| By Author | [ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z | Other Symbols ] |
| By Title | [ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z | Other Symbols ] |
| By Language |
|
Download this book: [ ASCII | HTML | PDF ] Look for this book on Amazon Tweet |
Title: The Invention of the Sewing Machine
Author: Cooper, Grace Rogers
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.
*** Start of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "The Invention of the Sewing Machine" ***
SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION
UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM
[Illustration]
BULLETIN 254
WASHINGTON, D.C.
1968
[Illustration]
THE SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION PRESS
_The Invention
Of the Sewing Machine_
[Illustration]
_Grace Rogers Cooper_
CURATOR OF TEXTILES
MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY
SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION WASHINGTON, D.C. 1968
_Publications of the United States National Museum_
The scholarly and scientific publications of the United States National
Museum include two series, _Proceedings of the United States National
Museum_ and _United States National Museum Bulletin_.
In these series, the Museum publishes original articles and monographs
dealing with the collections and work of its constituent museums--The
Museum of Natural History and the Museum of History and
Technology--setting forth newly acquired facts in the fields of
anthropology, biology, history, geology, and technology. Copies of each
publication are distributed to libraries, to cultural and scientific
organizations, and to specialists and others interested in the different
subjects.
The _Proceedings_, begun in 1878, are intended for the publication, in
separate form, of shorter papers from the Museum of Natural History.
These are gathered in volumes, octavo in size, with the publication date
of each paper recorded in the table of contents of the volume.
In the _Bulletin_ series, the first of which was issued in 1875, appear
longer, separate publications consisting of monographs (occasionally in
several parts) and volumes in which are collected works on related
subjects. _Bulletins_ are either octavo or quarto in size, depending on
the needs of the presentation. Since 1902 papers relating to the
botanical collections of the Museum of Natural History have been
published in the _Bulletin_ series under the heading _Contributions from
the United States National Herbarium_ and, since 1959, in _Bulletins_
titled "Contributions from the Museum of History and Technology," have
been gathered shorter papers relating to the collections and research of
that Museum.
This work forms volume 254 of the _Bulletin_ series.
Frank A. Taylor
_Director, United States National Museum_
For sale by Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Washington, D.C. 20402--Price $2.75
_Contents_
Preface vii
Acknowledgments viii
1. Early Efforts 1
2. Elements of a Successful Machine 17
3. The "Sewing-Machine Combination" 39
4. Less Expensive Machines 43
Appendixes 55
I. Notes on the Development and Commercial
Use of the Sewing Machine 57
II. American Sewing-Machine Companies of the
19th Century 65
III. Chronological List of U.S. Sewing-Machine
Patent Models in the Smithsonian Collections 125
IV. 19th-Century Sewing Machine Leaflets in the
Smithsonian Collections 134
V. A Brief History of Cotton Thread 135
VI. Biographical Sketches 137
Bibliography 144
Indexes 147
Geographical Index to Companies Listed in Appendix II 149
Alphabetical Index to Patentees Listed in Appendix III 151
General Index to Chapters 1-4 155
_Preface_
It had no instrument panel with push-button controls. It was not
operated electronically or jet-propelled. But to many 19th-century
people the sewing machine was probably as awe-inspiring as a space
capsule is to their 20th-century descendants. It was expensive, but,
considering the work it could do and the time it could save, the cost
was more than justified. The sewing machine became the first widely
advertised consumer appliance, pioneered installment buying and patent
pooling, and revolutionized the ready-made clothing industry. It also
weathered the protests of those who feared the new machine was a threat
to their livelihood.
The practical sewing machine is not the result of one man's genius, but
rather the culmination of a century of thought, work, trials, failures,
and partial successes of a long list of inventors. History is too quick
to credit one or two men for an important invention and to forget the
work that preceded and prodded each man to contribute his share. It is
no discredit to Howe to state that he _did not invent the sewing
machine_. Howe's work with the sewing machine was important, and he did
patent certain improvements, but his work was one step along the way. It
is for the reader to decide whether it was the turning point.
Since the sewing machine has been considered by some as one of the most
important inventions of 19th-century America, of equal importance to
this story of the invention is the history of the sewing machine's
development into a practical, popular commodity. Since many new
companies blossomed overnight to manufacture this very salable item, a
catalog list of more than one hundred and fifty of these 19th-century
companies is included in this study. Still, the list is probably
incomplete. Many of the companies remained in business a very short time
or kept their activities a secret to avoid payment of royalties to
patent holders. Evidence of these companies is difficult to find. It is
hoped that additional information will come to light as a result of
this initial attempt to list and date known companies. The dating of
individual machines based on their serial numbers is also a difficult
task. Individual company records of this type have not survived;
however, using the commercial machines in the patent collection, for
which we know one limiting date--the date the machine was deposited at
the patent office--and using the records that have survived, an
estimated date based on the serial number can be established for many of
the better known machines.
_Acknowledgments_
I am greatly indebted to the late Dr. Frederick Lewton, whose
interest in the history of the sewing machine initiated the
collecting of information about it for the Smithsonian
Institution's Division of Textiles archives and whose out-of-print
booklet "A Servant in the House" prompted the writing of this work.
I would also like to thank Mr. Bogart Thompson of the Singer
Manufacturing Company for his cooperation in arranging for the gift
of an excellent collection of 19th-century sewing machines to the
Smithsonian and for allowing me to use the Singer historical files.
Acknowledgment is also made of the cooperation extended by The
Henry Ford Museum and Greenfield Village for permitting me to study
their collection of old sewing machines.
_Grace Rogers Cooper_
_Chapter One_
[Illustration: Figure 1.--AFTER ALMOST A CENTURY OF ATTEMPTS TO INVENT A
MACHINE THAT WOULD SEW, the practical sewing machine evolved in the
mid-19th century. This elegant, carpeted salesroom of the 1870s, with
fashionable ladies and gentlemen scanning the latest model sewing
machines, reflects the pinnacle reached by the new industry in just a
few decades. This example, one of many of its type, is the Wheeler and
Wilson sewing-machine offices and salesroom, No. 44 Fourteenth Street,
Union Square, New York City. From _The Daily Graphic_, New York City,
December 29, 1874. (Smithsonian photo 48091-A.)]
Early Efforts
To 1800
For thousands of years, the only means of stitching two pieces of fabric
together had been with a common needle and a length of thread. The
thread might be of silk, flax, wool, sinew, or other fibrous material.
The needle, whether of bone, silver, bronze, steel, or some other metal,
was always the same in design--a thin shaft with a point at one end and
a hole or eye for receiving the thread at the other end. Simple as it
was, the common needle (fig. 2) with its thread-carrying eye had been an
ingenious improvement over the sharp bone, stick, or other object used
to pierce a hole through which a lacing then had to be passed.[1] In
addition to utilitarian stitching for such things as the making of
garments and household furnishings, the needle was also used for
decorative stitching, commonly called embroidery. And it was for this
purpose that the needle, the seemingly perfect tool that defied
improvement, was first altered for ease of stitching and to increase
production.
One of the forms that the needle took in the process of adaptation was
that of the fine steel hook. Called an _aguja_ in Spain, the hook was
used in making a type of lace known as _punto de aguja_. During the 17th
century after the introduction of chainstitch embroideries from India,
this hook was used to produce chainstitch designs on a net ground.[2]
The stitch and the fine hook to make it were especially adaptable to
this work. By the 18th century the hook had been reduced to needle size
and inserted into a handle, and was used to chainstitch-embroider woven
fabrics.[3] In France the hook was called a crochet and was sharpened to
a point for easy entry into the fabric (fig. 3). For stitching, the
fabric was held taut on a drum-shaped frame. The hooked needle pierced
the fabric, caught the thread from below the surface and pulled a loop
to the top. The needle reentered the fabric a stitch-length from the
first entry and caught the thread again, pulling a second loop through
the first to which it became enchained. This method of embroidery
permitted for the first time the use of a continuous length of thread.
At this time the chainstitch was used exclusively for decorative
embroidery, and from the French name for drum--the shape of the frame
that held the fabric--the worked fabric came to be called tambour
embroidery. The crochet[4] or small hooked needle soon became known as
a tambour needle.
In 1755 a new type of needle was invented for producing embroidery
stitches. This needle had to pass completely through the fabric two
times (a through-and-through motion) for every stitch. The inventor was
Charles F. Weisenthal, a German mechanic living in London who was
granted British patent 701 for a two-pointed needle (fig. 4). The
invention was described in the patent as follows:
The muslin, being put into a frame, is to be worked with a needle
that has two points, one at the head, and the other point as a
common needle, which is to be worked by holding it with the fingers
in the middle, so as not to require turning.
