Our astonishment at  flawed premises that opened and closed 'Huygens Legacy’ (2004) compelled our challenges* to the authors— as in 1994 I had challenged accepted wisdom regarding Fromanteel 'Equation Clock’ at Belmont Park. *All rebuffed challenges. However, we had (we thought) under scholars' confidence mentioned Berry's new transcript to one author; he replicated it and published first.  Print posits Priority!

Huygens Legacy's opening premise on first 'pendulum-clocks' (page 23) cites Reverend William Dereham in 1696,"For several years this way of Mr Zulichem was the only method, viz. Crown-wheel Pendulums, to play between two cycloidal cheeks, &c."  Holland still rebuts a contemporary English 'pendulum-clock'.

Huygens Legacy's silent closing premise (Daniel Quare, exhibit #90, pp.262-267) only ignored Huygens' intellectual property † in his 1693/4 'automatic equation kidney’  fitted to that, admittedly later, English clock - perversely denying Holland's iconic inventor in this his purported ‘Legacy' exhibition, (see §2 below). † The authors asserted Tompion was sole  inventor of the 'equation-cam kidney'.

The Horological Foundation invited me to contribute to a Compilation of Coster-Fromanteel 1657 Contract - where I dealt with Rev. Dereham's canards; Huygens' priority for the automatic equating kidney-cam; and cited Fromanteel's pre-pendulum (1649) spring-remontoir cross-beat that founded his empiric competing pendulums.

 

It is gratifying to see 'Innovation & Collaboration’ (Bonhams, Sept.2018) subsumes therefore vindicates my ‘Open Research'  but omits all credits. Again, print posits priority - Patent Law! For the horological record, I posit markers to open-research landmarks:

1. Finally, Innovation & Collaboration has ditched Dereham's canards! Fromanteel's box-clocks are dated contemporaneously, (exhibits 19-20), his own verge-pendulum, also his crutched pendulum in Huygens' way. [Also see. Ben Hordijk, 'Salomon Coster's Workshop', Tijdschrift, Sept.2018].

2. Quare's ’Automatic Equations Kidney-Cam’ now is credited, rightly, to Christiaan Huygens, c.1693/4. He had passed his invention on to Tompion and Quare in London via his brother, secretary to William III who had Tompion, also Quare, make Huygens’ automatic-equating clocks. [Here I follow H.Alan Lloyd, "Some Notes on Very Early English Equation Clocks", Horological Journal, pp.314-333, BHI, Dec. 1943].                                          

3. Fromanteel's 'Manual Equation Clock' anachronistic purportedly 'original anchor’, (Iden, Lloyd, Harris, Belmont), led to my identifying the first physical evidence of Fromanteel's use of Huygens' crutched (ultra-long?) pendulum, circa1658/60; then recognising clover-leafs of closed pivots as first physical evidence of Fromanteel's upgrade to his Bürgi cross-beat 'new way of long pendulum', c.1663, cited by Huygens (Feb.1664); lastly being modified to anchor with seconds' pendulum, post-1670; now with incongrous regulator. [n.b. Reported facts (1994) are not held by the Curator or Trustees]

4. Fromanteel's 'Manual Equation Clock'   has associated movement, originally having Huygens'  crutched-verge pendulum, circa 1658/60, reveals what must be the earliest recorded spring-maintaining-power  - the 'bolt' goes direct to the centre-wheel, i.e. below Huygens' contrate. [n.b. Reported opinion (1994) is not held by Curator or Trustees]

5.  Fromanteel's 'Manual Equation Clock'  now with associated dial-plate further modified with two inset revolving-subsidiary dials. reconstructed 'equation' rings; the spandrels relocated. [n.b. Reported facts (1994) are not held by the Curator or Trustees]
 
6.  Fromanteel's 'Manual Equation Clock'  purported a nonsense subsidiary equation contra-rotating 12-hour dial, (Iden, Lloyd, Harris, Belmont), now my 'Tidal Dial’, i.e. after  Dr.John Wallis' letter read to the Royal Society on 22nd August 1666, (Ref. Fromanteel's  1649 Sunclock Part IIII). [n.b. Reported opinion (1994) is not held by Curator or Trustees]

9.  Simon Douw’s detractors, historic also modern, failed to comprehend his 1658 patent (see §10). Its context and chronology are pivotal to understanding horology’s evolutions. Douw’s patent rightly observed the defects inherent both in ancient verge-escapement also Huygens-Coster’s new oscillator (pendulum), both susceptible to ever-changing forces of spring or weight. Reportedly, Douw's patent was not susceptible, adding increasing weights to his great-clock/s did not change isochronism, his escapement therefore was (had to be) disengaged from lower 'going' train. Hartlieb reported (March 1659), "Although no winding is required, they never stop". i.e. continued to run after the weight had stopped. 

