Laporte Hubbell A Nineteenth-Century American Clockmaker

Transcription

1 Laporte Hubbell A Nineteenth-Century American Clockmaker At the beginning of the nineteenth century, the countryside around Bristol, CT, was poised to nurture the birth of the American clockmaking industry. Starting with wooden movements made from local timber, and later transitioning to rolled brass, Bristol s dominance would last well into the twentieth century. One clockmaker, though not well known outside the business, had a significant influence on the industry. That clockmaker was Laporte Hubbell (Figure 1), an ingenious mechanic who developed and produced clock movements for the industry for 40 years. Few, if any, clocks carry his name, but many contain his movements. Born in 1824, Laporte was one of 12 children born to William R. Hubbell and Juliann Botsford. William R. was born in Newtown, CT, in 1792 and moved to Bristol about He married Juliann, a year later, in An 1852 map, located in the Bristol Public Library, documents the location of the house where Laporte was born. The house, built in 1812, remained in the Hubbell family until the 1960s and still stands today (2011) at the corner of South Street and Mt. Road (see Figures 2 and 3.) Little is known about William R. Hubbell s life. Two letters written to William were uncovered in the American Clock and Watch Museum in Bristol, CT. The letters indicate that at least from 1828 to 1831, William was in the frame or window-making business and had contracts to supply frames or windows to concerns in New York City and Philadelphia. William s granddaughter, Ellen Hubbell, donated her grandfather s business letters to the Connecticut Historical Society s Manuscript Collections, which also contain letters from a Philadelphia sales agent from 1828 to 572 November/December 2013 NAWCC Watch & Clock Bulletin by Richard W. Hubble (CA) Figure 1. Laporte Hubbell, and receipts for boxes of glass received on board various steam vessels at Hartford destined for Philadelphia dated Two additional pieces of information about William R. s life include an entry in the Jerome, Grant & Co. (clockmakers) ledger that shows William F. Hubbell was paid $5 for ten bushels of corn in December Because there were no other William Hubbells living in Bristol at this time (except for his son William, who was 5 years of age in 1842), this must be William R.; this entry suggests that he was also employed, at least part-time, by the Jerome, Grant & Co. clockmaking business sometime between 1842 and Also employed by Jerome, Grant & Co. during this time period was William R. s oldest son (Laporte s brother) Fayette M. Hubbell. In 1831 William R. is recorded as having a pew in the newly built Congregational Church in Bristol. 4 Among other noted members of this church were the clockmakers Joseph Ives, Elisha Manross, Elisha Brewster, Chauncey Boardman, and John Birge, five well-known early Bristol clockmakers. Figure 2. Location of the William R. Hubbell home in Bristol, CT, and the birthplace of Laporte. In 1836, at the age of 12, Laporte began working as an apprentice to Thomas Fuller in the Birge, Mallory & Co. clock shop. At the time this map was made (1852), Birge, Mallory & Co. was known as Birge, Peck & Co. and occupied the same buildings that are located in the upper left-hand corner of the map. The distance from the house to the factory is less than a 1,000 feet. From an 1852 map of Bristol and Forestville, CT, located in the Bristol Public Library.

2 Figure 3. William R. Hubbell house in Bristol, CT, built in 1812 and the birthplace of Laporte Hubbell. The house still stands today (2011). John Birge, and to some extent Elisha Manross, would play a role in Laporte s career. PERIOD 1: John Warner Barber in his Connecticut Historical Collections published in 1836, described Bristol, CT, as a manufacturing town, and the inhabitants are distinguished for their enterprise and industry; there are at present 16 clock factories, in which nearly 100,000 brass and wooden clocks have been manufactured in a single year. 5 In 1836 at the age of 12 and with only a grammar school education, Laporte went to work as an apprentice of Thomas F. Fuller in the clockmaking concern of (John) Birge and Mallory. 6 The years also correspond to the start of two major upheavals in the clockmaking industry. First, a countrywide financial panic, beginning in 1837, held the country in a depression for a couple of years and forced a number of well-known Connecticut clockmaking firms into bankruptcy. Second, a major transition from mass-produced wooden clock movements to mass-produced rolled brass clock movements was taking place. This transition occurred around and was important because Laporte probably began his training or quickly transitioned to the new mass-produced brass movements during this period. Laporte continued to work in the clock industry for a number of different companies, including Birge, Mallory & Co., Birge, Peck & Co., and Smith & Goodrich from 1836 until In 1846 Laporte, at the age of 22, married his first cousin, Lucy M. Hubbell (see Table 1). PERIOD 2: : THE BEGINNING In June 1848 the clockmaking firm of Hendrick, Barnes and Company was formed. The principals in this company were Ebenezer Hendrick, William B. Barnes, Rodney Barnes, Daniel Clark, and Laporte Hubbell. The firm was formed to manufacture a new type of brass clock that is referred to as the marine clock or balance wheel clock. Information about the firm s founding and early years come from two primary sources. The story of the founding of the firm comes from a four-page letter, written by Rodney Barnes around 1876, that was found in Edward Ingraham s library. 8 This letter was published in The Timepiece Journal of the American Clock and Watch Museum, 9 and in the local Bristol newspaper, The Bristol Press. 10 The second source of information on the early years of the company comes from Rodney Barnes s account books. 11 According to Rodney Barnes, he approached Ebenezer Hendrick in 1848 with the idea of forming a company to manufacture a clock that his brother, William Bainbridge Barnes, had designed. Ebenezer Hendrick was a financier in the Bristol area and was involved in financing a number of clock companies. The new company leased the old Elisha Manross clock shop on the west side of Frederick Street. This shop originally had been Joseph Ives s shop and is reportedly the first manufacturing business in Forestville, CT. Ives built the shop in In 1833 Forestville Village was established. By 1848 Forestville was a small hamlet about one or two miles from downtown Bristol. Today, Forestville has been incorporated into the town of Bristol. In 1849 Laporte s first son Marshall Upson Hubbell was born. In July 1850, with the company doing very well, Ebenezer Hendrick and Laporte Hubbell purchased the clock shop from Manross for $2,000. Because only Hendrick and Hubbell invested in the purchase of the shop, it appeared that by 1850 the Barnes brothers were only peripherally involved in the company. By the end of 1850 the company employed 19 workers and produced 15,000 of the new brass movements per year. 7 The marine movements that the new company produced were in high demand as boat and rail traffic increased in mid-nineteenth-centuryamerica. The quick success of the company is reportedly due to the energy and abilities of Laporte. From Rodney Barnes: they were successful, and in justice to Mr. Hubbell I will say that the success of the firm was owing, to a great extent, to his zeal. He worked early and late, hardly taking time to eat and sleep. He made the dies and punches with his own hands. He also made what is called a punch box, used in punching holes in the plates for pivots. It was a very delicate job, and, besides he had very few tools to work with. Mr. Hubbell has been through a great many hard struggles, and I am happy to say has been crowned with success. 10 High praise, indeed, from a coowner and peer. The letter also stated that Chauncey Jerome bought all the clock movements made by this firm in these early years. This was not an unusual collaboration in the clock industry. Many well-known clockmakers would buy clock movements and/ or cases from other shops, assemble them, and then sell the finished clock under their name. NAWCC Watch & Clock Bulletin November/December

