Cartel Clocks

Construction and interpretation

Cartel denotes an ornamental wall-clock form, not a requirement that a clock belong to a mantel garniture. The Metropolitan Museum of Art catalogues accession 1971.206.27 as a Wall clock (pendule en cartel), dated about 1740–45, and 1985.313.2 under the same type name, dated about 1785. These dated objects demonstrate the persistence of the category without making every later revival an eighteenth-century original.

The earlier Met record names Jean Godde l’aîné and describes a case of gilded bronze, oak and tortoiseshell-on-brass marquetry on oak. Its dial is white enamel and gilded brass with blued-steel hands; the movement is listed as brass and steel. This material list identifies different assemblies. It does not establish an escapement, an operating condition or a particular striking system from the wall-clock title alone.

The later example is attributed to Joseph Buzot and lists gilt bronze, enamelled metal and glass. Comparing the two records is more useful than assuming every cartel must be asymmetrical Rococo work or must contain marquetry. Case ornament, dial design and movement construction should each have their own description. A clockmaker’s name in a catalogue does not resolve every contributor to a bronze case without the relevant attribution fields.

Mounting is part of object completeness. Record a documented wall attachment or separately associated console rather than inventing a matching bracket or companion clock. Photographs can establish the visible decorative form, but cannot reveal the whole support system behind it. Installation safety and operation of old striking trains require a custodian or qualified clockmaker, not a test performed simply to fill a catalogue field.

An ornamental wall clock does not require a matching mantel clock; case form does not prove an escapement or strike sequence.