It might be argued that Weisenthal had invented the eye-pointed needle,
since he was the first inventor to put a point at the end of the needle
having the eye. But, since his specifically stated use required the
needle to have two points and to be passed completely through the
fabric, Weisenthal had no intention of utilizing the very important
advantage that the eye-pointed needle provided, that of _not_ requiring
the passage of the needle through the fabric as in hand sewing.
While no records can be found to establish that Weisenthal's patent was
put to any commercial use during the inventor's lifetime, the
two-pointed needle with eye at midpoint appeared in several 19th-century
sewing-machine inventions.
The earliest of the known mechanical sewing devices produced a chain or
tambour stitch, but by an entirely different principle than that used
with either needle just described. Although the idea was incorporated
into a patent, the machine was entirely overlooked for almost a century
as the patent itself was classed under wearing apparel. It was entitled
"An Entire New Method of Making and Completing Shoes, Boots,
Splatterdashes, Clogs, and Other Articles, by Means of Tools and
Machines also Invented by Me for that Purpose, and of Certain
Compositions of the Nature of Japan or Varnish, which will be very
advantageous in many useful Applications." This portentously titled
British patent 1,764 was issued to an English cabinetmaker, Thomas
Saint, on July 17, 1790. Along with accounts of several processes for
making various varnish compositions, the patent contains descriptions of
three separate machines; the second of these was for "stitching,
quilting, or sewing." Though far from practical, the machine
incorporated several features common to a modern sewing machine. It had
a horizontal cloth plate or table, an overhanging arm carrying a
straight needle, and a continuous supply of thread from a spool. The
motion was derived from the rotation of a hand crank on a shaft, which
activated cams that produced all the actions of the machine.
[Illustration: Figure 2.--PRIMITIVE NEEDLE. Bronze. Egyptian (Roman
period, 30 B.C.-A.D. 642). (Smithsonian photo 1379-A.)]
One cam operated the forked needle (fig. 5) that pushed the thread
through a hole made by a preceding thrust of the awl. The thread was
caught by a looper and detained so that it then became enchained in the
next loop of thread. The patent described thread tighteners above and
below the work and an adjustment to vary the stitches for different
kinds of material. Other than the British patent records, no
contemporary reference to Saint's machine has ever been found. The
stitching-machine contents of this patent was happened on by accident in
1873.[5] Using the patent description, a Newton Wilson of London
attempted to build a model of Saint's machine in 1874.[6] Wilson found,
however, that it was necessary to modify the construction before the
machine would stitch at all.
[Illustration: Figure 3.--TAMBOUR NEEDLE AND FRAME, showing the method
of forming the chainstitch, from the Diderot Encyclopedia of 1763, vol.
II, _Plates Brodeur_, plate II. (Smithsonian photo 43995-C.)]
This raised the question whether Saint had built even one machine.
Nevertheless, the germ of an idea was there, and had the inventor
followed through the sewing machine might have been classed an
18th-century rather than a 19th-century contribution.
1800-1820
There is no doubt that the successful late-18th-century improvements in
spinning and weaving methods, resulting in increased production of
fabrics, had a great effect in spurring inventors to ideas of stitching
by machinery. Several efforts were made during the first two decades of
the 19th century to produce such machines.
On February 14, 1804, a French patent was issued to Thomas Stone and
James Henderson for a "new mechanical principle designed to replace
handwork in joining the edges of all kinds of flexible material, and
particularly applicable to the manufacture of clothing."[7] The machine
used a common needle and made an overcast stitch in the same manner as
hand sewing. A pair of jaws or pincers, imitating the action of the
fingers, alternately seized and released the needle on each side of the
fabric. The pincers were attached to a pair of arms arranged to be moved
backward and forward by "any suitable mechanism."[8] This machine was
capable of making curved or angular as well as straight seams, but it
was limited to carrying a short length of thread, necessitating frequent
rethreading. The machine may have had some limited use, but it was not
commercially successful.
On May 30 of the same year John Duncan, a Glasgow manufacturer, was
granted British patent 2,769 for "a new and improved method of
tambouring, or raising flowers, figures or other ornaments upon muslins,
lawns and other cottons, cloths, or stuffs." This machine made the
chainstitch, using not one but many hooked needles that operated
simultaneously. The needles, attached to a bar or carrier, were pushed
through the vertically held fabric from the upper right side, which in
this case was also the outer side. After passing through it, they were
supplied with thread from spools by means of peculiarly formed hooks or
thread carriers. The thread was twisted around the needle above the
hook, so as to be caught by it, and drawn through to the outer surface.
The shaft of the needle was grooved on the hook side and fitted with a
slider. This slider closed upon the retraction of the needle from the
fabric, holding the thread in place and preventing the hook from
catching. The fabric was stretched between two rollers set in an upright
frame capable of sliding vertically in a second frame arranged to have
longitudinal motion. The combination of these two motions was sufficient
to produce any required design. The principle developed by Duncan was
used on embroidery machines, in a modified form, for many years. Of
several early attempts, his was the first to realize any form of
success.
[Illustration: Figure 4.--WEISENTHAL'S two-pointed needle, 1755.]
[Illustration: Figure 5.--SAINT'S SEWING MACHINE, 1790. (Smithsonian
photo 42490-A.)]
[Illustration: Figure 6.--CHAPMAN'S SEWING MACHINE, first eye-pointed
needle, 1807. (Smithsonian photo 33299-K.)]
A type of rope-stitching machine, which might be considered unimportant
to this study, must be included because of its use of the eye-pointed
needle, the needle that was to play a most important part in the later
development of a practical sewing machine. The earliest reference to the
use of a needle with an eye not being required to be passed completely
through the fabric it was stitching is found in a machine invented by
Edward Walter Chapman, for which he and William Chapman were granted
British patent 3,078 on October 30, 1807. The machine (fig. 6) was
designed to construct belting or flat banding by stitching together
several strands of rope that had been laid side by side. Two needles
were required and used alternately. One needle was threaded and then
forced through the ropes. On the opposite side the thread was removed
from the eye of the first needle before it was withdrawn. The second
needle was threaded and the operation repeated. The needles could also
be used to draw the thread, rather than push it, through the ropes with
the same result. While being stitched, the ropes were held fast and the
sewing frame and supporting carriage were moved manually as each stitch
was made. Such a machine would be applicable only to the work described,
since the necessity of rethreading at every stitch would make it
impractical for any other type of sewing.
Another early machine reported to have used the eye-pointed needle to
form the chainstitch was invented about 1810 by Balthasar Krems,[9] a
hosiery worker of Mayen, Germany. One knitted article produced there was
a peaked cap, and Krems' machine was devised to stitch the turned edges
of the cap,[10] which was suspended from wire pins on a moving wheel.
The needle of the machine was attached to a horizontal shaft and carried
the thread through the fabric. The loop of thread was retained by a
hook-shaped pin to become enchained with the next loop at the reentry of
the needle. Local history reports that this device may have been used as
early as 1800, but the inventor did not patent his machine and
apparently made no attempt to commercialize it. No contemporary
references to the machine could be found, and use of the machine may
have died with the inventor in 1813.
[Illustration: Figure 7.--MADERSPERGER'S 1814 SEWING MACHINE.
Illustration from a pamphlet by the inventor entitled _Beschreibung
einer Nähmaschine_, Vienna, ca. 1816. (Smithsonian photo 49373.)]
About the same time, Josef Madersperger, a tailor in Vienna, Austria,
invented a sewing machine, which was illustrated (fig. 7) and described
in a 15-page pamphlet published about 1816.[11] On May 12, 1817, a
Vienna newspaper wrote of the Madersperger machine: "The approbation
which his machine received everywhere has induced his Royal Imperial
Majesty, in the year 1814, to give to the inventor an exclusive
privilege [patent] which has already been mentioned before in these
papers."[12] Madersperger's 1814 machine stitched straight or curving
lines. His second machine stitched small semicircles, as shown in the
illustration, and also small circles, egg-shaped figures, and angles of
various degrees. The machine, acclaimed by the art experts, must
therefore have been intended for embroidery stitching. From the
contemporary descriptions and the illustration, the machine is judged to
have made a couched stitch--one thread was laid on the surface of the
fabric and stitched in place with a short thread carried by a
two-pointed needle of the type invented by Weisenthal. Two fabrics could
have been stitched together, but not in the manner required for
tailoring. The machine must have had many deficiencies in the tension
adjustment, feed, and related mechanical operations, for despite the
published wishes for success the inventor did not put the machine into
practical operation.[13] Years later Madersperger again attempted to
invent a sewing machine using a different stitch (see p. 13).