3 TABLE 1. Laporte Hubbell family genealogy: Laporte is a direct descendant of Richard Hubball, who arrived in America during the second wave of immigration in the late 1630s. Laporte s mother and grandmother are Botsfords and related to Samuel Botsford, another Connecticut clockmaker. Laporte married his first cousin Lucy Marie Hubbell in Note also that Laporte s sister, Ruth, married Ralph Terry, son of Samuel, and a nephew of Eli Terry. So, what did the new Barnes movement look like? Unfortunately, the company did not take out a patent on the novel design and in its early years did not sign its movements. This has made it difficult to positively identify an early movement. Figure 4 shows two movements that were manufactured sometime around with a Chauncey Jerome stamp on the front plate. Because Jerome was a major or possibly the sole user of the new movement in the late 1840s and early 1850s, these could be examples of the original Barnes design. Writing in the 1870s, Rodney Barnes stated that the movements made in the 1870s were very similar to the original movement. Figures 5A and 5B show a typical 30-hour, 2-plate movement with the L. Hubbell patent date (see later discussion about the patent) that reveals the wheel layout along with the 574 November/December 2013 NAWCC Watch & Clock Bulletin major components. From 1848 to 1889 the wheels and verge/lever assembly did not change position in the basic 2-plate, non-striking, design. However, the placement of the minute wheel and certain tooth counts did vary over the years. See Figure 8 for examples of the different 2-plate, 30-hour movements and Table 2 for tooth counts and wheel dimensions. It should be stated that it is assumed that the variations in the movements over time were the result of changes in management or done for economical reasons. However, it is possible that some of the movements in Figure 8 were manufactured by other shops that copied, with minor changes, the very successful Barnes design. It will be difficult to sort out the differences. As we shall see later, Laporte produced other movement designs besides the basic 30-hour, 2-plate Barnes design. The idea for the design of this new movement is not documented, but the balance wheel and lever design of marine chronometers, first developed in the middle of the eighteenth century by the Englishman John Harrison and others, 13 were similar in concept to the marine movement being built by Hendrick, Barnes/Hubbell. The chronometer timepieces were exceptionally accurate, but very expensive and difficult to make and thus not an option for most Americans. Reliable and moderately priced pocket watches would not be available for another 20 years, and pendulum clocks could not keep time on a moving train or boat. Thus, there was considerable effort to develop an inexpensive American marine or balance wheel clock in the middle of the nineteenth century. In the late 1830s Connecticut clockmakers started experimenting with

4 Figure 4. Two, 30-hour, marine movements stamped with Chauncey Jerome New Haven Conn USA. This is possibly what the earliest Barnes design looked like. The movement on the left is from a mantel lever shelf clock sold by the Jerome Manufacturing Co. from 1850 to at least The movement on the right was found in the case shown in Figure 6. According to Rodney Barnes, Chauncey Jerome was the exclusive buyer of the new marine movements produced in the Hendrick, Barnes/Hubbell shops in the early years. This fact suggests that these early Jerome movements were manufactured by Hendrick, Barnes/Hubbell. With Jerome filing for bankruptcy in February of 1856, the Jerome stamp places the manufacture of these movements somewhere between 1849 and The possibility exists that the above movements are not examples of the original Barnes movement but, instead, copies of the Barnes design. This seems unlikely for at least two reasons. First, Jerome s movement factory in Bristol burnt to the ground in April Subsequently, Jerome moved his operation to New Haven and built a new movement factory there. Could this operation have come up to full production, making all of the Jerome pendulum movements and started producing a copy of the Barnes movement by 1849? Perhaps. Secondly, if Jerome was producing his own marine movement by 1849, why buy all of the movements being produced by Hendrick, Barnes/Hubbell? Further circumstantial evidence is furnished in Jerome s catalog. 12 Along with the Mantel Lever clock sited above, Jerome listed the Tom Thumb, Jr., and Putnam models that contained a Pomeroy marine movement and the Paris model containing a Botsford marine movement. Clearly, Jerome was outsourcing for marine movements to put into his clocks. Another possibility is that the original Barnes design closely resembles Movement A shown in Figure 8. This movement and the Jerome movement have identical wheel layouts and tooth counts. (See Table 2.) The verge/lever designs are, however, different. (See Figure 27 for further discussion.) The only other movement that displays similar characteristics is the Manross marine movements SL2.1 and SL It is believed that the Manross movements were copies of the Barnes design and were produced starting around As can be seen in Table 2, the Manross marine movements contain the exact same wheel layout and tooth counts as all the other movements. The only difference with the Manross movements is the cutouts of the plates and the tooth count on the fourth wheel. 23 There are two other features exhibited by the above movements, besides the Jerome stamp, that need to be mentioned and are probably characteristic of the earliest marine designs. Arrow A points to an adjustable steel bushing (also called a steel bearing) for the verge/lever assembly. The design is identical to the adjustable bushing used for the balance wheel and spring (Arrow C). In later movements, this feature is replaced with a normal brass bushing. Arrow B points to a unique piece that holds the fast/slow lever. This second feature has been replaced with a newer design in the movement on the right even though the hole for the old style piece is present. This suggests that the movement on the right is a later and transitional piece. At this time only the Jerome stamped movement above and the Manross marine movements have been found with these features. The position of the minute wheel (Arrow D) has varied over time, and its significance to the identification of and/or dating of these movements is not known at this time. However, there is some evidence that the original Barnes movement placed the minute wheel at the 2 o clock position (ca. 1850), and by 1853 the wheel position had been moved to the 6 o clock position. (See comments with reference 12 and Figure 8). In conclusion, although the information presented above is useful, it does not resolve the uncertainty. At this time we do not know, for certain, what the original Barnes design looked like. balance wheel movements that were cheaper and easier to manufacture than the marine chronometers being developed in England and France. For a review on the development of different escapements, which became precursors to those used in balance wheel movements, see reference 14. The father and son team of Eli and Silas B. Terry, in the late 1830s, was one of the first of the Connecticut clockmakers to experiment with balance wheel movements using weights. 15 Later, when steel springs became affordable, using his father s balance wheel NAWCC Watch & Clock Bulletin November/December

