cut (8 scribed), permits six windings to the stop-sector, being driven by a pin set in the barrel arbor, below stepped squares for the ratchet wheel and winder key; Hague practice uses little taper to the winder square.

 Riveted to the inner-cap is a thin brass spring, possibly an afterthought, which engages the stop as a simple click. Oosterwijck’s barrel bears an indistinct cipher. If original, whose? Are comparables  similarly marked?

 
Fig. 27a (click to enlarge)
The concealed stopwork.

[Coster's timepiece 'D3' also has a pierced winding arbor, above its rare dovetail barrel-cap, but that piercing is for the pin to secure the ratchet on the front-plate, in common with his other timepieces].

● English Variants.
Few early English pendulum clocks with going or split-barrels are extant; excepting later clocks by English makers trading in Holland, (Joseph Norris, Steven Tracy, the Fromanteels, etc.). At Appendix Three I identify several examples, but whenever striking is added twin going-barrels are more typical of English work, (Fromanteels, East, Bartram, etc.).

England's hiatus of split-barrels might well reflect their abject failure as timekeepers, especially when used for Fromanteel's pivoted pendulums, which probably accounts for his much earlier readoption of the fusee and his evident preference for weight clocks - as did Huygens. Both are indicative of his 'test-discard' approach, striving for better accuracy. Whereas, the Dutch makers stayed with this basic '1657' pattern even into the 1690s, consequently Holland fell far behind England, (see 'Concluding Perspectives', nr. 4).

Watch-stop work, like Oosterwijck’s but lacking his spring, is seen on the front barrel-cap of Fromanteel’s dated timepiece (c.1658); Simon Bartram’s watch-clock has two similar, but on the back plate, for his separate spring-barrels for going and strike, (c.1659). Both these have the new five-wheel trains, for longer duration, probably a Fromanteel innovation. Oosterwijck’s subject stop work relates more closely to these than to Coster’s. Have these any relevance to dating Oosterwijck’s clock, or to the Contractual ‘secreet’? Possibly. This should be investigated and didactic arguments developed. (see, 'Secreet Constructions').

But who invented, or first adapted, simple stop work? And how did Oosterwijck, Coster, also Ahasuerus Fromanteel in London come to it? Is John Fromanteel the link for a London origin? That invention's history is vital to our understanding, (see Concluding Perspectives, 4). This technical aspect has never been properly addressed.

 Taking a new account of this unique simple stop work, and its split-going-barrel, admittedly first observed in the subject Oosterwijck clock, we should now seek out comparable split-going-barrels  also stop-work in pre-Contract clocks. Publication might well bring other unknown early clocks back into the antiquarian domain, or, as already appears to be the case, cause owners and custodians to revisit their charges to inspect them with new keenness.

● Wind-Me Mechanism? 
The curious much worn ‘spur-cam’, pinned to the barrel arbor at the first stepped square, sets the most intractable puzzle. Paul Shrouder and I considered its possible function. This barrel-cam appears to relate to central pivots below the barrel, (now wrongly occupied by the hammer), also relating to a reduced internal steel post, between the front plate pivots. The evidence for the hammer being mis-planted; a hammer stop-pin at its original pivot; the clapper now ‘bumped’ along its stem dovetail to extend its reach; the angle of the front plate relief is for a more upright hammer; the long ‘L’ spring is now awkwardly bent upwards, over the hammer-spur; whereas formerly it extended along the plate to beneath the hammer spur. Correcting the hammer position would clear those secondary pivots for the lost feature. We considered a passing strike at half-hours, but the well worn barrel-cam suggests otherwise.

 The stop work of this 30-hour striking clock allows six-windings of the spring, unwinding once every five hours on average, but at irregular rates according to the hours being struck. Such an irregularity precludes any feature that marks time, but would not preclude the barrel spur tripping a detent to show the state of winding also called “up-down", often flagged on dials by "Wind Me".

● Up-Down.
Cannot be shown on this dial; we dismissed the sector or even the centre openings. And any device like Fromanteel’s globe-moon set upon the case, at the two extant peg-holes, is not viable mechanically, (see Lee, Ronald A. Op.Cit, Pl.92-97). The back plate offers no evidence.

