.jpg?w=1)
.jpg?w=1)
.jpg?w=1)
.jpg?w=1)
Lot Essay
A pristine survival of early American craftsmanship, this clock can be firmly attributed to the renowned Dominy family of East Hampton, Long Island. From the finials to the door hinges and single-board back, the clock is virtually in its original state and is an important document of the work of clockmaker Nathaniel Dominy IV (1737-1812) and his son and cabinetmaker, Nathaniel Dominy V (1770-1852). The functions of the works and the clock’s ownership history make it undoubtedly the clock listed in the Dominy accounts as “To an Alarm, Repeating, Telltale Clock” for Abraham Gardiner, 7 July 1792 (Charles F. Hummel, “The Dominys of East Hampton, Long Island, and Their Furniture,” Country Cabinetwork and Simple City Furniture, John D. Morse, ed. (Winterthur, 1969), p. 102). Priced at £26-16-0, it is the fourth most expensive clock of the fifty-five recorded, its high cost due to the complexity of the works.
At the time this clock was made, the alarm was a relatively recent addition to the available features made by Nathaniel Dominy IV. One of the earliest Dominy clocks with an alarm is dated 1788 and like the clock offered here, has a projecting weight drum and crown wheel that powers the alarm strike. The alarm strike on the 1788 clock is double-armed with rounded heads and contrasts with the polo mallet strike seen on this clock and another closely related example made just eight months earlier in November, 1791. Furthermore, this clock has the pierced-plates considered a hallmark of Nathaniel Dominy IV’s craftsmanship. A cost-saving practice first used by the clockmaker in 1783, such plates, writes Charles Hummel “are as distinctive and reliable an identification of a Dominy clock as fingerprints would be” (Hummer 1969, p. 45). As described in the accounts, the works are fitted with a repeating and “telltale” mechanisms, the latter a device that continuously strikes when the movement needs to be wound. The works are further fitted with a seconds sweep and calendar dial adding to the sophistication of this piece (Charles F. Hummel, With Hammer in Hand: The Dominy Craftsmen of East Hampton, New York (Winterthur, 1968), pp. 284-286, 289-291, nos. 207, 210; the 1791 clock is now in the collections of the East Hampton Historical Society).
The case of this clock is seemingly identical to that on the 1791 clock mentioned above, which was made for John Lyon Gardiner (1770-1816), 7th Proprietor of Gardiner’s Island. As discussed by Charles Hummel, John Lyon’s clock case is among the earliest made by Nathaniel Dominy V and like the case of this clock, features ball-and-spire finials, a pagoda-shaped hood, a plain arched case door, case sides that extend to the floor and applied arched feet. Further details, such as the profile of the moldings and the curved lower corners on the inner edges of the arched crest of the hood door, clearly indicate that both clocks were made in the same shop. John’s clock cost £28, £1-4-0 more than Abraham’s, and the cost differential is likely due in part to the presence, on the front of the case only, of mahogany. Another closely related clock was made in 1799 for John’s brother, David Gardiner, is now at Winterthur Museum, acc. no. 57.34.1 (see Hummel 1968, pp. 289-291, 301-303, nos. 210, 220).
This clock was almost certainly made for the Abraham Gardiner known as “Captain” (1763-1796). He was the first cousin-once removed of John Lyon and David who owned the similar clocks above; however, they were probably more like brothers as the latter two were adopted by Abraham’s father, Colonel Abraham Gardiner (1720-1782). Although the clock has a history of being made for the Colonel, the alarm function and design of the case date the piece to well after his 1782 death and the clock was almost certainly made for the younger Captain Abraham Gardiner. Furthermore, the painted three-masted ship with billowing sails in the dial’s arch may be an intentional reference to the owner’s moniker. The confusion about the original owner may be due to the specific mention of a clock in the 1782 will of the elder Abraham Gardiner and subsequently in the 1805 will of his widow. It is possible that aware of the wills, a later owner of this clock assumed it was the one referenced (Curtiss C. Gardiner, Lion Gardiner and his Descendants (1890), pp. 121-123, 131-132).
The clock descended to Abraham’s son, Abraham Smith Gardiner (1782-1827), a farmer who for a time worked on Gardiner’s Island. In 1820 he and his family moved to Whitestown (later New Hartford), New York and in the late nineteenth century, the clock was owned by his son, James Lee Gardiner (1810-1892). James corresponded with Gardiner family genealogist, Curtiss C. Gardiner, and described family relics in his possession. Among these was “an old family clock that was Col. Abraham Gardiner’s,” that like the typed label that survives with the clock, mistakenly attributes the original ownership to the elder Abraham Gardiner discussed above (Gardiner, op. cit., p. 148). James lived in his father’s homestead along with his mother and two sisters, one of whom was Juliet Lay Gardiner (1824-1895) who inherited as specified in James’ will all her brother’s possessions. She died just a few years later and her will makes special reference to the clock: “I give, devise and bequeath my old family clock to my sister Mary F. Hazard during her life and at her death I give, devise and bequeath the same to be nephew Richard Nicholl Gardiner of Peekskill, N.Y.” (Will of Juliet L. Gardiner, ancestry.com, New York, U.S., Wills and Probate Records, 1659-1999, vol. 41-42 (1894-1896) [database on-line], accessed 17 December 2022). Mary Frances (Gardiner) Hazard (1816-1896) owned the clock for less than year before she died and rather than passing to their nephew as Juliet’s will instructed, the clock appears to have passed to Mary’s daughter, Lois Gertrude (Hazard) Hill (1836-1931) and then to her son, William G. Hill (1868-1947). Married three times, William's third wife was Nellie L. Brougham (1878-1957), the widow of Claude Merton Cook (1877-1935). The clock was subsequently inherited by her sons from her first marriage whose names are scratched in the inside of the door, Leslie R. Cook (b. 1903) and Claude Merton Cook (1917-1982), and is being sold by a member of the subsequent generation.
