Samuel Knibb Cupola Clock This important early table clock, known as the Knibb Cupola Clock, was made around 1665. It occupies a special place in the horological record, because it is one of the five known clocks by Samuel Knibb, and it is one of two existing early British clocks designed in the distinctive ‘cupola clock’ format.[1] It is also a clock of the highest quality, notable as well for its striking method, which is Knibb’s individually distinct take on the Dutch striking method from The Netherlands. All this is packaged within a theatrically elegant, neo-classical architectural style case, which was designed by one of the most famous English architects of the day, John Webb. When this clock was made, Knibb was a brilliant and on-the-rise clockmaker operating in the heart of the emerging clockmaking market in London. He was among the first of the known members of the Knibb family of clockmakers, a family from Oxfordshire who would go on to become one of most successful clockmaking dynasties of the 1600s. His cupola clock is a sublime example of classically balanced design and finely rendered cast silver decorations, a decorative element for which the Knibb makers would come to be known. Tragically, Knibb’s career was cut short not long after he made this clock, when he died around 1670 from infection during one of the last waves of plague to ravage London. This is why there are so few of his clocks in the historical record, which underscores the rarity and significance of his cupola clock. A superlative neo-classical case The Knibb Cupola Clock was made towards the end of the architectural clock case period, and its case design perfectly encapsulates the neo-classical architectural style of the day. Its ebony-veneered case is a perfectly conceived, proportionally balanced miniature neo-classical temple building in its own right. It is likely that Knibb tapped the well-known English architect John Webb for the design of his clock’s case. Hiring another craftsman for this task was not unusual. Clockmakers routinely employed and commissioned case making artisans and designers, as clock case making was a separate but related craft to clockmaking. At the time, Webb was famous for designing buildings and homes that incorporated elements of classical Greek architecture, such as porticos and pediments. He was also no stranger to clock case design and probably also made cases for the pioneering clockmaker Ahasuerus Fromanteel, who appears to have known and possibly worked with Knibb as well, a possibility that is discussed below. The survival of over 200 of Webb’s original drawings and designs, which include designs for clock cases, supports this premise.[2] For instance, Fromanteel hired Webb to design the case of his Denton Hall Fromanteel table clock, which was produced around 1657. The architect may have also designed the case of the Norfolk Fromanteel longcase, made around 1660. In keeping with Webb’s classical structure, the features and decorations on Knibb’s Cupola Clock case are exquisitely rendered and decidedly Classical in style. They follow the Corinthian order – one of the five orders of Classical Greek architecture – and include pediments on the front and rear, a frieze, and Corinthian columns with gilt bases and capitals. Horologist and collector, Dr John C. Taylor explains that All the castings on the Knibb Cupola Clock are designed in the most beautiful and careful way with astonishing detail. Take the capitals and columns. These were cast in a single piece – a painstaking process. Consider the undercuts around the acanthus leaves in the capitals. These were first rendered as a wax master, then cast in brass. This is not a part that can be reproduced time and time again.[3] Additionally, there are gilt swag mounts on the top rail of the front door and the sides, together with a cartouche mount in the front tympanum. The most striking decorative feature of the clock is its gilt brass cupola, which is pierced with strap work and lined with red silk. It also features silver mount cherub head decorations. There is also a flaming urn finial on top of the cupola’s cap, and six further six flaming urn finials on pedestals surrounding the cupola. Two of these are on the ridges of the gables and four sit atop the columns. No detail on any surface of the Knibb Cupola Clock’s case was left unrealised. This is because the clock was made to be viewed in the round and ideally suited for display on a free-standing table. Yet, the presentation of the case was a mere prelude to the dramatic revelation of the technology within. To facilitate the reveal, Knibb installed hidden buttons that, when pressed, opened the front and back doors of the case. The cupola itself was also designed to be lifted away