This is not resolved, but I proposed an hypothetical, also fully demountable solution, which might be suspended below the movement, fixed to long cocks from vacant sites on the front plate. It has one obvious drawback; such a 'dial' would only be visible by lifting the dial signature plate.

My fully demountable construction would be set on two long cocks at the front plate on vacant studs and screw holes; one set just below the winder, one above the ‘L’ spring. Investigation continues, better solutions are invited. For the record, there are no plans to 'reconstruct' this hypothetical system.

THE UNIQUE BOX CASE.

● Overview.
These early pendulums were popularly regarded as being the panacea of timekeeping and the zenith of scientific instruments. They were being rushed into production to meet eager new domestic and international markets. I suggest, for that reason alone, not any Calvinist or Puritan dogma, earlier fripperies were stripped away. But an emerging French taste soon adorned these imported Dutch cases, and their own derivatives, with new pediments, crestings, mouldings, and even fine metal mounts. The two suspension eyelets (nl. ophangers) are missing; later strips set across the base steady the 'Mantle Clock' - as this Royal clock recently was addressed.

Externally, Oosterwijck’s veneered ebony case looks exactly like Coster’s. (Fig.1 above). However, at just 25.4 x 21.0 cm, and 9.25 cm deep, with a dial reveal of 20.7 x 16.2 cm, actually, it is smaller than all known Costers, excepting 'D10'.  Oosterwijck's dial at 21.2 x 16.5 cm, is one of the smallest known; and, in Hague clocks, smaller infers earlier. In point of fact, might its true chronology antedate some Coster-Fromanteel timepieces? Technically, I can see no technical reason why not.

Show Wood Carcass. Whereas all of Coster’s box cases are veneered onto deal, like the comparables and other Hague clocks, (Fromanteel uses oak), Oosterwijck’s rare box appears to be constructed from an expensive show-wood used in the solid.

Even before opening the box, the most unusual, ‘full-span’, backboard glows with its exotic hardwood carcass. Typically, Hague clock carcasses are deal, veneered inside with Indian Rosewood (Dalbergia latifolia) or Padouk (Pterocarpus spp) with Ebony veneers outside; their softwood backboards being set within thick frames formed by the sides of the box.

 
Fig. 28 (click to enlarge)
The solid show wood back-board.

I knew this vivid hardwood as Kingwood, (Dalbergia Cearencis); several furniture experts have since concurred; but Howard Page suggests Cocobolo–Dalbergia Retusa, sourced from South America.

Inside and out, the backboard figuring is identical. However the sides might require a more invasive examination, but where cut out for the sound holes and pendulum arc they do seem to be solid, revealing Dalbergia’s typical vivid ochre sapwood.

Probably, Oosterwijck’s show-wood carcass of solid Kingwood is unique. Recalling its Royal association, might his choice of ‘a Royal’ timber be a visual and metaphorical pun? The opportunity to make invasive tests, including timber density and species, is left to an appointed conservator who can properly investigate.

Normally, such expensive woods are only ever seen as veneers; as in Ahasuerus Fromanteel’s only slightly later three-month long-case timepiece, (ex-Rous Lench, now in the British Museum; see Appendix Three, Hollar 1667); also Samuel Knibb’s Royal longcase with Kingwood veneered on oak. (Lee, R.A., Op.Cit., Pl. 91)*.

Fig. 28a
Samuel Knibb's Royal longcase clock

[* Formerly at Windsor Castle. Ronald Lee repatriated this gem from America. It has Fromanteel's own maintaining power and his pivoted short pendulum to a verge escapement, with a rare early quarter-strike train. I shot these photographs at Mr Lee's galleries in Bruton Place, just after this magnificent Kingwood case had been beautifully restored by Mathew King. To Ronald's chagrin, it soon returned to America, unhindered by petitions or legal barring].

● The Construction.
Oosterwijck's simple box has no side windows, an early feature that Coster abandoned with D10, in 1659. The dial’s single winder gives us no clue to the presence of a new striking train, but two fabric backed sound holes at the lower left corner clearly denote its striking movement within.