5 Exposed View of a Typical Laporte Hubbell Marine or Balance Wheel Clock Figure 5A, right, is an example of a basic 2-plate, Laporte Hubbell 30-hour marine movement. This movement has the L. Hubbell patent stamp on the front plate, dating it after Figure 5B, far right, is with front plate removed to show the components and wheel alignment. This design is thought to be very similar to the original Barnes design because few changes were made between 1848 and patent (Patent No assigned in 1845), Silas B. Terry produced a number of balance wheel clocks in the late 1840s and early 1850s. Figure 7 is an example of one of his early balance wheel clocks. 16, 17 None of Terry s experimental clocks were commercially successful, so they are rare today. Charles Kirk, another Bristol clockmaker, patented (1848) and produced a unique balance wheel movement using two escape wheels from 1847 to His design was put into production and had limited commercial success. 18, 19 (See Figure 9.) Other competitors, in the late 1840s and early 1850s, for the marine clock business included Laporte s second cousin, Samuel Botsford, who worked Figure 6. Chauncey Jerome octagon. The movement from this case is shown in the right-hand photo in Figure 4 and might be an example of the original Barnes design. The label is too worn to photograph. 576 November/December 2013 NAWCC Watch & Clock Bulletin simultaneously with Jewell, Mathews & Co. from 1851 to 1853 and the Litchfield Manufacturing Co. from 1850 to 1854 and later with the Marine Clock Mfg. Co. from 1857 to He designed a unique balance wheel movement called the Botsford Movement. (See Figure 10.) Although Kirk and Botsford developed unique movements that bore little physical resemblance to the Barnes movement, these competing movements lacked a robust design; consequently, they were not economical to manufacture and maintain, and thus 11, 21 are relatively rare today. Other early balance wheel movements, including Noah Pomeroy s 4 (Figure 11) and Elisha Manross s 23 have been identified, but they appear to be copies, with minor modifications, of Barnes s balance wheel and lever design. The Manross movements are interesting for a number of reasons. First, the basic movement is almost identical to the Barnes design except for the cutouts on the front plate and the tooth count on wheel four (see Table 2). This is not surprising because at the time Hendrick, Barnes/Hubbell was leasing one of Manross s shops, and he probably had firsthand access to the new movements. For an in-depth review of Manross, see A. Lee Smith s article, which includes pictures of the SL2.1 and SL2.2 movements and tooth counts. 23 Second, in 1849 Levi Beach, working for Manross, redesigned and patented an 8-day marine movement (Figure 13). Beach was awarded a design patent (No. 6739) in September His design was not for a unique balance wheel movement; rather, it was for an 8-day balance wheel movement using two springs driving the same pinion. All earlier movements were 30-hour driven by one spring. Manross used Beach s movement in clocks from 1850 to This design Figue 7. Prototype Silas B. Terry balance wheel clock using steel springs and Eli Terry s patented balance wheel movement.

6 Figure 8. Variations in the placement of the minute wheel on the basic 2-plate movement. In all these movements the wheel layout, the construction of the verge/lever, and other features (like the fast/slow assembly) are all the same and identical to Figures 5A and 5B. The plate cutouts are identical except Movements A, B, and F. In these three movements the tombstone cutouts on the front plate are the same, except the upper part is more deeply cut. Movement B has the E. N. Welch stamp, whereas Movement A has no stamp on the plate but was found in an octagon case with a Welch label. Movement F has no stamp on the front plate, and there was no label on the octagon case. See Table 2 for wheel tooth counts, wheel diameters, and further discussion. Movement A. Minute wheel at 11 o clock. No stamp on plate. Label on octagon case is E. N. Welch. Seconds arbor. Deep tombstone cut on front plate. See Table 2 for tooth data. Movement B. Minute wheel at 2 o clock. E. N. Welch stamp on plate. No case. Seconds arbor. Deep tombstone cut on front plate. See Table 2 for tooth data. Movement C. Minute wheel at 2 o clock. No stamp on plate. Bradley and Hubbard Sambo clock. No seconds arbor but hole present. Hour wheel has 40 teeth. No other wheel data available. Movement D. Minute wheel at 2 o clock. No stamp on plate. No label on octagon case. Both minute and hour wheels are solid. Identical movement with New Haven octagon case label identified also with an hour wheel with 32 teeth (picture not shown). See Table 2 for tooth data. Movement E. Minute wheel at 6 o clock. L. Hubbell stamp on movement. No label on octagon case. No seconds arbor but hole present. With alarm. See Table 2 for tooth data. Movement F. Minute wheel at 2 o clock (removed in this photo). No stamp on plate. No label on octagon case. Seconds arbor missing. Solid 1st (power) wheel. Deep tombstone cut on front plate. See Table 2 for tooth data. Movement G. Minute wheel at 6 o clock. L. Hubbell stamp on plate. No label on octagon case. Seconds arbor. Solid hour wheel. Hour wheel has 32 teeth. No other wheel data available. Movement H. Minute wheel at 6 o clock. No stamp on plate. Daniel Pratt label on octagon case. Seconds arbor. Hour wheel has 32 teeth. No other wheel data available. Movement I. Minute wheel at 6 o clock. L. Hubbell stamp on plate. Kroeber label on octagon case. Seconds arbor. Hour wheel has 32 teeth. No other wheel data available. NAWCC Watch & Clock Bulletin November/December