 

10. Verge-escapement's defect proved pivotal (excuse pun) to understanding Douw’s Patent of 9th August 1658, (RH Appendix 4, original patent, transcript, English translation). Court records report Douw’s escapement (probably Jost Bürgi's 'saw-wheel cross-beat') had a 'single vertical-foliot-oscillator’ I had posited was disengaged from going train forces, i.e. because his patent, I was first to identify, was a 'spring-remontoir' after Bürgi. Douw's remontoir also did not 'back-up’, so loose time in winding the driving weight. Clockmaker witnesses at Dutch Courts assumed it was a new form of ‘maintaining power’ all said they would prefer to make Douw’s system over Huygens-Coster’s. The two famous litigants lost their cynical action falsely alleging Douw’s plagiarism of their patent pendulum. [Richard Dobson became a late convert to Douw, but Holland still prefers Huygens' vicious libels of Rotterdam's 'City Clockmaker', a great-clock specialist who worked right across The Netherlands; also with Hemony, Van Kall, and Battenburg].  Note. John Flamsteed too complained that Tompion's pull-wind timepiece with anchor-escapement also lost seconds - by lack of maintaining power, (Ref. Fromanteel and Acolytes- 'Jonas Moore's Tompion loaned to Flamsteed 1674/5').

11.  Review of 'The Royal Haagse-klok'  (RH) by Severijn Oosterwijck c.1658, on basis of novel constructions and wheel-trains, was first to posit Oosterwijck's working Iinks with access to Salomon Coster's pendulum workshop during John Fromanteel's sojourn - proven by evidence of unique English constructions - even a 'JF' monogram inside the 'Split Barrel'  that must ante-date Mayday 1658. On that evidence I posited significance as potential 'secreet' - as yet unproven; potentially revoking historic claims for Coster. <http://www.antique-horology.org/Piggott/RH/References/R_Monograms.jpg>  

12. Open Research 'data matrix' was first to record the evolution of pendulum wheel trains, also measureable characteristics - identifying unknown relationships; also chronolgy of strike trains in Hague clocks; the earliest having 10-pins to 10-leaf pinion (10:10) ALL by Severijn Oosterwijck; ante-dating the ubiquitous 12:12 standard. [Note. Dutch researchers recently have substantiated, by documents, all that I had first posited by physical evidence. (Victor Kersing and Rob Memel, "In the footsteps of Salomon Coster", Tijdschrift May 2018)].
 
13. At  'Going Dutch', (the MNU Symposium, Tylers Museum, December 2011), I revealed an unrecorded 'A.Fromanteel Hage'  (Hague) address; a fusee spring-clock having 'tic-tac' escapement with rare seconds' dial. Its like had not been seen, no other has been found.
 
14. At 'Going Dutch' with Michiel van Hees we identified a very early weight-timepiece, masquerading as French. In fact a rare Hague regulator, formerly having long-pendulum showing contra-minutes with quarters, its dial-mounted pulley for endless-rope maintaining power; an historic relic and unique survivor of Huygens' 1657 observatory type - probably by Severijn Oosterwijck. 

 

15.  Bruce's 'Sea-Clock' relics, (1661 to 1665), one I was first to identify and review their longitude-roles, (ref. RH Appendix 5), now are deservedly esconced in national museums. Severijn Oosterwijck's 1662 relic is in Scotland's National Museum; the still unattributed English relic in Greenwich's National Maritime Museum. Only diligent 'open research' brought these relics out of the wilderness to proper recognition - and  'horological relics'  as legitimate objects for acquisition by public museums, [with signifigant gains to their owners].

Quietly, maybe not so quietly, I am satisifed my long circulated 1993-96 theses, and ‘Open Research’ website, finally are so publicly vindicated. I continue to illuminate the 'Shadows of Time'  irrespective of fugitive 'credits'.

  

Keith Piggott, Tuesday 25 September 2018.