to unveil the clever engineering of the bells and hammers within its cylindrical structure. Ultimately, the entirety of the case is designed so that it can be lifted off, allowing unfettered access to the clock’s movement. This step-by-step revelation was pure theatre. One can easily imagine a group of rapt dinner guests gathering round as the clock’s owner, who seemingly possessed intimate knowledge of the clock, gradually revealed its secrets. Knibb clearly put considerable thought into every aspect of his clock’s design. Even the way in which he cleverly mounted the bells and hammers inside the clock’s cupola made practical use of a highly stylised decorative feature. A custom designed movement The Cupola Clock’s large plate frame, twin fusee movement runs for eight-days. It is a half hour striking clock, because it uses the Dutch striking system. This means that each hour is struck on a low bell, the half hour is struck on a high bell. Knibb’s omission of the number 60 the outer minute ring on the dial is acknowledgement of this half-hourly system.[4] Unusually, Knibb’s Dutch striking method differed from clocks with Dutch striking, clocks that were manufactured in The Netherlands. These sounded out the coming hour (rather than the past hour) at half past, whereas Knibb’s version sounded out the past hour at half past. This is just one of the way in which Knibb refined the mechanical design of his clock and made it his own. Knibb also delivered his version of Dutch striking by ingeniously housing the bell and hammer system in the cupola. The way it works is via a forked lever that pumps two hammer tails in and out of engagement. This, in turn, acts on a cam that comes down over both sides of the minute wheel, and the hammer tails are linked to the bell hammers located inside the cupola. The striking itself is controlled by a double notched countwheel placed high on the right of the backplate. During the 1660s, horological technology underwent significant technological development and Fromanteel was a major player in this. His pioneering movement design method deviated from and surpassed the existing Dutch technology that had been used to manufacture the first domestic pendulum clocks in the late 1650s.[5] For an example of an early Fromanteel style movement see the Norfolk Fromanteel Longcase, mentioned above and exhibited on Clocktime. This longcase’s movement perfectly exemplifies an early Fromanteel type movement, as the plates are secured by 10 knopped pillars, which are riveted to the backplate and latched to the frontplate.[6] The movement’s front- and backplates are also divided to allow the taking down or setting up of each train separately. In keeping with the above design principles, Knibb’s Cupola Clock movement uses 14 turned, knopped and finned pillars that are riveted into the backplate. Fromanteel’s influence is also expressed in the way that Knibb’s frontplate is divided into two pieces and secured by latches. Another unusual feature is the finishing of the steelwork of Knibb’s movement. Almost all of it (apart from the pinion arbors) was originally blued. There are also traces of gilding throughout. This detail is yet another indication of the excellent standard to which this clock was made.[7] It also speaks to Knibb’s attention to detail as he accounted for the way in which the entirety of his movement would be visible onlookers; the movement needed to work and look beautiful. A confluence of connections As alluded to above, there is evidence that strongly suggests that Knibb worked closely with Fromanteel, or at least was associated with him to some degree. This is based on the following. Knibb followed Fromanteel’s movement design and construction forms, as discussed above.[8] Fromanteel also produced a cupola clock around the same time as Knibb (Garnier and Hollis 2018, 213-215, Catalogue No. 48). These two clocks are very similar. Both are made to be admired in the round. The two makers were clearly in confluence when it came to a flair for the dramatic. Perhaps Knibb took cues on this design feature from Fromanteel, who had already engineered the showcasing of a 360° view the inner mechanism as early as 1657, with the production of his Denton Hall Fromanteel table clock (mentioned above and exhibited on Clocktime). Also, both clocks use the Dutch striking method. Fromanteel himself had a tangible link to Dutch technology, as he was part of a prominent circle of Dutch Protestant makers and scientists. This circle included the Dutch scientist Christiaan Huygens, who invented the design for the first domestic pendulum clock. Huygens’ pendulum clock was prototyped in 1656, and by 1657 he had contracted the manufacture of such designs to Salomon Coster in The Hague with a local