 
Fig. 29 (click to enlarge)
The fabric backed sound holes at the lower left corner denote its striking movement.

Similar sound holes are also seen on the two extant Coster striking clocks, 'D8' and 'D10', although not on the alarum timepiece, 'D5', which has its bell mounted outside, above the case.

Fig. 30 (click to enlarge)
Thick veneers protrude around
 its box to exclude dust.

The clock winder key opens a sturdy internal lock at the large round hole on the right (III ) face. The lock releases the frame's flat brass staple, from the slot in the right stile. A brass slider then unlatches the pinned dial, which swings open with the movement attached, just as Coster arranged. The left stile is chamfered to clear the pivoting dial. The case does not require the furniture key of Coster's earliest spring-clocks, also Van Ceulen's very finest commissions.

With the movement exposed, its split-barrel and strike train are self evident. The thick bell stands proud below the movement on the IX side of the dial-plate, dome facing out, set on an obelisk bell-stand.

The dial plate is located into the box by two swivel-pins, held in wire staples set below the veneers with ends just visible. The upper dial pin is fixed to a flat plate riveted onto the dial. The lower dial pin-plate has integral steady-pins, and is screwed to the dial after its pin has been set into the recessed lower staple. This arrangement allows the dial and movement to be demounted as a single unit.

Visible outer faces of the box case are veneered in thick sawn ebony; the forward edges are mitred; bottom veneers overlap the side veneers, which overlap the top veneers. Thick sides, (2.5 cm including inner and outer veneers), have no inner returns but a small rebate seats the dial. The dial latch has its own small recess.

Fig. 31 (click to enlarge)
Case chopped out for the pendulum.

Thick door stiles (2.5 cm x 1.65 cm) match the box, but are marginally larger because protruding veneer sills overlap the box on three sides to exclude dust. Coster’s cases share this feature; presumably by the same case maker, being yet more evidence of these two makers cooperating.

The lower right corner shows evidence of impact damage. The upper hinge is fatigued, I advised its immediate repair. Paul Shrouder’s chosen glass has nice irregularities; I took it as old. Thin brass hinges are set with straps invisible under the facing veneers.

Fig. 32 (click to enlarge)

Everything so far mentioned places this case in the earliest period, almost in a class of its own. An accident has left its mark, the backboard split, the hanging-eyes are lost, the door edge crushed, and its movement ‘ran-on’. Perhaps it fell, but these repairs are more recent than Huygens’ clocks that were crushed in book-piles during carriage to Paris in 1664, (Plomp, “Pendulums”, Op.Cit. p19).

Damage Control.
Unfortunately, some damage and alterations detract from the case's structure and interior. The evidence supports an  accidental fall, that also damaged its movement. The back board was split, and is now filled and glued. Mismatched veneers front the dial-pins, where the heavy movement broke away from its box at this weakest point, despite an internal reinforcing staple. (Currently repaired with black stained pine). The hangers are gone, probably capstans with small rings, or one-piece eyelets, both their screw-holes are now capped off with plugs. The backboard now has two holes drilled to secure it to the wall.

Abrasions to the backboard testify to earlier repairs of the escapement. Sensitive conservation is being recommended.  

The box’s inner faces are now chopped-out for a wider pendulum arc. Whether for a King or a commoner, Severijn Oosterwijck would never have despatched his exotic Kingwood and Ebony case in this state. [Note, the inner sides of Coster D4's box are also scalloped out, but in neater ellipses].

First I assumed that some miscreant had failed to properly repair the once damaged escapement, so he simply rebated the box for his wider arc. But Paul Shrouder disabused me, saying ”the original amplitudes are never bettered by later repairs”. Berry Van Lieshout suggests that the real culprits for these chopped-out side were a stronger second spring (replaced), probably with shortened pallets and re-cut escape teeth. [My abstention from the bench has disadvantages].