7 Figure 9. Charles Kirk s unique double escape wheel marine movement produced from 1847 to Although considered by some to be the first commercially viable balance wheel clock, these movements had limited success. was later used in Laporte s Christmas Tree movement. More discussion of the Christmas Tree movement is presented later in this article. PERIOD 3: : THE NEW COMPANY CONTINUES TO GROW In 1851 the Barnes brothers sold their shares in the company and the name of the firm changed to Hendrick, Hubbell and Company. Rodney Barnes continued as a contract machinist, supplying clock parts to Hendrick and Hubbell and to other clock companies for the next 30 years. He also supplemented his income with other odd jobs and was heavily involved in real estate development in Forestville. 4, 10 William Barnes retired from active work in 1845 after being kicked in the head by a horse and having a 2x2-inch piece of bone removed from his skull. 22 Despite the accident, he designed the 1848 balance wheel movement. Unfortunately, he failed to apply for a patent for this design, so it was widely copied. In 1860 he applied for and was granted a patent (No. 30,558) for the redesign of a pendulum movement. Daniel Clark s involvement with the company at that 578 November/December 2013 NAWCC Watch & Clock Bulletin time is unknown. Business was very good for Laporte, and his family continued to grow. In 1851 Laporte s second son Walter C. was born. In 1851 Laporte also built a new home in Forestville. The same 1852 Bristol area map, referenced earlier, features a vignette of Laporte s new house (Figure 12). In 1853 daughter Lillah M. and third son Frederick Laporte were born. In 1853 Elisha Manross declared bankruptcy and closed his shop. That same year in April Levi Beach was sold a one-third share in the company for $1,667, and the name of the company changed to Hendrick, Beach and Hubbell. 21, 23 As discussed earlier, Levi Beach worked for Elisha Manross and likely had a hand in the development and manufacture of the Manross marine movements. In May 1854 Hendrick, Beach and Hubbell, along with Noble Jerome (Chauncey s brother), E. N. Welch, J. C. Brown, and English & Welch formed the Empire Clock Company. Jerome was elected president and Hendrick, Hubbell, and Brown were elected directors. The new company was formed to manufacture clock movements and it is believed that the Jerome Manufacturing Company was its primary customer. 12 By May 1855 Noble Jerome had transferred most of his interest in the Empire Clock Company to Chauncey Jerome and left Bristol for Waterbury. PERIOD 4: : A PERIOD OF TURMOIL By 1855 the company was such an important supplier of marine movements that in April of that year Chauncey Jerome bought out the company for $10,000, and the marine works became part of the Jerome Manufacturing Company. 7 Hubbell and Beach became supervisors and continued to run the operations. However, less than a year later, in February 1856, Jerome s business failed, and he filed for bankruptcy. Ebenezer Hendrick, a major investor in the Jerome business, also was forced to file for bankruptcy. According to Rodney Barnes, both Figure 10. A Botsford balance wheel movement produced from about 1851 to Like the Kirk movement, this design had limited commercial success.

8 Tooth count and wheel diameter data for selected movements shown in Figures 4 and Figures 8. TABLE 2. The Jerome movement (Figure 4) and all of the movements in Figure 8, where data is available, have virtually identical wheel diameters and tooth counts for wheels one through four and the escape wheel. The wheel layout and all other features are the same (more on this later). Construction of the verge/lever assembly differs between the Jerome movement and all of the others. (See Figure 27 for further discussion.) The plate dimensions for the Jerome movement are larger than the other movements. For all the movements the plate cutouts are identical except for the depth of the tombstone cutout on the front plate. The one movement that is not the same is the Manross movement. (Not shown here; see reference 23). Here the 4th wheel has an additional four teeth, the plate dimensions are smaller, and the plate cutouts are very different. It is interesting that there are differences in the canon pinion and the minute and hour wheels. It appears that the very early movements (the Jerome and Manross movements and Figure 8, Movement A) have different tooth counts and diameters. See also Movement C in Figure 8. This is of a Bradley and Hubbard Sambo clock and is estimated to have been manufactured around The hour wheel has 40 teeth. No other data are available for this movement. For comparison, see the L. Hubbell stamped movement (Movement E in Figure 8). The L. Hubbell stamp dates this movement to around 1865 or later and probably represents the final version of the basic design. Laporte Hubbell and Levi Beach were able to restructure their debts with their creditors, so bankruptcy proceedings were avoided. A year later, in April of 1857, the bankruptcy trustees sold the Beach & Hubbell division of the Jerome Company to Elisha N. Welch, the owner of another clockmaking firm in Bristol. 24 It is probable that Beach and Hubbell continued to manufacture clock movements for Welch during this period. In 1859 Welch rented the factory back to Beach and Hubbell, and the firm became known as Hubbell & Beach (or Beach & Hubbell). It was not until 1863 that Welch sold his interest in the company. From 1857 to 1863 the E. N. Welch Company used the 2-plate, 30-hour, Beach and Hubbell marine movement in his marine clocks as Chauncey Jerome had previously done. Like Jerome, movements made during this time period may or may not have any identification stamp on them. Two, 2-plate movements have been located with either the E. N. Welch stamp on the front plate (see Figure 8, Mvmt. B) or in a case with a Welch label (see Figure 8, Mvmt. A). It is likely that Movement A was manufactured sometime around 1855 because of the patent date on the label. Figure 14 shows the case. The label is badly worn but reads Thirty Hour Marine s Manufactured and Sold By E.N. Welch Forestville, Conn USA Patented??? 1855 A very superior article both Eight?? Thirty Hour constantly on hand. All orders NAWCC Watch & Clock Bulletin November/December

9 Figure 11. A Noah Pomeroy balance wheel movement produced from 1849 to It s likely that this is a modification of the Barnes design with the balance wheel placed on the outside of the front plate. The wheel placement and even the front plate are very similar to the Barnes design. Tooth counts for this movement were not available. Figure 13. Elisha Manross balance wheel movement using Beach s 1849 patent for an 8-day clock using two springs to driving the same pinion. It was in production from 1850 to This patent design was later used in Laporte s Christmas Tree movement. 580 November/December 2013 NAWCC Watch & Clock Bulletin Figure 12. Laporte Hubbell s new house built around 1851 in Forestville, CT. From an 1852 map of Bristol and Forestville, CT. This house still stands today (2011). Figure 14, left. Case for Movement A in Figure 8. The label reads: Thirty Hour Marine s Manufactured and Sold By E.N. Welch Forestville, Conn USA Patented??? A very superior article both Eight?? Thirty Hour constantly on hand. All orders prompt? lowest cash price. (Label is too badly damaged to reproduce here). Only four regular patents and two design patents were issued in On Dec. 11, 1855, J. C.Brown was issued a patent (#746) for the octagon case with an oval slope or curve which terminates at the octagonal sides. Even though this design was under patent, it was extensively copied by most of the other clockmakers. COURTESY OF NILE GODFREY. prompt? lowest cash price. Only four regular patents and two design patents were issued in On December 11, 1855, J. C. Brown was issued a design patent (No. 746) for the octagon case with an oval slope or curve which terminates at the octagonal sides. Figure 8, Mvmt. B, with the Welch stamp on the front plate, could have been manufactured between 1857 and Starting around 1857 the company began experimenting with a new movement design. The major distinguishing feature of this new design is the presence of a third or middle plate that holds the seconds arbor, third and fourth wheels, escape wheel, verge-lever assembly, and balance wheel. This design went through several modifications and ultimately became known as the Umbrella movement because of the unique umbrella-shaped cutout(s) in the plates. (See Figures 17 and 18 for examples.) The following discussion introduces three examples of early Umbrella movement designs that were probably manufactured during the time period. The first and probably earliest example of this new design is seen in Figures 15A-D. Only a few of these movements have been located with the Beach & Hubbell, Forestville Conn. name. A close examination of Figure 15A shows that this movement differs from the 2-plate movement in a number of features, including the presence of a third or middle plate, the location of the mainspring ratchet (moved from the inside of the front plate to the outside), and different cutout designs on the front plate. These three distinguishing physical features are found in all later Umbrella movement designs. Unlike the final Umbrella movement design, the fast/slow lever holder on the Beach & Hubbell movement is of an earlier design (see Figure 4). Unfortunately, this movement was not available for a more indepth analysis. The second example, called the Inverted D movement, has an E. N. Welch FORESTVILLE CT U.S.A stamp on the front plate. See Figure 16. The design of this movement contains an