patent. That same year, Fromanteel’s son, John Fromanteel, was sent to The Hague to work under contract with Coster and aid the production of Huygens’ first pendulum clocks. Later that same year, John appears to have returned to London to work in his father’s Southwark workshop, where he shared his newfound knowledge of Huygens’ technology. By 1658, Fromanteel had manufactured the first pendulum clocks in England, which he famously advertised in that year’s 25 November edition of the Commonwealth Mercury (Mercurius Politicus) News. When Knibb manufactured his cupola clock, around 1665, its movement design indicates that he certainly benefitted from access to Fromanteel’s Dutch-inspired technology. Finally, there is a deep connection between the clocks and their makers because of the strong likelihood that both cupola clock cases were designed by Webb and both were owned by the Chute family. The argument for a mutual association with Webb is strong. There are obvious similarities between the design of the cupola clock cases, and there is an established precedence for Webb designing other Fromanteel clock cases. The likelihood of proximity also supports this premise. Makers and designers such as these were part of a small vibrant community that was concentrated in a small area in London; they all knew each other and ran in the same circles. Then there is the matter of Knibb, Fromanteel and Webb each being tangibly connected to the aristocratic Chute (or ‘Toot’) family. First, the Knibb Cupola clock was owned by the Chutes and, at some point, ended up being housed in their country house, known as The Vyne, in Basingstoke, Hampshire, England,[9] based on marks made in 1901 by a clock repairer by the name of A. Porter of Basingstoke.[10] Second, by 1670 the Fromanteel Cupola Clock had also been purchased by the Chutes and housed in their London residence.[11] Third, Webb was commissioned by Chaloner Chute I (b. around 1595, d. 1659) to design the classical Palladian portico at The Vyne.[12] It was added to the front elevation of the house in 1654. Webb had also recently worked at Chevening House, Kent, for Chute’s second wife’s stepson, Lord Dacre. Thus, successive generations of the Chute family employed Webb and appear to have commissioned Fromanteel and Knibb for a pair of expensive cupola clocks with Webb cases. The question of the cupola clock design precedence Drawing a further link between the Webb-designed cupola clock cases and the commissioning of Webb to design the portico at The Vyne, horologist and antiquarian Jonathan Carter makes an interesting observation that, in turn, raises the question of precedence for the cupola clock design: The cases, although slightly different in size, are outwardly very similar and appear to have been designed by the same architect, perhaps even built from the same plans. Their tempietto-like form … also possibly refer back to the portico added by their forebear a decade or so previously at The Vyne.[13] Despite the established connections, it is unclear which clock was made first or whether one clock’s design may have informed the design of the other. Nor are there any means of confirming whether or to what extent Knibb may have been involved in making Fromanteel’s cupola clock or vice versa. Dr Taylor slightly favours a scenario in which Knibb’s clock was made first. He argues that it was made just prior to 1666, before the economic slump brought on by two cataclysmic events, the Great Plague of London, which started in 1665 and the Great Fire that decimated London in 1666. These events devastated supply chains and disrupted access to brass and steel. In fact, over half of the 160 members of the Worshipful Company of Clockmakers that had been listed on the Company’s books in 1662 lost their residences to the fire (Kelley 2002, 182). It is extremely unlikely that Knibb’s Cupola Clock was produced during this time of scarcity and upheaval. With its large steel movement and generous amount of gilt brass, it would have been expensive to produce even during the best of times. It even incorporated a superfluous extra top plate that performs no mechanical function and is not seen, even when the movement is revealed. Simply put, it would have been prohibitively expensive to produce Knibb’s Cupola Clock after these catastrophes. Also, the fact that Knibb died from plague around 1670 puts a terminus ante quem on the clock's production date. This timing also supports the case for an earlier production date, on or before 1665, as Knibb simply may not have been around to produce his cupola clock after 1665. Characteristics of Fromanteel’s cupola clock lend further credence to the scenario in which the Knibb Cupola Clock was made first, and the Fromanteel Cupola Clock was