Redundant wooden pegs are now set through the upper box. On reflection, these probably supported a pediment or crest, added in France just before its putative arrival in England in June 1660. Dr.Plomp identified several of Claude Pascal‘s earliest Hague clocks where his Dutch cases were similarly modified after their arrival in Paris.

[Van Lieshout suggests these peg-holes might even be evidence for a Cardan mount or gimbals, for use on board ship?  KP. I had not considered that possibility; there are no pressure marks to indicate clamping bolts, but a wide 'Knibb Phase 1' handle might, conceivably, have been added, although I still incline to a pediment or crest. One of Oosterwijck's sea-clock was damaged by a fall in December 1662, but they were timepieces; they showed Seconds'; and they had fusees. However, if Berry is right about the extant verge being an English repair, a different crutch might conceivably have been removed; But why the pinholes to the jaws of crutch? It would suggest a later also a very different clock, and one having quite another provenance. Here I do not anticipate any debate].

Beneath and right across the box, two black-stained wood strips are roughly nailed to steady the clock, reflecting its so called, “mantle clock” status.

● Mortised Hinges.
Since I made my inspection, Philip Oliver was instructed to repair the fatigued top hinge. Unfortunately he took no photographs, but he reports that the hinges are not fixed square on the box or door. Each hinge-plate is deeply rebated, into 45 degree mortises; ebony veneers obscure that detail.

Fig. 32a
The hinge-plates are rebated
 into 45 degree mortises, veneers obscure that detail.

This aspect of original construction may assist researchers, and prompt investigations into other early case construction techniques. [Berry Van Lieshout informs me that he has already noted this form of hinge construction]

Oosterwijck’s abused box may now be attended to by one of today's most competent conservators, who can recover its original beauty, once befitting a King. (see Appendix Two).

FIRST ASSESSMENTS.

Certainly, Oosterwijck’s Royal Hague clock proved more challenging than I had anticipated. On first reading Paul Shrouder's article, I recalled Huygens' price list of January 1659, to Boulliau in Paris, which omits any mention of 30-hour spring clocks with striking. That seemed to be a certain bar to earlier dating, but its Coster features suggested 1659-1660 as a safe date; which I later found to coincide with the family's extraordinary provenance.

Dr.Plomp suggests that Oosterwijck and Visbagh did not make ‘prototypes’ before Coster died in December 1659, (Plomp R, “Prototypes”, Op.Cit. p.203, pf.2). Whereas he puts Oosterwijck's ‘D9’, also bearing the legend "Met Privilege", before Coster's ‘D10’. He was, then, unaware of Oosterwijck's even earlier Royal clock. So, clearly, there remain uncertainties, both about historical events and chronologies, which the 'open-research' project will address.

At my own inspection, constructions not seen in another Hague clock sparked associations to research long in hand with Mr 'Berry' van Lieshout in Holland. We return to these subjects as new evidence presents itself, as in this instance the 'Royal Haagseklok'.

Oosterwijck's clock demonstrates the earliest use, and probably the only extant in any Hague clock, of the split-going-barrel with a hidden stop-work. Dr Plomp ascribes what he calls 'tandem-barrel' to Coster. But the ramifications of his claim led me into uncharted historical waters, and eventually to my concluding perspectives.

The greatest of horology's early innovators, Jost Burgi of Kassel (later Prague), first incorporated his original 'split-barrel' in a series of mechanical Globes, circa 1582, to drive two strike systems.

The subject clock's split-barrel with going and strike, surely, is an adaptation from Burgi, being in the parlance of that time 'a new invention’. But how did Oosterwijck and Coster come to it? With no English comparable now extant, evidentially, it would appear to be a Dutch adaptation as Dr Plomp has claimed. But was Coster or Oosterwijck its Dutch ‘originator’? Who actually made or licensed the craft ‘secreet’ that would be disclosed on Mayday 1658? And is the split-barrel part of that secret?

After long deliberations I now consider this clock to be a forerunner of its type, made no later than 1658; if the dating of its extant comparables can be relied on? Huygens' price list to Boulliau, dated 16th January 1659, omits 30-hour spring-clocks with striking, but shows 8-10 day duration weight clocks with striking. Would a King choose a 30-hour clock if an 8-10 day clock was already available? Therefore I should not be surprised if my provisional dating were moved nearer to the time of signing the Fromanteel-Coster Contract, on September 3^rd 1657, because striking clocks were long established and popular demand for striking already existed at all social levels.