10 A D Figures 15A-15D. (A) A Beach & Hubbell signed movement, ca Unlike the earlier 2-plate movements, this new movement has a third or middle plate (B) that supports the balance wheel, verge/lever, the last two wheels of the time train, and the seconds arbor. (C) Closeup of Beach and Hubbell stamp. (D) Octagon case containing the movement. No label, on the case, was recorded. No wheel and plate information is available. C Figures 16. The inverted D movement with E. N. WELCH FORESTVILLE CT U.S.A stamp. Except for the cutouts on the front and backplate, the frame of this movement is identical to Laporte s Umbrella movement with the 3-plate design. This movement could possibly be an early prototype of the Umbrella movement or a copy of the Hubbell design by Welch after Verge assembly was missing in this movement. See Table 3 for wheel and plate information. MOVEMENT COURTESY OF NILE GODFREY. NAWCC Watch & Clock Bulletin November/December

11 A Figure 17. (A) Umbrella movement showing the middle (3rd) plate that holds the balance wheel, verge/lever, escape wheel, fourth and third wheels, and seconds arbor. This design allows for smaller B wheels and thus reduced friction. Also note the umbrella-shaped cutouts in both plates. Arrows indicate bushing locations for each wheel on the bottom plate. (B) Laporte s Umbrella movement is the final design modification of earlier movements, including the Beach & Hubbell movement illustrated in Figures 15A-15D. This example has the balance wheel escapement and carries the October 10, 1865, patent date. Pendulum escapement movements have been documented (see Reed s tonic clock). Verge assembly is shown in Figure 27. See Table 3 for wheel and plate information. From a 16-inch octagon clock. Clock label reads: Eight Day- Waterbury Clock Company- Manufacturers of-eight Day and Thirty Hour-Brass Clocks and Time Pieces-also-Regulators-in every style-manufactory-waterbury, Conn. Francis Ha? & Co. Printers?Landt St. N.Y. Figure 18. Unmarked 3-plate movement that is identical to Laporte s Umbrella movement except for the plate cutouts. Also see Figure 19B. Not having the L. Hubbell stamp suggests that this movement was manufactured before the 1865 patents were issued. This movement was found in an S. B. Jerome circular case (left). Jerome patented the case design (No. 1763) in June of 1863 (see label above). Verge assembly is shown in Figure 27. See Table 3 for wheel and plate information. 582 November/December 2013 NAWCC Watch & Clock Bulletin

12 Figures 19. Clock made for President Chester A. Arthur with a prototype Umbrella movement. Also see Figure 19. The NAWCC Museum tentatively dates the clock around 1880, but because it contains an unsigned Umbrella movement suggests that the clock was made before COURTESY OF THE NEW YORK HISTORICAL SOCIETY AND NAWCC PRESIDENTIAL WATCH AND CLOCK EXHIBIT. identically placed and shaped third plate. However, the wheel tooth count and plate cutouts are different from the Umbrella and Beach and Hubbell movements. Unfortunately, this movement was found without a case and missing the verge/lever assembly and escape wheel. It is possible that this movement is not an Umbrella prototype but instead an E. N. Welch copy of the Umbrella movement and thus postdates Additional examples need to be identified before a final determination can be made. The third example is clearly an early prototype of the Umbrella movement. Except for the plate cutouts and the lever tines, all other aspects of this movement are identical to the Umbrella movement. More on the lever tines below. This third example was found in an S. B. Jerome round wall clock (see Figure 18) and the Chester A. Arthur Presidential Clock (see Figure 19). Neither of these two movements has the L. Hubbell name or patent dates stamped on the front plate. What does seem to be clear from these examples is that the Umbrella movement went through a number of design changes from approximately 1857 to It s not clear which of these three movements was the original design and thus manufactured first, but it seems reasonable to conclude that the Beach & Hubbell movement was probably the first based on the name on the plate, the lack of plate cutouts, and the design of the fast/slow lever. On this movement the front plate cutout is just one square that looks similar in size and position to all subsequent movements. Cutouts on the backplate cannot be determined. It is reasonable to conclude that because See Figure 16. See Figure 18. See Figure 17. TABLE 3. Comparison of wheel characteristics between E. N. Welch stamped backward D movement (Figure 16), S. B. Jerome s circular clock movement (Figure 18), and Laporte Hubbell s 1865 Umbrella movement (Figure 17B). The significance of the backward D movement is uncertain at this time, but it may be an early prototype of the Umbrella movement. However, the tooth count on the Welch movement is considerably different from the Umbrella movement, which introduces some uncertainty about its origin. Wheel and tooth information on the Beach & Hubbell movement was not available. NAWCC Watch & Clock Bulletin November/December