[Illustration: Figure 8.--AN ENGRAVING OF THIMONNIER and his sewing
machine of 1830, from _Sewing Machine News_, 1880. (Smithsonian photo
10569-C.)]
A story persists that about 1818-1819 a machine that formed a
backstitch, identical to the one used in hand sewing, was invented in
Monkton, Vermont. The earliest record of this machine that this author
has found was in the second or 1867 edition of _Eighty Years of Progress
of the United States_; the machine is not mentioned in the earlier
edition. The writer of the article on sewing machines states that John
Knowles invented and constructed a sewing machine, which used a single
thread and a two-pointed needle with the eye in the middle to form the
backstitch. This information must have come to light after the first
edition was published, but from where and by whom is not known. Other
sources state that two men, Adams and Dodge, produced this machine in
Monkton.[14] While still others credit the Reverend John Adam Dodge,
assisted by a mechanic by the name of John Knowles, with the same
invention in the same location.[15] Vermont historical societies have
been unable to identify the men named or to verify the story of the
invention.[16] The importance of the credibility of this story, if
proved, rests in the fact that it represents the first effort in the
United States to produce a mechanical stitching device.
1820-1845
American records of this period are incomplete as a result of the Patent
Office fire of 1836, in which most of the specific descriptions of
patents issued to that date were destroyed. Patentees were asked to
provide another description of their patents so that these might be
copied, but comparatively few responded and only a small percentage was
restored. Thus, although the printed index of patents[17] lists Henry
Lye as patenting a machine for "sewing leather, and so forth" on March
10, 1826, no description of the machine has ever been located. Many
patents whose original claim was for only a mechanical awl to pierce
holes in leather or a clamp to hold leather for hand stitching were
claimed as sewing devices once a practical machine had evolved. But no
evidence has ever been found that any of these machines performed the
actual stitching operation.
[Illustration: Figure 9.--AN ADAPTED DRAWING of Hunt's sewing machine
published by the _Sewing Machine News_, vol. 2, no. 8, 1881, to give
some idea of its construction and operation. "The frame of the machine
(A) rested on a base (B) that was supported by a table. The wheel (C)
worked on a central shaft (E) and was set in motion by hand or foot
power. On the front of the wheel (C) was a raised cam (D) into which the
connecting rod (F) engaged to communicate motion to the vibrating arm
(G) pivoted to the frame at (H) and carrying at the end (g) the curved
needle (I). The take-up (J) served to tighten the thread after each
stitch; it was connected to the vibrating arm by a rod (K). The cloth
(L) was held in a vertical position between the fingers or nippers (M),
which were attached to the frame. The bar (N) was toothed on one side
(n) to mesh with the geared wheel (o). The lever (P) was operated by a
cam (m) upon the periphery of the wheel (C), and carried the vertical
pawl (S) which meshed with the ratchet (T) and moved the cloth as each
stitch was made. The shuttle (U) worked in its race (V); it was operated
by the vibrating lever (W), the upper end of which engaged into a groove
on the face of the wheel (C)." (Smithsonian photo 42554.)]
The first man known to have put a mechanical sewing device into
commercial operation was Barthelemy Thimonnier,[18] a French tailor.
After several years of fruitless effort he invented a machine for which
he received a French patent in 1830.[19] The machine (fig. 8) made a
chainstitch by means of a barbed or hooked needle. The vertically held
needle worked from an overhanging arm. The needle thrust through the
fabric laid on the horizontal table, caught a thread from the thread
carrier and looper beneath the table, and brought a loop to the surface
of the fabric. When the process was repeated the second loop became
enchained in the first. The needle was moved downward by the depression
of a cord-connected foot treadle and was raised by the action of a
spring. The fabric was fed through the stitching mechanism manually, and
a regular rate of speed had to be maintained by the operator in order to
produce stitches of equal length. A type of retractable thimble or
presser foot was used to hold the fabric down as required.
The needle, and the entire machine, was basically an attempt to
mechanize tambour embroidery, with which the inventor was quite
familiar. Although this work, which served as the machine's inspiration,
was always used for decorative embroidery, Thimonnier saw the
possibilities of using the stitch for utilitarian purposes. By 1841 he
had 80 machines stitching army clothing in a Paris shop. But a mob of
tailors, fearing that the invention would rob them of a livelihood,
broke into the shop and destroyed the machines. Thimonnier fled Paris,
penniless. Four years later he had obtained new financial help, improved
his machine to produce 200 stitches a minute, and organized the first
French sewing-machine company.[20] The Revolution of 1848, however,
brought this enterprise to an early end. Before new support could be
found other inventors had appeared with better machines, and
Thimonnier's was passed by. In addition to the two French patents
Thimonnier also received a British patent with his associate Jean Marie
Magnin in 1848 and one in the United States in 1850. He achieved no
financial gain from either of these and died a poor man.
While Thimonnier was developing his chainstitch machine in France,
Walter Hunt,[21] perhaps best described as a Yankee mechanical genius,
was working on a different kind of sewing machine in the United States.
Sometime between 1832 and 1834 he produced at his shop in New York a
machine that made a lockstitch.[22] This stitch was the direct result of
the mechanical method devised to produce the stitching and represented
the first occasion an inventor had not attempted to reproduce a hand
stitch. The lockstitch required two threads, one passing through a loop
in the other and both interlocking in the heart of the seam. At the time
Hunt did not consider the sewing machine any more promising than several
other inventions that he had in mind, and, after demonstrating that the
machine would sew, he sold his interest in it for a small sum and did
not bother to patent it.
A description--one of few ever published--and sketch of a rebuilt Hunt
machine (fig. 9) appeared in an article in the _Sewing Machine News_ in
1881.[23] The important element in the Hunt invention was an eye-pointed
needle working in combination with a shuttle carrying a second thread.
Future inventors were thus no longer hampered by the erroneous idea that
the sewing machine must imitate the human hands and fingers. Though
Hunt's machine stitched short, straight seams with speed and accuracy,
it could not sew curved or angular work. Its stitching was not
continuous, but had to be reset at the end of a short run. The validity
of Hunt's claim as the inventor of the lockstitch and the prescribed
method of making it was argued many times, especially during the Elias
Howe patent suits of the 1850s. The decision against Hunt was not a
question of invention,[24] but one of right to ownership or control.
Hunt did little to promote his sewing machine and sold it together with
the right to patent to George A. Arrowsmith.
[Illustration: Figure 10.--MADERSPERGER'S 1839 sewing machine.
Madersperger's machine consisted of two major parts: the frame, which
held the material, and the stitching mechanism, called the hand. The
hand shown here is an original model. (_Photo courtesy of Technisches
Museum für Industrie und Gewerbe, Vienna._)]
For over fifteen years, from the mid-1830s to the early 1850s, the
machine dropped out of sight. When the sewing-machine litigation
developed in the 1850s, the I. M. Singer company searched out the Hunt
machine, had the inventor rebuild one,[25] and attempted to use this to
break the Howe patent. The plan did not work. The Honorable Charles
Mason, Patent Commissioner, reported:
When the first inventor allows his discovery to slumber for
eighteen years, with no probability of its ever being brought into
useful activity, and when it is only resurrected to supplant and
strangle an invention which has been given to the public, and which
has been made practically useful, all reasonable presumption should
be in favor of the inventor who has been the means of conferring
the real benefit upon the world.[26]
Hunt's machine was an invention of the 1830s, but only because of the
patent litigation was it ever heard of again.
During the time that a potentially successful sewing machine was being
invented and forgotten in America, Josef Madersperger of Austria made a
second attempt to solve the mechanical stitching problem. In 1839 he
received a second patent on a machine entirely different from his 1814
effort. It was similar to Hunt's in that it used an eye-pointed needle
and passed a thread through the loop of the needle-thread--the thread
carried by the needle--to lock the stitch. Madersperger's machine was a
multiple-needle quilting machine. The threaded needles penetrated the
fabric from below and were retracted, leaving the loops on the surface.
A thread was drawn through the loops to produce what the inventor termed
a chain. The first two stitches were twisted before insertion into the
next two, producing a type of twisted lockstitch. The mechanism for
feeding the cloth was faulty, however, and the inventor himself stated
in the specifications that much remained to perfect and simplify it
before its general application. (This machine was illustrated [fig. 10]
in the _Sewing Machine Times_, October 25, 1907, and mistakenly referred
to as the 1814 model.) Madersperger realized no financial gain from
either venture and died in a poorhouse in 1850.
The first efforts of the 1840s reflected the work of the earlier years.