The famous Notarial Akte (Contract) is somewhat obtuse, therefore I did consider other scenarios. The split-going-barrel might be a reliable work-horse, but it is also a Chimera. Like its simpler going-barrel, it is not suitable for precise timekeeping - even were it to indicate Seconds', no scientist would use it. Huygens' experiments always used weight clocks, (see below, "Hiatus of Seconds"). So was the split-going-barrel a commercial gimmick? In his own Patent Application, on 9th August 1658, Simon Douw correctly identifies several defects of the Huygens-Coster pendulum, also their spring and weight systems; evidently Douw was neither a simple craftsman nor a sly plagiarist as Huygens' always alleged!

Might another clockmaker, possibly even its true originator, have understood or discovered the going and split-barrels' defects as a timekeeper, then abandoned it on a Hague negotiating table to extract a bigger prize? It is an aspect none have considered, and it certainly makes for a rather more intriguing three-cornered suit.

I became confident that Oosterwijck's Royal Hague clock was made during Coster's lifetime and, very probably, it is the first of its type now extant, antedating both Coster's D8 and D10. It also demonstrates more clearly than words, just how Fromanteel's influence extended deep into Coster's workshop, and perfectly explains the use of an English word, 'secreet', in a Dutch Contract (3 September 1657). That linguistic clue must assume a significant new role in resolving this 352-year old puzzle.

These opinions will not sit well with all authorities, and may even be regarded as controversial. I suggest we let open-research provide the evidential base for an informed debate on the evolution of components and chronology of Hague clocks. Only similarly thorough re-examinations of all the extant comparables will suffice to fairly answer my hypotheses.

For those who weigh conundrums, my concluding perspectives may confirm, entertain, challenge or even awaken interest in this period. Here, I leave behind the artefact, and embark on what I regard as its more significant historical perspectives of context, with further evidence and personal insights.

In the meantime, Mathew King has accepted  the challenge of carrying out the sensitive conservation work to the furniture of the unique case. At this stage of conservation, the distressed, later, inappropriate Indian-red velvet shall be left in place until a census of experts agrees on replacement.

The first fruits of Mathew King's conservation of the case furniture. The ebony veneer at lock-slot is repaired, well selected Kingwood veneers now conceal the chopped-out sides - but leaves the underlying evidence intact for future investigators. These Kingwood veneer covers will be thinned down before final fitting. (Image by courtesy of Mathew King).

DIMENSIONS & CONSTRUCTION (click here)
 

PART II  "OSCILATORIUM"  Perspectives & Hypotheses

CONCLUDING PERSPECTIVES (click here to view)
  Coster’s Other Contracts?
        Makers of Coster Striking Clocks?
        Fromanteel Connections?
        Hidden ‘Secreet’ Constructions?
        Personal Associations?
        A Seconds’ Hiatus?
        Claims to Priority.

SEBASTIAN WHITESTONE'S DISCOVERY (click here)    
   Reflecting on the 1657 contract

GENERAL CONSERVATION ISSUES (click here)
   Valuation?
        Oosterwijck's Box Case 

OPEN RESEARCH PROJECTS & MATRIX (click here)
   Significant early makers
        Comparable Wheel Trains
        Early Pendulum Clocks 'Matrices'

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First I thank the private owners who kindly invited me to examine their rare clock; also, in the first instance, the British Horological Institute (BHI), for making contact with Paul Shrouder, also Jayne Hall who promoted and edited publication of this review. Paul has facilitated examination and answered my questions with helpful advice and sketches, he also advised the BHI in production of this review. Similarly, in Holland, Mr Fred Kats also made invaluable contributions, to bring this onto the Horological Foundation website.