13 A 2013 National Association of Watch and Clock Collectors, Inc. Reproduction prohibited without written permission. the first prototype of this movement had a robust design, less brass was used in subsequent movements to help reduce costs. The fast/slow lever construction is similar to the early 2-plate designs and the Manross movement, all manufactured between 1849 and A closer analysis of the Beach & Hubbell movement tooth count may provide a clearer picture of the development sequence of this movement. The final version of the Umbrella movement (Figures 17) incorporates the same design concepts as the prototype movements discussed above B Figure 20A. The Timby Solar Clock with the front plate removed to show the movement, ca This appears to be a modified Umbrella movement with a balance wheel escapement. Movement specifics are not known at this time. This example is at the American Watch and Clock Museum in Bristol, CT. Figure 20B. The Laporte Hubbell Solar Clock featured at a 2005 Antiques Roadshow in Rhode Island. Movement specifics are unknown. where the time train is placed between a third or middle plate and the front plate while the spring, first, and second (center) wheels are larger and between the front and backplates. Two additional features on the final version that are absent from the prototypes are the L. Hubbell stamp on the front plate and the design of the lever tines. In Laporte s November 28, 1865, patent (associated with the Christmas Tree movement to be discussed later), he describes a newly designed lever tine. Thus, movements with this new lever design are probably only found in 1865 or later movements. Conversely, the older style tines are associated with pre-1865 movements. However, it should be noted that, to date, it is not possible to determine with certainty when the patent improvements began showing up in movements. There may have been a lag time from when the improvements were incorporated into the movements and the patent was issued. Umbrella movements were fitted with either a balance wheel or a pendulum escapement. To date, all Umbrella movements seen by this author have the L. Hubbell stamp with one or both patent dates. See Table 3 for movement specifics for two prototypes and a post-1865 Umbrella movement. Unfortunately, no patents have been found for the Umbrella design itself. By 1860 the Beach & Hubbell Company had 16 male employees and was producing 20,000 movements per year. 25 Then, in 1862 Lucy Hubbell, Laporte s wife, died from tuberculosis. 584 November/December 2013 NAWCC Watch & Clock Bulletin Figure 21, left and above. The most common case containing Laporte s 2-plate, 30-hour movement. This type of movement came with and without an alarm and with and without a seconds hand. This example has a Waterbury label. Figure 22. The American Clock Company s Tucker Bronze Clock with a typical 30-hour, 2-plate, time-only L. Hubbell stamped movement, ca

14 Figure 23. The US Clock Co. timepiece with a 30-hour balance wheel movement, ca. 1870, in the American Clock and Watch Museum. PERIOD 5: In 1863 Elisha N. Welch sold his interest in the company back to Hubbell and Beach. Also in 1863, a year after Lucy s death, Laporte married Emeline Baker. There is only one adopted child from this marriage. The company was producing thousands of movements a year. What clocks can we find them in today? Variations of the Umbrella movement were used in a variety of specialized clocks. One of the best known examples is in the Theodore R. Timby Solar Clock, manufactured around It is thought that only 600 solar clocks were produced. The case was made by Lewis E. Whiting of Saratoga Springs, NY, and it is believed that a modified Umbrella movement with a balance wheel escapement was used as the clockworks. 18 (See Figure 20A.) Tooth counts on this movement are not known at this time. After the Timby solar clock was discontinued, Laporte made his own version of the solar clock. 33 It is not known who made the case or how many of the solar clocks were produced (Figure 20B). The Umbrella movement was also used in the Reed Tonic clock, but instead of using a balance wheel escapement, it used a deadbeat escapement with a pendulum (see discussion later). Laporte provided the basic 2-plate, 30-hour movement during this period to most of the major clock manufacturers. Today, the most common style that the movement is found in is the Figure 24. Mozart, Beach, and Hubbell Calendar Clock containing the new prototype of the Christmas Tree movement as detailed in Patent No. 41,122. Figure 25, right. The January 1864 Calendar Clock Patent No. 41,122. Part of the patent covers the clock movement pictured above. This movement is an early prototype of the Christmas Tree movement and contains the new escapement detailed in the December 1863 Patent No. 40,851. octagon wall clock (Figure 21). The basic movement can also be found in clocks made by the American Clock Company. One example is a cast metal case clock called the Tucker-Bronze Clock, circa 1869 (Figure 22); another is the US Clock Co., Terhune and Edwards, New York, NY (1870). An example of this clock is in the American Clock and Watch Museum in Bristol, CT (Figure 23). CALENDAR CLOCKS AND NEW MOVEMENTS From about 1855 to the turn of the century, calendar clocks were very popular. The complexity of the mechanisms varied greatly, ranging from simple days of the month to clocks that showed the phases of the moon and tides and could compensate for leap years and irregular days of the month. The first calendar clock patent was granted in May 1853 (Patent No. 9727) to J. H. H. Hawes. Other patents quickly followed, with 12 inventors submitting a total of 16 patents between 1854 and In 1862 Hubbell and Beach teamed up with Don Mozart of New York. This short collaboration produced a patent in December 1863 (Patent No. 40,851) for an improved watch and clock es- NAWCC Watch & Clock Bulletin November/December

15 A 2013 National Association of Watch and Clock Collectors, Inc. Reproduction prohibited without written permission. B Figures 26A, above. The October 10, 1865, design Patent No for a balance wheel movement frame known as the Christmas Tree movement. This example has the balance wheel escapement. Movements with a deadbeat escapement and pendulum were also produced. Figure 26B, right. Christmas Tree movement with balance wheel escapement showing upper and lower backplates and front plate. This movement is a 30-day movement. capement. For additional details on the design of this new escapement, see reference 7. Then, one month later in January 1864, Mozart, Beach, and Hubbell were assigned Patent No. 41,122 for the design of a calendar clock with an improved calendar mechanism using a newly designed clock mechanism. The calendar mechanism claimed 11 new improvements, including a mechanism to account for leap years. The new clock mechanism was an early prototype of what became known as the Christmas Tree movement and contained the newly patented watch and clock escapement described in the December 1863 patent. 26 The Mozart, Beach, and Hubbell calendar clock is Figures 27. Left. Verge/lever assemblies from the basic 30-hour, 2-plate movement (from top to bottom): (1) from the Jerome stamped movement in Figure 4, movement on right; (2) from the Welch stamped movement in Figure 8, movement B; (3) from the unstamped movement in Figure 8/F; and (4) from the L. Hubbell stamped movement in Figure 8/E. Figure 8/E s unique lever design is documented in Laporte s November 28, 1865, patent. The first three assemblies are pre-1865, whereas the last assembly is 1865 or later. Notice the differences in the length of the outer tine arms and the placement of the verge between the Jerome assembly and the other three. Not shown is the movement in Figure 8/A. The tines in Figure 8/A are identical to those in Figures 8/B and 8/F. Right. The 3-verge/lever assemblies (from top to bottom): (1) from the unsigned Umbrella movement in Figure 18. This movement is thought to be pre Notice the smooth tine construction of the fork; (2) from the signed Umbrella movement made after 1865 (see Figure 17); and (3) from a signed Christmas Tree movement (see Figures 26A and B). 586 November/December 2013 NAWCC Watch & Clock Bulletin