In England, Edward Newton and Thomas Archbold invented and patented a
machine on May 4, 1841, for tambouring or ornamenting the backs of
gloves. Their machine used a hook on the upper surface to catch the loop
of thread, but an eye-pointed needle from underneath was used to carry
the thread up through the fabric. The machine was designed to use three
needles for three rows of chainstitching, if required. Although the
machine was capable of stitching two fabrics together, it was never
contemplated as a sewing machine in the present use of the term. Their
British patent 8,948 stated it was for "improvements in producing
ornamental or tambour work in the manufacture of gloves."
The earliest American patent specifically recorded as a sewing machine
was U.S. patent 2,466, issued to John J. Greenough on February 21, 1842.
His machine was a short-thread model that made both the running stitch
and the backstitch. It used the two-pointed needle, with eye at
mid-length, which was passed back and forth through the material by
means of a pair of pincers on each side of the seam. The pincers opened
and closed automatically. The material to be sewn was held in clamps
which moved it forward between the pincers to form a running stitch or
moved it alternately backward and forward to produce a backstitch. The
clamps were attached to a rack that automatically fed the material at a
predetermined rate according to the length of stitch required. Since the
machine was designed for leather or other hard material, the needle was
preceded by an awl, which pierced a hole. The machine had a weight to
draw out the thread and a stop-motion to stop the machinery when a
thread broke or became too short. The needle was threaded with a short
length of thread and required frequent refilling. Only straight seams
could be stitched. The feed was continuous to the length of the rack
bar; then it had to be reset. The motions were all obtained from the
revolution of a crank. It is not believed that any machines, other than
the patent model (fig. 11), were ever made. Little is known of Greenough
other than his name.
[Illustration: Figure 11.--GREENOUGH'S PATENT MODEL, 1842. (Smithsonian
photo 45525-G.)]
In the succeeding year, on March 4, 1843, Benjamin W. Bean received the
second American sewing-machine patent, U.S. patent 2,982. Like
Greenough's, this machine made a running stitch, but by a different
method. In Bean's machine the fabric was fed between the teeth of a
series of gears. Held in a groove in the gears was a peculiarly shaped
needle bent in two places to permit it to be held in place by the gears
and with a point at one end and the eye at the opposite end, as in a
common hand needle. The action of the gears caused the fabric to be
forced onto and through the threaded needle. Indefinite straight seams
could be stitched as the fabric was continuously forced off the needle
by the turning gears (fig. 12). A screw clamp held the machine to a
table or other work surface. Machines of this and similar types
reportedly had some limited usage in the dyeing and bleaching mills,[27]
where lengths of fabric were stitched together before processing.
Improved versions of Bean's machine were to be patented in subsequent
years in England and America. The same principle was also used in home
machines two decades later.
The third sewing-machine patent on record in the United States Patent
Office is patent 3,389 issued on December 27, 1843, to George H.
Corliss, better remembered as the inventor and manufacturer of the
Corliss steam engine. It was his interest in the sewing machine,
however, that eventually directed his attention to the steam engine.
Corliss had a general store at Greenwich, New York. A customer's
complaint that the boots he had purchased split at the seams made
Corliss wonder why someone had not invented a machine to sew stronger
seams than hand-sewn ones. He considered the problem of sewing leather,
analyzing the steps required to make the saddler's stitch, one popularly
used in boots and shoes. He concluded that a sewing machine to do this
type of work must first perforate the leather, then draw the threads
through the holes, and finally secure the stitches by pulling the
threads tight. The machine Corliss invented (fig. 13) was of the same
general type as Greenough's, except that two two-pointed needles were
required to make the saddler's stitch. This stitch was composed of two
running stitches made simultaneously, one from each side.[28] The
machine used two awls to pierce the holes through which the needles
passed; finger levers approached from opposite sides, seized the
needles, pulled the threads firmly, and passed the needles through to
repeat the operation. The working model that Corliss completed could
unite two pieces of heavy leather at the rate of 20 stitches per minute.
Corliss, lacking capital, went to Providence, Rhode Island, in 1844 to
secure backers. After months without success, he was forced to abandon
the sewing machine and accept employment as a draftsman and designer.
Though he considered himself a failure, this change of employment placed
him on the threshold of his more rewarding life work, improvement of the
steam engine.[29]
On July 22, 1844, James Rodgers was granted U.S. patent 3,672, the
fourth American sewing-machine patent. The patent model is not known to
be in existence, but this machine was of minor importance for it offered
only a negligible change in the Bean running-stitch machine. The same
corrugated gears were used but were placed in different positions so
that one bend in the needle was eliminated. When Bean secured a reissue
of his patent in 1849, he had adapted it to use a straight needle.
Rodgers' machine is not known to have had any commercial success,
although this type of machine experienced a brief period of popularity.
By the early 1900s, however, the running-stitch machine was so little
known that when one was illustrated in the _Sewing Machine Times_ in
1907[30] it excited more curiosity than any of the other early types.
[Illustration: Figure 12.--BEAN'S PATENT MODEL, 1843. (Smithsonian photo
42490-C.)]
[Illustration: Figure 13.--CORLISS' PATENT MODEL, 1843. The piece of
wood in the foreground is an enlarged model of the needle. (Smithsonian
photo 42490.)]
On December 7, 1844, the same year that Rodgers secured his American
patent, John Fisher and James Gibbons were granted British patent 10,424
for "certain improvements in the manufacture of figured or ornamental
lace, or net, or other fabrics." From this superficial description of
its work, the device might seem to be just another tambouring machine.
It was not. Designed specifically for ornamental stitching, the machine
made a two-thread stitch using an eye-pointed needle and a shuttle.[31]
Several sets of needles and shuttles worked simultaneously. The needles
were secured to a needlebar placed beneath the fabric. The shuttles were
pointed at both ends to pass through each succeeding new loop formed by
the needles. Each shuttle was activated by two vibrating arms worked by
cams. Each needle was curved in the form of a bow, and in addition to
the eye at the point each also had a second eye at the bottom of the
curve. The shape of the needle together with the position of the eyes
permitted the pointed shuttle, carrying the second thread, to pass
freely through the loop in the ascending needle thread. The fabric was
carried by a pair of cloth rollers, capable of sliding in a horizontal
plane in both a lateral and a lengthwise direction. These combined
movements were sufficient to enable the operator to produce almost every
embroidered design. The ornamenting, which might be a yarn, cord, or
gimp, was carried by the shuttle thread. There was no tension on the
shuttle thread, which was held in place by the thread from the needle.
The stitch produced was a form of couching.[32] It was in no sense a
lockstitch. Fisher, who was the inventor, readily admitted at a later
date that he had not had the slightest idea of producing a sewing
machine, in the utilitarian meaning of the term. Although it has not
been established that this machine was ever put into practical
operation, Fisher's invention was to have a far-reaching effect on the
development of the sewing machine in England.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] CHARLES M. KARCH, _Needles: Historical and Descriptive_ (12 Census
U.S., vol. X, 1902), pp. 429-432.
[2] FLORENCE LEWIS MAY, _Hispanic Lace and Lace Making_ (New York,
1939), pp. 267-271.
[3] Diderot's _L'Encyclopédie, ou dictionnaire raisonné des sciences,
des arts et des métiers ..._, vol. II (1763), Plates Brodeur, plate II.
[4] The term "crochet," as used today, became the modern counterpart of
the Spanish _punto de aguja_ about the second quarter of the 19th
century.
[5] _Sewing Machine News_ (1880), vol. 1, no. 7, p. 2.
[6] This model of Saint's machine was bequeathed by Mr. Wilson to the
South Kensington Museum, London, England.
[7] _Sewing Machine News_ (1880), vol. 1, no. 8, p. 2.
[8] Ibid.
[9] ERICH LUTH, _Ein Mayener Strumpfwirker, Balthasar Krems, 1760-1813,
Erfinder der Nähmaschine_, p. 10, states that the machine used an
eye-pointed needle. WILHELM RENTERS, _Praktisches Wissen von der
Nähmaschine_, p. 4, states that Krems used a hooked needle. Renters
probably mistook the hooked retaining pin for the needle.
[10] Dr. Dahmen, Burgermeister of Mayen, stated in a letter of October
8, 1963, that the original Krems machine was turned over to the
officials of Mayen by Krems' descendants about the turn of the century.
He verified that the machine used an eye-pointed needle. About 1920 the
machine was placed in the Eifelmuseum in Genovevaburg; some of the
unessential parts were restored. The machine now at this museum is the
one pictured in Luth's book. A replica of the machine is in the
Deutsches Museum, Munich, Germany.