I thank all those whom I have cited in my review; especially Drs Kees van Grimbergen, Carel Hofland and Pier van Leeuwen, respectively the director, manager and consultant of Museum van het Nederlandse Uurwerk at Zaandam, for providing records of wheel-trains also images of two Coster clocks (D3, D8), with consent to use; would that all museums held such records and were so co-operative. I am indebted too to Sothebys' Jonathan Hills for images and consents to show Coster timepiece (D3), and other clocks; also to Christie's Jamie Collingridge for images and consents to show Coster alarum (D5), and other clocks.

Dutch colleagues and friends, Hans van den Ende, Hans Kreft, Ruud Mestrom, Berry van Lieshout, Dr Reinier Plomp; also Nicole Brandt of the Nationaal Archief; each provided useful insights into other early Hague clocks, also the Netherlands' history. David Thompson, Head of Horology at the British Museum,  for images and train count of Bernard van Strijp's hybrid, Antwerp, Hague clock. Brian Walton, world pilot and solo-sailor, also old squadron colleague,  who gave insights into basic longitude finding and relevance of 4-minute dial. I must also acknowledge the late Ronald Lee and Peter Gwynn for their encouragement, also the private owners of Samuel Knibb's Royal kingwood longcase and of Van Ceulen clocks.

In anticipation, I thank Georgio Strano, Curator at the Museum of the History of Science, Florence, who has kindly undertaken to re-investigate Philip Treffler’s 1657 timepiece (DØcopy); Alison Boyle and Rob Skitmore of the Science Museum, London, for access and for consent to publish Coster (D4); similarly to Simon Chesters-Thompson of the National Trust also Tom Boggis, the House and Collections Manager at Lyme Park, regarding the Ahasuerus Fromanteel timepiece dated 1658. Finally I commend Dr.Elspeth Knights D.Phil. for proof reading my drafts despite her unfamiliarity with horology.

Museum Boerhaave,Leiden, presently withholds train information or access to Coster timepiece (D1), on grounds that the museum is studying it themselves, with a view to publishing an article. It is to be hoped that every custodian of our heritage will now realise the advantage of 'open research' - also to themselves and their organisations too.

● Image copyrights:

Views herein reproduced or accessible as digital links are the legal copyright of diverse persons or bodies, identified wherever possible; the copying of any View is not permitted.

Figure 6a is the legal copyright of Mr Paul Shrouder. Other Figures whether published in printed or digital media or any other form or distributed by any method, are claimed by the author, Keith Piggott, as his legal copyright.

However, in the interest of ‘open research’ (see Appendix Three), all Figures herein may be used and be reproduced freely without the express written consent of the copyright holder providing only that at each use of an image the user shall acknowledge the copyright holder. Figures may eventually be upgraded by the author, when the same free license shall also apply. However, any present or later upgraded Views may not be copied.

BIBLIOGRAPHY - SEVERIJN OOSTERWIJCK
(before 1637-1690/94)

1. “Oeuvres Completes de Christiaan Huygens”, now available to all researchers at the Biblioteque Nationale Francaise website <http://gallica.bnf>.

2. Robertson, J Drummond, “The Evolution of Clockwork”, Chapt. IX, Huygens and the determination of Latitude, p.149, p.154. (Cassell 1931) .

3. Morpurgo E, “Nederlandse klokken- en horologemakers vanaf 1300” , p.94, (Scheltema & Holkema NV. 1970)

4. Plomp, R, “Spring-driven Dutch pendulum clocks 1657-1710”, pp.19, 28, 31-33, 37,38, 178-181 (Interbook International BV, Schiedam, 1979).

5. Cataloue “Horological Masterworks”, Museum of the History of Science, Oxford,
(Antiquarian Horological Society, 2003)

6. Catalogue “Huygens’ Legacy”, Paleis Het Loo, Apeldoorn (Fromanteel Ltd.2004).

7. Vehmeyer, HM, “Clocks Their Origin And Development 1320-1880”, (Snoeck, Gent 2004).

8. Catalogue, "Octrooi op de Tijd", Museum Boerhaave, Leiden 1979.

Copyright: R.K.Piggott, February 20, 2009.

(about R. K. Piggott)                                      APPENDICES

This article is subject to ongoing revisions.