16 the first clock known to this author to use this new clock movement design (Figures 24 and 25). Although the calendar clock introduced many novel improvements, it met with limited success. In November 1863, before the calendar clock patent could be issued (January 1864), Levi Beach died. Laporte bought out Levi s interest in the company from Beach s heirs. At about the same time, Don Mozart moved to Rhode Island to make a pocket watch using the newly patented watch and clock escapement. 27 Mozart would make three attempts to manufacture his pocket watch and would ultimately fail. It has been stated that the design of the watch was elegant but difficult and costly to produce and very hard to repair. 28, 29 With Beach dead and Mozart off to build the ultimate watch, the company became known as Laporte Hubbell, and the shop on Frederick Street in Forestville became known as the Marine Shop. A B A Figures 29A and B, above. No. 8 Shelf Library Calendar Clock by Ithaca Calendar Clock Co. with Laporte s Christmas Tree movement with a deadbeat escapement and pendulum, ca. late 1860s. In 1865 Laporte was issued two new patents: Design Patent No issued October 10, 1865, for a balance wheel movement frame and Patent No. 51,184 issued November 28, 1865, for a novel balance wheel clock movement. B Figures 28A and B, left and above. L. F. & W. W. Carter Calendar Clock with Laporte s Christmas Tree movement with balance wheel escapement in the American Clock and Watch Museum, ca The October 10 patent is a design patent and only describes the shape of the movement, known as the Christmas Tree movement. In Laporte s own words My design relates to the form of the plates which support the operative parts of the movement, the object being a more graceful and artistic appearance than that given in the ordinary square frame. This new frame was a radical design change from the square balance wheel frames that the company had produced in the past (Figures 26A and B). The November 28 patent deals with other improvements to the new Christmas Tree design, including the 3-plate design that was a continuation of the improvements made with the Umbrella movement. The three main improvements in the November 28 patent are the following: 1. The backplate consists of two parts separating the springs (bottom plate) from the balance wheel, verge and escape wheel (top plate) for a total of three plates (Figure 26B). NAWCC Watch & Clock Bulletin November/December

17 2. Peculiar form of the jewels which form the bearings of the balance wheel, whereby much less friction is produced. Pivots are conical shaped to overcome this friction. I form the end of the shaft conical and the jewel the reverse and so that but the point of the pivot will bear on the jewel. 3. Unique construction of the lever, whereby the verge is prevented from striking too deeply into the escapement wheel and greater freedom is given to the movement of the balance wheel. The 3-plate design has a number of advantages. First, it allows the wheels and arbors bearing most of the power of the springs to be large and robust while the outer wheels, which are not under a lot of power, to be smaller. This design reduces friction, increasing the efficiency of the mechanism. Second, this design isolates the power wheels, allowing easy access to the other components for repair work. The description of a new lever design in the November 28 patent suggests that this design was not used prior to 1865 and can be useful in identifying and dating movements (Figures 27A and B). Both patents have been published previously, 7 and all patents are available online. Unfortunately, for the comparisons made in this article for the Umbrella movement, the lever in the Beach & Hubbell movement is not visible (see Figure 15) and was missing from the E. N. Welch stamped movement that is similar to Laporte s Umbrella movement (see Figure 16). A closer inspection of Laporte s 1865 Christmas Tree movement and the Christmas Tree movement in the 1863 calendar clock patent shows that this new design went through some modifications before the 1865 patent was submitted. The prototype calendar clock movement in Figure 25 differs from the patented Christmas Tree movement in at least three aspects: 1. Instead of using the typical balance wheel escapement that was used in later versions, the prototype used the new December 1863 patented clock escapement (see Mozart, Beach, and Hubbell above). 2. The prototype movement consisted of only a front and backplate (two plates) while the patented Christmas Tree movement consisted of three plates. 3. The prototype movement could run for one year on one winding of the springs, whereas the Christmas Tree movement typically ran for 8 or 30 days on one winding. Both types of movements used two springs driving one pinion as described in the Beach patent. Although the 1865 patent defined the Christmas Tree movement as having three plates, the 3-plate design is used only with the balance wheel escapement. Two-plate movements exist where the movement has been converted to a deadbeat escapement with a pendulum. After the two patents were issued in 1865, it is believed that Laporte stamped either one or both of the patent dates on all his later movements, Figure 30. The new Brick Marine Shop built on the site of the original wooden shop in Forestville, CT. Photo is a lantern slide taken by George Moulthrope, ca. late 1870s. COURTESY OF THE HISTORICAL ROOM OF THE BRISTOL PUBLIC LIBRARY. 588 November/December 2013 NAWCC Watch & Clock Bulletin

18 Figures 31A (above) and 31B (below). Time-Lock mechanism designed by Laporte Hubbell & Co. The time-lock mechanism above is composed of two different movements. The top movement is the Christmas Tree movement. The lower movement appears to be a new, unique movement. Note the double springs on the lower movement. This time-lock mechanism may have been a prototype or early attempt at a locking mechanism using existing movements. It appears that later Laporte redesigned the mechanism and was awarded a patent (no. 172,629) in January of 1876 (Figure 31B). regardless of the design. The company went on to produce clock movements for at least three other calendar clock companies, two of them using variations on the Christmas Tree movement. This included collaborations with the following: 1. Luther F. & William W. Carter of Bristol, CT. The Carters either made their own cases or contracted the case and calendar mechanisms from Elias Burwell, also from Bristol. These clocks used the 1862 Benjamin Lewis calendar patent (No. 34,341). The movements were from a number of sources, including Laporte Hubbell. One example of this calendar clock is in the American Clock and Watch Museum in Bristol and is fitted with an 8-day, Christmas Tree clock movement with the typical balance wheel escapement. 30 (See Figures 28A and B.) The Carters manufactured clocks 31, 32 from 1863 to Ithaca Calendar Clock Company. Starting in 1865, using the Henry Horton calendar patent (No. 57,510 and No. 57,511), Ithaca made calendar clocks until after World War I. It used clock movements primarily from E. N. Welch, N. Pomeroy, and Laporte Hubbell. In 1866 it produced a small iron case clock that used Laporte s 8-day Umbrella movement with a balance wheel escapement. At about the same time, it also manufactured a larger and similarly styled iron case, using Laporte s 30-day Christmas Tree movement fitted with a pendulum instead of a balance wheel escapement. Laporte s Christmas Tree movement was also used in Ithaca s No. 5 Round Top clock (pendulum) and the No. 8 Shelf Library clock (pendulum). 31, 32 (See Figures 29A and B.) 3. Alfonzo Boardman of Forestville, CT. Boardman was assigned a patent in July 1867 (No. 66,289) and assigned half interest in the patent to Napoleon Clay Hubbell, Laporte s first cousin (see Table 1). This clock was manufactured as both a shelf and wall clock. It used the Christmas Tree movement with either an 8-day or a 30-day balance wheel escapement or a 15-day pendulum escapement. 31, 32 See Reference 41 for pictures of a calendar clock with the Boardman/Hubbell mechanism. By the 1870 census Laporte Hubbell employed 29 workers and produced over 40,000 movements per year, doubling his clock output in ten years. 34 However, in the late 1860s and early 1870s Laporte suffered more personal misfortunes. Six years after his wife Lucy died in 1862, Laporte s first son Marshall died in 1868, at the age of 19, from tuberculosis. This tragedy was followed two years later, in 1870, with the death of his only daughter Lillah from tuberculosis. She was only 17 years old. Finally, his second son Walter died four years later, in 1874, NAWCC Watch & Clock Bulletin November/December