[11] JOSEF MADERSPERGER, _Beschreibung einer Nähmaschine_ (Vienna, ca.
1816). The exact date of this small booklet is not known. In the booklet
Madersperger reports that he had received a patent in 1814 for his
_first_ machine adapted to straight sewing. However, the machine
described and illustrated in this booklet was one that could stitch
semicircles and small figures. In _Kunst und Gewerbeblatt_, a periodical
(Munich, Germany, 1817, pp. 336-338), reference is made to the
Madersperger machine and a statement to the effect that the inventor had
published a leaflet describing his machine. The leaflet referred to is
believed to be the one under discussion. For this reason it must have
been published between 1814 and 1817, therefore ca. 1816. The only copy
of this booklet known to this author is in the New York Public Library.
It was probably not known to authors Luth and Renters. The author wishes
to thank Miss Rita J. Adrosko of her staff for her important help in
translating these German publications.
[12] _Sewing Machine Times_ (1907), vol. 26, no. 865, p. 1.
[13] There are no known models of these early Madersperger machines in
existence. Although the _Sewing Machine Times_ reported in the 1907
issue that the 1814 sewing machine was then on exhibition in the Museum
of the Vienna Polytechnic, the illustration shown was of Madersperger's
1839 machine. In a letter from the director of the Technisches Museum
für Industrie und Gewerbe in Vienna, received in 1962, it was stated
that the original 1814 Madersperger machine was in their museum. The
photographs that were sent, however, were of the 1839 machine. This
machine is entirely different from the 1814-1817 machine, as can readily
be seen by the reader (figs. 7 and 10).
[14] JOHN P. STAMBAUGH, _A History of the Sewing Machine_ (Hartford,
Conn., 1872), p. 13; _Sewing Machine News_ (July 1880), vol. 1, no. 12,
p. 4.
[15] "Sewing Machines," _Johnson's Universal Cyclopaedia_ (New York,
1878), vol. 4, p. 205. The 1874 edition does not include this reference
to Rev. John Adam Dodge.
[16] Letters to the author from the Vermont Historical Society (Nov. 13,
1953) and the Bennington Historical Museum and Art Gallery (May 2,
1953).
[17] EDMUND BURKE. Commissioner of Patents, _List of Patents for
Inventions and Designs Issued by the United States from 1790 to 1847_
(Washington, 1847).
[18] See Barthelemy Thimonnier's biographical sketch, p. 137.
[19] French patent issued to Barthelemy Thimonnier and M. Ferrand (who
was a tutor at l'Ecole des Mines, Saint-Etienne, and helped finance the
patent), July 17, 1830.
[20] The company was located at Villefranche-sur-Saône, but no name is
recorded. See J. Granger, _Thimonnier et la machine à coudre_ (1943), p.
16.
[21] See Walter Hunt's biographical sketch, p. 138.
[22] The earliest known reference in print to Walter Hunt's sewing
machine is in _Sewing by Machinery: An Exposition of the History of
Patentees of Various Sewing Machines and of the Rights of the Public_
(I. M. Singer & Co., 1853). A more detailed story of Hunt's invention is
in _Sewing Machine News_ (1880-81), vol. 2, no. 2, p. 4; no. 4, p. 5;
and no. 8, pp. 3 and 8.
[23] Vol. 2, no. 8, p. 3.
[24] In the opinion and decision of C. Mason, Commissioner of the Patent
Office, offered on May 24, 1854, for the Hunt vs. Howe interference
suit, Mason stated: "He [Hunt] proves that in 1834 or 1835 he contrived
a machine by which he actually effected his purpose of sewing cloth with
considerable success."
[25] The rebuilt machine, according to a letter to the author from B. F.
Thompson of the Singer company, is believed to have been one of the
machines lost in a Singer factory fire at Elizabethport, N.J., in 1890.
[26] Op. cit. (footnote 24).
[27] EDWARD H. KNIGHT, _Sewing Machines_, vol. 3 of _Knight's American
Mechanical Dictionary_.
[28] A seam using the saddler's stitch appears as a neat line of
touching stitches on both sides. Even when made by hand, it is sometimes
misidentified by the casual observer as the lockstitch because of the
uniformity of both sides. If the saddler's stitch was formed of threads
of two different colors, the even stitches on one side of the seam and
the odd stitches on the reverse side would be of one color, and vice
versa.
[29] _The Life and Works of George H. Corliss_, privately printed for
Mary Corliss by the American Historical Society, 1930. The Corliss
family records were turned over to the Baker Library, Harvard
University. In a letter addressed to this author by Robert W. Lovett of
the Manuscripts Division on August 2, 1954, it was reported that there
was a record on their Corliss card to the effect that a model of his
sewing machine, received with the collection, was turned over to the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology; however, Mr. Lovett also stated
that from a manuscript memoir of Mr. Corliss that it would seem that he
developed only the one machine--the patent model. In a letter dated
November 15, 1954, Stanley Backer, assistant professor of mechanical
engineering, stated that after extensive inquiries they were unable to
locate the model at M.I.T. In 1964, Dr. Robert Woodbury, of M.I.T.,
turned over to the Smithsonian Institution the official copies of the
Corliss drawings and the specifications which had been awarded to the
inventor by the Patent Office. It is possible that this may have been
the material noted on the Harvard University card as having been
transferred to M.I.T.
[30] _Sewing Machine Times_ (July 10, 1907), vol. 26, no. 858, p. 1.
[31] This is the earliest known patent using the combination of an
eye-pointed needle and a shuttle to form a stitch.
[32] In embroidery, couching is the technique of laying a decorative
thread on the surface of the fabric and stitching it into place with a
second less-conspicuous thread.
_Chapter Two_
[Illustration: Figure 14.--HOWE'S PREPATENT MODEL of 1845, and the box
used by the inventor to carry the machine to England in 1847.
(Smithsonian photo 45506-B.)]
Elements of a Successful Machine
The requirements for producing a successful, practical sewing machine
were a support for the cloth, a needle to carry the thread through the
fabric and a combining device to form the stitch, a feeding mechanism to
permit one stitch to follow another, tension controls to provide an even
delivery of thread, and the related mechanism to insure the precise
performance of each operation in its proper sequence. Weisenthal had
added a point to the eye-end of the needle, Saint supported the fabric
by placing it in a horizontal position with a needle entering
vertically, Duncan successfully completed a chainstitch for embroidery
purposes, Chapman used a needle with an eye at its point and did not
pass it completely through the fabric, Krems stitched circular caps with
an eye-pointed needle used with a hook to form a chainstitch, Thimonnier
used the hooked needle to form a chainstitch on a fabric laid
horizontally, and Hunt created a new stitch that was more readily
adapted to sewing by machine than the hand stitches had been, but,
although each may have had the germ of an idea, a successful machine had
not evolved. There were to be hundreds of patents issued in an attempt
to solve these and the numerous minor problems that would ensue. But the
problems were solved. And, in spite of its Old World inception, the
successful sewing machine can be credited as an American invention.
Although the invention of the practical sewing machine, like most
important inventions, was a many-man project, historians generally give
full credit to Elias Howe, Jr. Though such credit may be overly
generous, Howe's important role in this history cannot be denied.
Elias Howe, Jr., was born on a farm near Spencer, Massachusetts, but he
left home at an early age to learn the machinist's trade.[33] After
serving an apprenticeship in Lowell, he moved to Boston. In the late
1830s, while employed in the instrument shop of Ari Davis, Howe is
reported to have overheard a discussion concerning the need for a
machine that would sew. In 1843, when illness kept him from his job for
days at a time, he remembered the conversation and the promises of the
rich reward that reputedly awaited the successful inventor. Determined
to invent such a machine, he finally managed to produce sufficient
results to interest George Fisher in buying a one-half interest in his
proposed invention. By April 1845, Howe's machine (fig. 14) was used to
sew all the seams of two woolen suits for men's clothing. He continued
to demonstrate his machine but found that interest was, at best,
indifferent.
Nevertheless, Howe completed a second machine (fig. 15), which he
submitted with his application for a patent. The fifth United States
patent (No. 4,750) for a sewing machine was issued to him on September
10, 1846. The machine used a grooved and curved eye-pointed needle
carried by a vibrating arm, with the needle supplied with thread from a
spool. Loops of thread from the needle were locked by a thread carried
by a shuttle, which was moved through the loop by means of
reciprocating drivers. The cloth was suspended in a vertical position,
impaled on pins projecting from a baster plate, which moved
intermittently under the needle by means of a toothed wheel. The length
of each stitching operation depended upon the length of the baster
plate, and the seams were necessarily straight. When the end of the
baster plate reached the position of the needle, the machine was
stopped. The cloth was removed from the baster plate, which was moved
back to its original position. The cloth was moved forward on the pins,
and the seam continued.