made second, sometime between 1665 and 1670. This scenario could also go towards explaining key differences between the two clocks. For instance, Fromteel’s cupola clock is smaller than Knibb’s, and its design is an adaptation of a standard spring clock. In contrast, Knibb’s Cupola Clock is larger, and it was designed at the outset as a cupola clock, in which the bells are mounted in the cupola. This means that Fromanteel’s clock was comparatively less expensive, because it used less brass and steel. What is more, Fromanteel would have further reduced costs by adapting a standard spring table clock; he could have utilised brass and steel already in his supply. This would have been a sensible way to account for the scarcity of resources and labour during the economic slump following the Great Fire and Plague.[14] Was Fromanteel up-cycling to cut costs? It appears so. Fromanteel may have even pragmatically salvaged parts from Knibb’s workshop after Knibb’s sudden demise. If so, he was not the only maker to do so, as there is evidence for the pragmatic salvaging of parts from Knibb’s workshop by other makers after the clockmaker’s death from plague.[15] This could also account for the many similarities between the two cupola clocks. It also lends credence to the theory that Knibb had a hand in the design of Fromanteel’s cupola clock, even if it was from beyond the grave. In keeping with the above scenario, Carter suggests that perhaps the Chute family left London during the Plague, taking the Knibb Cupola Clock with them to The Vyne, where they sheltered in safety as they waited for the Plague to run its deadly course in the City.[16] He posits that when the family finally returned to their London home, they left their ‘prized Knibb’ at The Vyne and promptly ordered a second smaller clock from Fromanteel for their London home. Perhaps they tapped Fromanteel, who had knowledge of Knibb’s designs, for this commission because Knibb had already passed. While completely plausible, the above scenario is not provable. As such, it is worth exploring an argument for the reverse scenario, in which Fromanteel’s cupola clock is made first. Carter favours this reverse scenario.[17] He bases this on the fact that Fromanteel utilised then innovative push-rods to release his cupola clock’s doors, while the Knibb used a ‘typical turn-key square’ for his release mechanism. He argues that this, as well as observable refinements in the Knibb movement design, suggest ‘that the Knibb cupola clock is more likely to have evolved from Fromanteel's smaller clock, sequentially perhaps.' Carter also thinks it highly likely that Knibb was involved in the production or was the maker of the Fromanteel clock too. If this is the case, Carter reasons that Chaloner Chute II could have ordered Fromanteel’s clock before 1666, the year of the Great Fire. (1666 is also the year that Chaloner died, so there is no way that this particular member of the Chute family could have ordered it after 1666). Carter goes on to suggest that perhaps then it was the son, Chaloner Chute III, who commissioned Knibb to produce the larger clock for the Vyne, a short time later, sometime after the Great Fire and before Knibb’s death around 1670. This tracks as, by then, Fromanteel had quit London for Amsterdam and would have been unavailable for the commission. However, the likelihood of this scenario in which Knibb’s clock was made second, between 1666 and 1670, is undermined by the scarcity of brass and steel in London during this time and the clock’ s cost. Overall, the argument for the Knibb Cupola Clock preceding the making of the Fromanteel Cupola appears to be more robust. However, both scenarios are plausible, but not provable, and the matter of who made the first clock and who influenced who is still open for debate. Still, there is no denying the evidence for a confluence and a considerable degree of cooperation between Knibb and Fromanteel before Knibb was tragically struck down by plague in his prime. It seems fitting to conclude the story of Knibb’s Cupola Clock with Carter’s description of a detail on the clock’ s dial, as it truly lays bare the loss of Knibb and many of his colleagues to clockmaking during this time: (the) division engravings of this clock could conceivably have been one of the last jobs executed by Henry Sutton. He shared a workshop with Knibb on Threadneedle St. from c.1662, until he too died from plague in late 1665.