At the time this clock was made, the alarm was a relatively recent addition to the available features made by Nathaniel Dominy IV. One of the earliest Dominy clocks with an alarm is dated 1788 and like the clock offered here, has a projecting weight drum and crown wheel that powers the alarm strike. The alarm strike on the 1788 clock is double-armed with rounded heads and contrasts with the polo mallet strike seen on this clock and another closely related example made just eight months earlier in November, 1791. Furthermore, this clock has the pierced-plates considered a hallmark of Nathaniel Dominy IV’s craftsmanship. A cost-saving practice first used by the clockmaker in 1783, such plates, writes Charles Hummel “are as distinctive and reliable an identification of a Dominy clock as fingerprints would be” (Hummer 1969, p. 45). As described in the accounts, the works are fitted with a repeating and “telltale” mechanisms, the latter a device that continuously strikes when the movement needs to be wound. The works are further fitted with a seconds sweep and calendar dial adding to the sophistication of this piece (Charles F. Hummel, With Hammer in Hand: The Dominy Craftsmen of East Hampton, New York (Winterthur, 1968), pp. 284-286, 289-291, nos. 207, 210; the 1791 clock is now in the collections of the East Hampton Historical Society).
The case of this clock is seemingly identical to that on the 1791 clock mentioned above, which was made for John Lyon Gardiner (1770-1816), 7th Proprietor of Gardiner’s Island. As discussed by Charles Hummel, John Lyon’s clock case is among the earliest made by Nathaniel Dominy V and like the case of this clock, features ball-and-spire finials, a pagoda-shaped hood, a plain arched case door, case sides that extend to the floor and applied arched feet. Further details, such as the profile of the moldings and the curved lower corners on the inner edges of the arched crest of the hood door, clearly indicate that both clocks were made in the same shop. John’s clock cost £28, £1-4-0 more than Abraham’s, and the cost differential is likely due in part to the presence, on the front of the case only, of mahogany. Another closely related clock was made in 1799 for John’s brother, David Gardiner, is now at Winterthur Museum, acc. no. 57.34.1 (see Hummel 1968, pp. 289-291, 301-303, nos. 210, 220).
This clock was almost certainly made for the Abraham Gardiner known as “Captain” (1763-1796). He was the first cousin-once removed of John Lyon and David who owned the similar clocks above; however, they were probably more like brothers as the latter two were adopted by Abraham’s father, Colonel Abraham Gardiner (1720-1782). Although the clock has a history of being made for the Colonel, the alarm function and design of the case date the piece to well after his 1782 death and the clock was almost certainly made for the younger Captain Abraham Gardiner. Furthermore, the painted three-masted ship with billowing sails in the dial’s arch may be an intentional reference to the owner’s moniker. The confusion about the original owner may be due to the specific mention of a clock in the 1782 will of the elder Abraham Gardiner and subsequently in the 1805 will of his widow. It is possible that aware of the wills, a later owner of this clock assumed it was the one referenced (Curtiss C. Gardiner, Lion Gardiner and his Descendants (1890), pp. 121-123, 131-132).
The clock descended to Abraham’s son, Abraham Smith Gardiner (1782-1827), a farmer who for a time worked on Gardiner’s Island. In 1820 he and his family moved to Whitestown (later New Hartford), New York and in the late nineteenth century, the clock was owned by his son, James Lee Gardiner (1810-1892). James corresponded with Gardiner family genealogist, Curtiss C. Gardiner, and described family relics in his possession. Among these was “an old family clock that was Col. Abraham Gardiner’s,” that like the typed label that survives with the clock, mistakenly attributes the original ownership to the elder Abraham Gardiner discussed above (Gardiner, op. cit., p. 148). James lived in his father’s homestead along with his mother and two sisters, one of whom was Juliet Lay Gardiner (1824-1895) who inherited as specified in James’ will all her brother’s possessions. She died just a few years later and her will makes special reference to the clock: “I give, devise and bequeath my old family clock to my sister Mary F. Hazard during her life and at her death I give, devise and bequeath the same to be nephew Richard Nicholl Gardiner of Peekskill, N.Y.” (Will of Juliet L. Gardiner, ancestry.com, New York, U.S., Wills and Probate Records, 1659-1999, vol. 41-42 (1894-1896) [database on-line], accessed 17 December 2022). Mary Frances (Gardiner) Hazard (1816-1896) owned the clock for less than year before she died and rather than passing to their nephew as Juliet’s will instructed, the clock appears to have passed to Mary’s daughter, Lois Gertrude (Hazard) Hill (1836-1931) and then to her son, William G. Hill (1868-1947). Married three times, William's third wife was Nellie L. Brougham (1878-1957), the widow of Claude Merton Cook (1877-1935). The clock was subsequently inherited by her sons from her first marriage whose names are scratched in the inside of the door, Leslie R. Cook (b. 1903) and Claude Merton Cook (1917-1982), and is being sold by a member of the subsequent generation.