In his patent specifications, Howe claimed the following:
1. The forming of the seam by carrying a thread through the cloth
by means of a curved needle on the end of a vibrating arm, and the
passing of a shuttle furnished with its bobbin, in the manner set
forth, between the needle and the thread which it carried, under
combination and arrangement of parts substantially the same with
that described.
2. The lifting of the thread that passes through the needle-eye by
means of the lifting-rod, for the purpose of forming a loop of
loose thread that is to be subsequently drawn in by the passage of
the shuttle, as herein fully described, said lifting-rod being
furnished with a lifting pin, and governed in its motion by the
guide-pieces and other devices, arranged and operating
substantially as described.
3. The holding of the thread that is given out by the shuttle, so
as to prevent its unwinding from the shuttle-bobbin after the
shuttle has passed through the loop, said thread being held by
means of the lever or slipping-piece, as herein made known, or in
any other manner that is substantially the same in its operation
and result.
4. The manner of arranging and combining the small lever with the
sliding box, in combination with the spring-piece, for the purpose
of tightening the stitch as the needle is retracted.
5. The holding of the cloth to be sewed by the use of a
baster-plate furnished with points for that purpose, and with holes
enabling it to operate as a rack in the manner set forth, thereby
carrying the cloth forward and dispensing altogether with the
necessity of basting the parts together.
The five claims, which were allowed Howe in his patent, have been quoted
to show that he did not claim the invention of the eye-pointed needle,
for which he has so often been credited. The court judgment[34] that
upheld Howe's claim to his patented right to control the use of the
eye-pointed needle in combination with a shuttle to form a lockstitch
was mistakenly interpreted by some as verifying control of the
eye-pointed needle itself.
[Illustration: Figure 15.--HOWE'S PATENT MODEL, 1846. (Smithsonian photo
45525-B.)]
After patenting his invention, Howe spent three discouraging years in
both the United States and in England trying to interest manufacturers
in building his sewing machine, under license. Finally, for £250
sterling, he sold the British patent rights to William Thomas and
further agreed to adapt the machine to Thomas' manufacture of umbrellas
and corsets.[35] This did not prove to be a financial success for Howe
and by 1849 he was back in the United States, once again without funds.
[Illustration: Figure 16.--AN ENLARGEMENT of the stitching area.
(Smithsonian photo 45525-B.)]
On his return, Howe was surprised to find that other inventors were
engaged in the sewing-machine problem and that sewing machines were
being manufactured for sale. The sixth United States sewing-machine
patent (No. 5,942) had been issued to John A. Bradshaw on November 28,
1848, for a machine specifically stated as correcting the defects in the
E. Howe patent. Bradshaw did not purport that his machine was a new
invention. His specifications read:
The curved needle used in Howe's machine will not by itself form
the loop in the thread, which is necessary for the flying bobbin,
with its case, to pass through, and has, therefore, to be aided in
that operation by a lifting-pin, with the necessary mechanism to
operate it. This is a very bungling device, and is a great
incumbrance to the action of the machine, being an impediment in
the way of introducing the cloth to be sewed, difficult to keep
properly adjusted, and very frequently gets entangled between the
thread and the needle, by which the latter is frequently broken.
This accident happens very often, not withstanding all the
precaution which it is possible for the most careful operator to
exercise; and inasmuch as the delay occasioned thereby is very
considerable, and the needles costly and difficult to replace, it
is therefore very important that their breaking in this manner be
prevented, which in my machine is done in the most effectual manner
by dispensing with the lifting-pin altogether, the loop for the
flying bobbin to pass through being made with certainty and of the
proper form by means of my angular needle moved in a particular
manner just before the flying-bobbin case is thrown. The shuttle
and its bobbin for giving off the thread in Howe's machine are very
defective ... my neat and simple bobbin-case ... gives off its
thread with certainty and uniformity.... The baster-plate in the
Howe machine is very inconvenient and troublesome ... in my machine
... the clamp ... is a very simple and efficient device.... The
Howe machine is stationary, and the baster-plate or cloth-holder
progressive. The Bradshaw machine is progressive and the
cloth-holder stationary.
Bradshaw's patent accurately described some of the defects of the Howe
machine, but other inventors were later to offer better solutions to the
problems.
[Illustration: Figure 17.--MOREY AND JOHNSON sewing machine, 1849.
Below: The machine is marked with the name of its maker, Safford &
Williams. The number 49 is a serial number. Missing parts have been
replaced with plastic. (Smithsonian photo 48400; brass plate: 48400-H.)]
Although the Bradshaw machine was not in current manufacture, a machine
based on it received the seventh United States sewing-machine patent.
Patent 6,099 was issued to Charles Morey and Joseph B. Johnson on
February 6, 1849. Their machine (fig. 17) was being offered for sale
even before the patent was issued.
This was the first American patent for a chainstitch machine. The stitch
was made by an eye-pointed needle carrying the thread through the
fabric; the thread was detained by a hook until the loop was enchained
by the succeeding one. The fabric was held vertically by a baster plate
in a manner similar to the Howe machine. Although not claimed in the
patent description, the Morey and Johnson machine also had a bar device
for stripping the cloth from the needle. This bar had a slight motion
causing a yielding pressure to be exerted on the cloth. Although the
patent was not granted until February 6, 1849, the application had been
filed in April of the previous year. The machine was featured in the
_Scientific American_ on January 27, 1849 (fig. 18):
Morey and Johnson Machine--These machines are very accurately
adjusted in all their parts to work in harmony, without this they
would be of no use. But they are now used in most of the Print
Works and Bleach Works in New England, and especially by the East
Boston Flour Company. It sews about one yard per minute, and we
consider it superior to the London Sewing Machine the specification
of which is in our possession. It [Morey and Johnson] is more
simple--and this is a great deal.... The price of a machine and
right to use $135.[36]
An improvement in the Morey and Johnson machine was patented by Jotham
S. Conant for which he was issued a patent on May 8, 1849. Conant's
machine offered a slight modification of the cloth bar and of the method
of keeping the cloth taut during the stitching operation. No successful
use of it is known.
A second improvement of the Morey and Johnson patent was also issued on
May 8, 1849; this United States patent (No. 6,439) was to John Bachelder
for the first continuous, but intermittent, sewing mechanism. As shown
in the patent model (fig. 19), his clothholder consisted of an endless
belt supported by and running around three or any other suitable number
of cylindrical rollers. A series of pointed wires projected from the
surface of the belt near the edge immediately adjacent to the needle.
The wires could be placed at regular or irregular distances as required.
The shaft of one of the cylindrical rollers, which supported the
endless clothholder, carried a ratchet wheel advanced by the action of a
pawl connected to the end of the crankshaft by a small crankpin, whose
position or distance from the axis of rotation of the shaft could be
adjusted.
[Illustration: Figure 18.--A MOREY AND JOHNSON sewing machine as
illustrated in _Scientific American_, January 27, 1849. (Smithsonian
photo 45771.)]
By this adjustment the extent of the vertical travel of the impelling
pawl was regulated to control the length of the stitch. A spring catch
kept the ratchet wheel in place at the end of each forward rotation of
the wheel by the pawl. A roller placed over the endless belt at its
middle roller pressed the cloth onto the wire points. A curved piece of
metal was bent over and down upon the top of the belt so that the cloth,
as it was sewed, was carried toward and against the piece by the belt.
The cloth rose upon and over the piece and was separated from the
points. When the machine was in motion the cloth was carried forward,
passed under the needle, was stitched, and finally, passed the separator
and off the belt. A vertically reciprocating, straight, eye-pointed
needle, a horizontal supporting surface, and a yielding cloth presser
were all used, but none were claimed as part of the patent. These were
later specifically claimed in reissues of this patent. Bachelder's one
specific claim, the endless feed belt, was not limited to belt feeding
only. As he explained in the patent, a revolving table or a cylinder
might be substituted.
[Illustration: Figure 19.--BACHELDER'S PATENT MODEL, 1849. (Smithsonian
photo 45572).]
Bachelder did not manufacture machines, but his patent was sold in the
mid-1850s to I. M. Singer.[37] It eventually became one of the most
important patents to be contributed to the "Sewing-Machine Combination,"
a patent pool, which is discussed in more detail on pages 41 and 42.