19 Figures 32A (left) and 32B (above). Globe clock produced by the Globe Clock Co. of Milldale, CT, using Laporte s 8-day balance wheel movement. Whether this is a unique movement or a modification of one of Laporte s existing movements is not known. Movements similar to this one have been found in octagon wall clocks. The most obvious difference is the square frame with two springs. COURTESY OF THE AMERICAN CLOCK AND WATCH MUSEUM. at the age of 23 from tuberculosis. Tuberculosis, a disease curable today with antibiotics, claimed the life of his wife and three of his four children. The only child left was Frederick Laporte Hubbell. In 1874 Frederick was 21 years old. And then more adversity befell Laporte. In February 1873 the Marine Shop burned to the ground. According to newspaper accounts of the fire, most of the more valuable equipment and stock were saved; however, there was still substantial loss, estimated to be around $40, Laporte was quick to rebuild, and by July 1873 the new foundation for the factory had been laid. Laporte built on the same site, using brick, and the new shop became known as the Brick Marine Shop (Figure 30). After the fire the name of the company changed from Laporte Hubbell to Laporte Hubbell & Company. One of the new partners was his son Frederick L. Hubbell, age 21. The second partner was D. A. Stiles. Doras A. Stiles acquired a one-third ownership of the business from William L. Gilbert, who had been a silent partner in the firm since 1864 and then sold his interest to Stiles in June The fire apparently did not seriously impact the business. A November 1874 newspaper article stated Laporte Hubbell & Company are pressed with orders which they are unable to fill. Their clocks have an extended reputation, which is the secret of their being crowded with orders during these dull times. They propose to place a turret clock in their tower during the approaching winter which will undoubtedly be appreciated by the public. 36 PERIOD 6: In December 1875 the local newspaper ran a short article about a new chronometer bank lock that was produced by L. Hubbell & Co. The article stated: Besides making lever and pendulum clock movements, Laporte Hubbell & Co. are engaged in the manufacture of chronometer bank locks. The connection between the clock work and the lock proper was patented by a gentleman in New Britain, and the clockwork itself, on which the utility of the contrivance depends, is the result of the inventive faculty and mechanical skill of Mr. Hubbell himself. The movement is double, both portions working together, yet independently of each other. All the parts are highly finished and gilded even to the hair springs. The movements are also jeweled, some fully so, and are of the most exquisite workmanship. These chronometers are sold for about $300 each and the demand exceeds the present ability of the company to supply it. On January 25, 1876, Laporte was issued Patent No. 172,629 for his time-lock design. 37 (See Figures 31A and B.) Clearly, the business was prospering after the fire. However, the partnership with D. A. Stiles did not last long. A notice in the September 7, 1876, Bristol Press announced that the partnership between L. Hubbell, D. A. Stiles, and F. L. Hubbell was being dissolved and that the business would continue under the name of L. Hubbell & Son. It is likely that because the business was doing so well, Laporte bought out Mr. Stiles s interest in the company. A January 1877 notice in the Bristol Press stated that L. Hubbell & Son 590 November/December 2013 NAWCC Watch & Clock Bulletin

20 Figure 33. The Yale Clock Company s Reed Tonic Clock, ca This model uses Laporte s Umbrella movement modified with a deadbeat escapement and pendulum, in the American Clock and Watch Museum. to be placed within the movement chronology. The remaining story of L. Hubbell & Son is incomplete. A visit to the Bristol Historical Society successfully brought to light a typed story about Frederick moving to Colorado and being involved with a cattle ranch. However, a search of the referenced document (online) failed to produce the document. The author speculates that Frederick was diagnosed with tuberculosis around 1880 and moved to a drier climate to improve his health. It is not known if he ever returned to Bristol, but there is some data that suggests he died in Durango, CO. 22 The following passage is an excerpt from The Historical, Statistical and Industrial Review of the State of Connecticut, Part III, dated I have copied this as written, including most of the typing errors. Note: The article refers to Frederick as being 27 years old, which suggests that the article was written in 1880 and then later published in L. HUBBELL & SON. Manufacturer s of Clock Movements.- L. Hubbell and Son, Manufacturer s of clock movements, etc. are among the pioneers of clock making, Mr. L. Hubbell, the senior member, having established the business several years ago. The firm now makes eight-day and thirtyhour lever clocks and pendulum clock movements, and design many mechanical contrivances for which old Connecticut is famous. The firm is composed of Laporte and Frederick L. Hubbell. The latter, at the date of this writing, is in Colorado, where he has large interests in cattle and lands. Mr. Hubbell, Sr. has visited the land and estate and believes with good reason, that there is a brilliant future in that beautiful land that kisses the sky in its high table lands. With two strings to their bow, the firm have a right to expect a prosperity rarely won, for there is nothing safer than a cattle ranch; and, with the advanced position that Forestville has in the clock trade, no depression in business can long effect a clock town, which will prosper as long as people will have clocks, and in this particular branch of industry Conn. Leads the world. The article continues, The factory of the firm is substantially constructed of brick, three stories in height, employ forty hands, all skilled artesians, between whom and their employer exist the most cordial relations. About $60,000 a year are put out in the fine and delicate, yet enduring brass movements for the celebrated brass clocks. (editor s note: this rough- was about to make a new kind of fire alarm movement for parties out of town and a new movement to be used in a globe clock. No information has been found, to date, about the fire alarm movement, but the globe clock was manufactured and sold by The Globe Clock Company of Milldale, CT, in the early 1880s. The movement has a different design from any other movement produced by the company up to that time. (See Figures 32A and B.) At this writing, there are other uniquely designed L. Hubbell movements that need to be analyzed and dated. A. Lee Smith, in his article on marine clocks, 21 published pictures of at least four movements (his Figures 13, 14, 18, and 19) that need Figure 34. A telegraph register using Laporte s 30-hour balance wheel movement. NAWCC Watch & Clock Bulletin November/December