[18] Dr Kristin Leith, Curator of Clocktime November 2025 End Notes [1] Carter 2022, 58–69, Catalogue No. 9; Darken 2003, 74–79; Dawson 1965, 71–75; Ende et al. 2004, 82–85; Garnier and Hollis 2018, 213–217, Catalogue No. 49; Hurst 1969, 151–153; Lee 1964, 53, 73, 102, 118 & 147. no.13, pl.35-40; Lee 1964a; Taylor 2018, 19, Exhibit No. 49. In September 2018, all five of Knibb’s surviving clocks were displayed together for the first and only time as part of the Innovation & Collaboration: The early development of the pendulum clock in London, which took place at Bonhams, New Bond Street. [2] Garnier 2018, 81–113, esp. 106. [3] Dr John C Taylor personal communication 2025. For Dr Taylor’s explanation of the casting process, see Chapter Two: Case Design of the video that accompanies this exhibit. [4] Lee 1964a, 206. When describing the Knibb Cupola Clock’s use of Dutch striking, horologist and collector Ronald A. Lee observes that Knibb omitted the number 60 from the dial’s outer minute ring ‘for obvious reasons’. The ring also indicates 15 seconds divisions – which is very unusual (Lee 1964a 207). [5] Carter 2021a, 36. During the 1660s in London, clockmakers’ drive to innovate and increase profit produced two competing schools of pendulum clock design: the Fromanteel school and the East school. Within a few short years, by 1665, the ‘East school’ had caught up technically with the ‘Fromanteel school’, with clockmaker Edward East producing clocks of near-equal refinement to Fromanteel’s. [6] Garnier and Hollis 2018, 172. [7] Lee 1964a, 207. [8] Carter 2022, 64. [9] The Vyne is now a property of National Trust England. It is described as ‘a Tudor powerhouse turned 17th-century family home, set in gardens, woodlands and wetlands’. See https://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/visit/hampshire/the-vyne. [10] Carter 2022, 65. The Knibb Cupola Clock remained in the Chute family until the 20th century. [11] An advertisement from The Post published on 29 June 1700 confirms the Chute’s London residence as part of Fromanteel’s Cupola Clock’s provenance. The advertisement announces that the clock was stolen from Mr. Chute’s house at the upper end of Bedford Row, near Grays Inn, and describes the clock accurately, with an ‘Ebony Case of about a foot square, made in the form of a house, with a brass urn at the top of each corner, and a Cupola with a cupid upon the top of it of brass gilt.’ [12] Carter 2022, 64–69. Webb’s design was also the first portico added to an English house. In January 1659, Chaloner was elected the Speaker of the House of Commons. He died in February of that same year. [13] Carter 2022, 68. [14] Supra no. 12. [15] During the period immediately following the Great Plague and Great Fire of London, the then up and coming clockmaker Thomas Tompion appears to have been a friend and possible colleague of the clockmaker Joseph Knibb. Joseph was Samuel’s cousin, and he took over Samuel’s London workshop immediately after his cousin’s untimely death. Dr Taylor suspects that Joseph made clock parts from Samuel’s workshop available to Tompion, based on similarities between the castings and parts for two clocks from the Knibb workshop to those of the Olivewood Tompion table clock, made around 1673 and exhibited on Clocktime. [16] Carter 2022, 66. [17] Carter 2022, 65. Carter also agrees both with collector Peter Gwynn’s deduction of provenance for both clocks, and with Lee (1964) and Hurst’s (1969) separate suggestions that Knibb was the possible maker of both clocks. [18] Carter 2022, 58. In a letter dated 10 October 1665, from Robert Moray to Henry Oldenburg, Moray writes ‘wee all here [in Oxford] are much troubled with the loss of poor Thomson & Sutton’. References Carter, J. 2022. The John C Taylor Collection: Part III (Selling Exhibition Catalogue, Carter Marsh & Co). Winchester: Carter Marsh & Co. Darken, J. (editor). 2003. Horological Masterworks: English 17th century clocks from private collections. London: Antiquarian Horological Society. Dawson, P. 1965. ‘The Cupola Clock’, in Antique Collector, April: 71–75. Ende, H. van der, J. C. Taylor and F. Van Kersen. 2004. Huygens’ Legacy: The golden age of the pendulum clock (Exhibition Catalogue). Isle of Man: Fromanteel Ltd. Garnier, R. 2018b. ‘The Fromanteel Architectural Early-Pendulum Clock Case (c1660–c1673)’ in Garnier, R. and L. Hollis (editors). Innovation & Collaboration: The early development of the pendulum clock in London. Isle of Man: Fromanteel Ltd. Hurst, M. 1969. ‘The First Twelve Years of the English Pendulum Clock’ in Antiquarian Horology 6/3: 146–56. Kelley, C. S. 2003. ‘Henry Jones – Clockmaker of London, part II of IV: His workI’ in Antiquarian Horology 27/5: 518–545. Lee, R. A. 1964. The Knibb Family, Clockmakers. Liverpool: Manor House Press. Lee, R. A. 1964a. ‘The Knibb Family, Clockmakers’ in Antiquarian Horology 7:4, 202–209. Lee, R. A. 1969. The First Twelve Years of the English Pendulum Clock (loan exhibition catalogue). Taylor, J. C. 2018. Innovation & Collaboration: Exhibition guide. Isle of Man: Fromanteel Ltd.