While new ideas and inventors continued to provide the answers to some
of the sewing-machine problems, Elias Howe began a series of patent
suits to sustain the rights that he felt were his. Since his interest
had never been in constructing machines for sale, it was absolutely
essential for Howe to protect his royalty rights in order to realize any
return from his patent. He was reported[38] to have supervised the
construction of 14 sewing machines at a shop[39] on Gold Street in New
York toward the close of 1850. Sworn contemporary testimony indicates
that the machines were of no practical use.[40] Elias stated, in his
application for his patent extension,[41] that he made only one machine
in 1850-51. In 1852 he advertised[42] territorial rights and machines,
but apparently did not realize any financial success until he sold a
half interest in his patent to George Bliss in November 1852.[43] Bliss
later began manufacturing machines that he initially sold as "Howe's
Patent"; however, these machines were substantially different from the
basic Howe machine.
[Illustration: Figure 20.--BLODGETT & LEROW SEWING MACHINE, 1850, as
manufactured by A. Bartholf, New York; the serial number of the machine
is 19. At right, an original brass plate from the same type of machine
with needle arm and presser foot and arm, serial number 119; the plate,
however, does not fit the machine correctly. (Smithsonian photo 48440-D;
brass plate: 48440-K.)]
On May 18, 1853, Elias Howe granted his first royalty license to
Wheeler, Wilson & Company. Within a few months licenses were also
granted to Grover & Baker; A. Bartholf; Nichols & Bliss; J. A. Lerow;
Woolridge, Keene, and Moore; and A. B. Howe, the brother of Elias. These
licenses granted the manufacturer the right to use any part of the Howe
patent,[44] but it did not mean that the machines were Elias Howe
machines. When a royalty license was paid, the patent date and sometimes
the name was stamped onto the machine. For this reason, these machines
are sometimes mistakenly thought to be Elias Howe machines. They are
not.
Howe was also prevented from manufacturing a practical machine unless he
paid a royalty to other inventors. Three of the major manufacturers and
Howe resolved their differences by forming the "Sewing Machine
Combination." Although Howe did not enter the manufacturing competition
for many years, he profited substantially from the royalty terms of the
combination. In 1860, he applied for and received a seven-year extension
on his patent.
[Illustration: Figure 21.--BLODGETT & LEROW SEWING MACHINE, 1850,
stamped with the legend "Goddard, Rice & Co., Makers, Worcester, Mass."
and the serial number 37. Below: An original brass plate marked "No.
38"; this plate fits the machine perfectly. (Smithsonian photo 48440-E;
brass plate: 48440-J.)]
There were Howe family machines for sale during this period, but these
were the ones that Amasa Howe had been manufacturing since 1853. The
machine was an excellent one and received the highest medal for sewing
machines, together with many flattering testimonials, at the London
International Exhibition in 1862. After the publication of this award
the demand for (Amasa) Howe sewing machines was greatly increased at
home and abroad. Elias took this opportunity to gain entry into the
manufacturing business by persuading Amasa to let him build a factory at
Bridgeport, Connecticut, and manufacture the (Amasa) Howe machines. Two
years passed before the factory was completed, and Amasa's agents were
discouraged. The loss could have been regained, but the machines
produced at Bridgeport were not of the quality of the earlier machines.
Amasa attempted to rebuild the Bridgeport machines, but finally
abandoned them and resumed manufacturing machines in New York under his
own immediate supervision.[45] Elias formed his own company and
continued to manufacture sewing machines. In 1867 he requested a second
extension of his patent, but the request was refused. Elias Howe died in
October of the same year.
Meanwhile, another important sewing machine of a different principle had
also been patented in 1849. This was the machine of Sherburne C.
Blodgett, a tailor by trade, who was supported financially by John A.
Lerow. United States patent 6,766 was issued to both men on October 2,
1849. In the patent, the machine was termed as "our new 'Rotary Sewing
Machine'." The shuttle movement was continuous, revolving in a circle,
rather than reciprocating as in the earlier machines. Automatic tension
was initiated, restraining the slack thread from interference with the
point of the needle.
[Illustration: Figure 22.--WILSON'S PREPATENT MODEL for his
reciprocating-shuttle machine, 1850. (Smithsonian photo 45525-A.)]
The Blodgett and Lerow machine was built by several shops. One of the
earliest was the shop of Orson C. Phelps on Harvard Place in Boston.
Phelps took the Blodgett and Lerow machine to the sixth exhibition of
the Massachusetts Charitable Mechanics Association in September 1850 and
won a silver medal and this praise, "This machine performed admirably;
it is an exceedingly ingenious and compact machine, able to perform
tailor's sewing beautifully and thoroughly."[46] Although Phelps had won
the earliest known premium for a sewing machine, and although the
machine was produced commercially to a considerable extent (figs. 20 and
21), one outstanding flaw in its operation could not be overlooked. As
the shuttle passed around the six-inch circular shuttle race, it put a
twist in the thread (or took one out if the direction was reversed) at
each revolution. This caused a constant breaking of the thread, a
condition that could not be rectified without changing the principle of
operation. Such required changes were later to lead I. M. Singer,
another well-known name, into the work of improving this machine.
Also exhibited at the same 1850 mechanics fair was the machine of Allen
B. Wilson. Wilson's machine received only a bronze medal, but his
inventive genius was to have a far greater effect on the development of
the practical sewing machine than the work of Blodgett and Lerow. A. B.
Wilson[47] was one of the ablest of the early inventors in the field of
mechanical stitching, and probably the most original.
Wilson, a native of Willett, New York, was a young cabinetmaker at
Adrian, Michigan, in 1847 when he first conceived of a machine that
would sew. He was apparently unaware of parallel efforts by inventors in
distant New England. After an illness, he moved to Pittsfield,
Massachusetts, and pursued his idea in earnest. By November 1848 he had
produced the basic drawings for a machine that would make a lockstitch.
The needle, piercing the cloth, left a loop of thread below the seam. A
shuttle carrying a second thread passed through the loop, and as the
tension was adjusted a completed lockstitch was formed (fig. 22).
Wilson's shuttle was pointed on both ends to form a stitch on both its
forward and backward motion, a decided improvement over the shuttles of
Hunt and Howe, which formed stitches in only one direction. After each
stitch the cloth was advanced for the next stitch by a sliding bar
against which the cloth was held by a stationary presser. While the
needle was still in the cloth and holding it, the sliding bar returned
for a fresh grip on the cloth.
Wilson made a second machine, on the same principle, and applied for a
patent. He was approached by the owners of the Bradshaw 1848 patent,
who claimed control of the double-pointed shuttle. Although this claim
was without justification, as can be seen by examining the Bradshaw
patent specifications, Wilson did not have sufficient funds to fight the
claim. In order to avoid a suit, he relinquished to A. P. Kline and
Edward Lee, a one-half interest in his U.S. patent 7,776 which was
issued on November 12, 1850 (fig. 23).
[Illustration: Figure 23.--WILSON'S PATENT MODEL, 1850. (Smithsonian
photo 45504-H.)]
Inventor Wilson had been associated with Kline and Lee (E. Lee & Co.)
for only a few months, when, on November 25, 1850, he agreed to sell his
remaining interest to his partners for $2,000. He retained only limited
rights for New Jersey and for Massachusetts. The sale was fruitless for
the inventor, as no payment was ever made. How much money E. E. Lee &
Co. realized from the Wilson machine is difficult to determine, but they
ran numerous ads in the 1851 and 1852 issues of _Scientific American_. A
typical one reads:
A. B. Wilson's Sewing Machine, justly allowed to be the cheapest
and best now in use, patented November 12, 1850; can be seen on
exhibition at 195 and 197 Broadway (formerly the Franklin House,
Room 23, third floor) or to E. E. Lee & Co., Earle's Hotel. Rights
for territory or machines can be had by applying to George R.
Chittenden, Agent.[48]
[Illustration: Figure 24.--WILSON'S PREPATENT MODEL for his rotary hook,
1851. (Smithsonian photo 45506-E.)]
[Illustration: Figure 25.--WILSON'S ROTARY-HOOK PATENT MODEL, 1851.
(Smithsonian photo 45505-B.)]
Another reads:
A. B. Wilson's Sewing Machine ... the best and only practical
sewing machine--not larger than a lady's work box--for the trifling
sum of $35.[49]
Wilson severed relations with Lee and Kline in early 1851 shortly after
meeting Nathaniel Wheeler, who was to become his partner in a happier,
more profitable enterprise involving the sewing machine.
[Illustration: Figure 26.--WILSON'S stationary-bobbin patent model,
1852; a commercial machine was used since Wheeler, Wilson, Co. had begun
manufacturing machines the previous year. (Smithsonian photo 45504-B.)]
Wilson, with his two partners, was occupying a room in the old Sun
Building at 128 Fulton Street, when Wheeler, on a business trip to New
York City, learned of the Wilson sewing machine. Wheeler examined the
machine, saw its possibilities, and at once contracted with E. Lee & Co.
to make 500 of them. At the same time he engaged Wilson to go with him
to Watertown, Connecticut, to perfect the machine and supervise its
manufacture. Meanwhile, Wilson had been working on a substitute for the
shuttle. He showed his model of the device, which became known as the
rotary hook, to Wheeler who was so convinced of its superiority that he
decided to develop this new machine and leave Wilson's first machine to
the others, who, by degrees, had become its owners.
Wilson now applied all his effort to improving the rotary hook, for
which he received his second patent on August 12, 1851 (figs. 24 and
25). Wheeler, his two partners Warren and Woodruff, and Wilson now
formed a new copartnership--Wheeler, Wilson, and Company. They began the
manufacture of the machines under the patent, which combined the rotary
hook and a reciprocating bobbin. The rotary hook extended or opened more
widely the loop of the needle thread, while a reciprocating bobbin
carried its thread through the extended loop. To avoid litigation which
the reciprocating bobbin might have caused, Wilson contrived his third
outstanding invention--the stationary bobbin. This was a feature of the
first machine produced by the new company in 1851, though the patent
for the stationary bobbin was not issued until June 15, 1852 (fig. 26).
In all reciprocating-shuttle machines a certain loss of power is
incurred in driving forward, stopping, and bringing back the shuttle at
each stitch; also, the machines are rather noisy, owing to the striking
of the driver against the shuttle at each stroke. These objections were
removed by Wilson's rotary hook and stationary bobbin. The locking of
the needle thread with the bobbin thread was accomplished, not by
driving a shuttle through the loop of the needle thread, but by passing
that loop under the bobbin. The driving shaft carried the circular
rotary hook, one of the sewing machine's most beautiful contrivances.
The success of the machine is indicated in an article that appeared in
the June 1853 issue of _Scientific American_:
There are 300 of these machines now in operation in various parts
of the country, and the work which they can perform cannot be
surpassed.... The time must soon come when every private family
that has much sewing to do, will have one of these neat and perfect
machines; indeed many private families have them now.... The price
of one all complete is $125; every machine is made under the eye of
the inventor at the company's machine shop, Watertown, Connecticut,
so that every one is warranted ... agreement between Mr. Howe and
Messrs. Wheeler, Wilson & Co., so every customer will be perfectly
protected....[50]
[Illustration: Figure 27.--WILSON'S four-motion-feed patent model, 1854,
is not known to be in existence; this is a commercial machine of the
period. The plate is stamped "A. B. Wilson, Patented Aug. 12, 1851,
Watertown, Conn., No. 1...." (Smithsonian photo 45504.)]
This agreement was important to sales, as Elias Howe was known to have
sued purchasers of machines, as well as rival inventors and companies.
The business was on a substantial basis by October 1853, and a stock
company was formed under the name of Wheeler & Wilson Manufacturing
Company.[51] A little more than a year later, on December 19, 1854,
Wilson's fourth important patent (U.S. patent 12,116)--for the
four-motion cloth feed--was issued to him (fig. 27). In this
development, the flat-toothed surface in contact with the cloth moved
forward carrying the cloth with it; then it dropped a little, so as not
to touch the cloth; next it moved backward; then in the fourth motion it
pushed up against the cloth and was ready to repeat the forward
movements. This simple and effective feed method is still used today,
with only minor modifications, in almost every sewing machine. This feed
with the rotary hook and the stationary circular-disk bobbin, completed
the essential features of Wilson's machine. It was original and
fundamentally different from all other machines of that time.
The resulting Wheeler and Wilson machine made a lockstitch by means of a
curved eye-pointed needle carried by a vibrating arm projecting from a
rock shaft connected by link and eccentric strap with an eccentric on
the rotating hook shaft. This shaft had at its outer end the rotary
hook, provided with a point adapted to enter the loop of needle thread.
As the hook rotated, it passed into and drew down the loop of
needle-thread, which was held by means of a loop check, while the point
of the hook entered a new loop. When the first loop was cast off--the
face of the hook being beveled for that purpose--it was drawn upward by
the action of the hook upon the loop through which it was then passing.
During the rotation of the hook each loop was passed around a disk
bobbin provided with the second thread and serving the part of the
shuttle in other machines. The four-motion feed was actuated in this
machine by means of a spring bar and a cam in conjunction with the
mandrel.
From the beginning, Wheeler and Wilson had looked beyond the use of the
sewing machine solely by manufacturers and had seen the demand for a
light-running, lightweight machine for sewing in the home. Wilson's
inventions lent themselves to this design, and Wheeler and Wilson led
the way to the introduction of the machine as a home appliance. Other
manufacturers followed.
When the stock company was formed, Mr. Wilson retired from active
participation in the business at his own request. His health had not
been good, and a nervous condition made it advisable for him to be freed
from the responsibility of daily routine. During this period Wilson's
inventive contributions to the sewing machine continued as noted, and in
addition he worked on inventions concerning cotton picking and
illuminating gases.
Wheeler and Wilson's foremost competitor in the early years of
sewing-machine manufacture was the Singer Company, which overtook them
by 1870 and finally absorbed the entire Wheeler and Wilson Manufacturing
Company in 1905.
The founder of this most successful 19th-century company was Isaac
Singer, a native of Pittstown, New York.[52] Successively a mechanic, an
actor, and an inventor, Singer came to Boston in 1850 to promote his
invention of a machine for carving printers' wooden type. He exhibited
the carving machine in Orson Phelps' shop, where the Blodgett and Lerow
machines were being manufactured.
Because the carving machine evoked but little interest, Singer turned
his attention to the sewing machine as a device offering considerable
opportunity for both improvement and financial reward. Phelps liked
Singer's ideas and joined with George Zieber, the publisher who had been
backing the carving-machine venture, to support Singer in the work of
improving the sewing machine. His improvements in the Blodgett and Lerow
machine included a table to hold the cloth horizontally rather than
vertically (this had been used by Bachelder and Wilson also), a yielding
vertical presser foot to hold the cloth down as the needle was drawn up,
and a vertically reciprocating straight needle driven by a rotary,
overhanging shaft.
The story of the invention and first trial of the machine was told by
Singer in the course of a patent suit sometime later:
I explained to them how the work was to be fed over the table and
under the presser-foot, by a wheel, having short pins on its
periphery, projecting through a slot in the table, so that the work
would be automatically caught, fed and freed from the pins, in
place of attaching and detaching the work to and from the baster
plate by hand, as was necessary in the Blodgett machine.
Phelps and Zieber were satisfied that it would work. I had no
money. Zieber offered forty dollars to build a model machine.
Phelps offered his best endeavors to carry out my plan and make the
model in his shop; if successful we were to share equally. I worked
at it day and night, sleeping but three or four hours a day out of
the twenty-four, and eating generally but once a day, as I knew I
must make it for the forty dollars or not get it at all.
The machine was completed in eleven days. About nine o'clock in the
evening we got the parts together and tried it; it did not sew; the
workmen exhausted with almost unremitting work, pronounced it a
failure and left me one by one.
Zieber held the lamp, and I continued to try the machine, but
anxiety and incessant work had made me nervous and I could not get
tight stitches. Sick at heart, about midnight, we started for our
hotel. On the way we sat down on a pile of boards, and Zieber
mentioned that the loose loops of thread were on the upper side of
the cloth. It flashed upon me that we had forgot to adjust the
tension on the needle thread. We went back, adjusted the tension,
tried the machine, sewed five stitches perfectly and the thread
snapped, but that was enough. At three o'clock the next day the
machine was finished. I took it to New York and employed Mr.
Charles M. Keller to patent it. It was used as a model in the
application for the patent.[53]
The first machine was completed about the last of September 1850. The
partners considered naming the machine the "Jenny Lind," after the
Swedish soprano who was then the toast of America. It was reported[54]
to have been advertised under that name when the machine was first
placed on the market, but the name was soon changed to "Singer's
Perpendicular Action Sewing Machine" or simply the "Singer Sewing
Machine"--a name correctly anticipated to achieve a popularity of its
own.
According to the contract made by the partners, the hurriedly built
first machine was to be sent to the Patent Office with an application in
the name of Singer and Phelps. An application was made between the end
of September 1850 and March 14, 1851, as Singer refers to it briefly in
the application formally filed on April 16, 1851, stating, "My present
invention is of improvements on a machine heretofore invented by me and
for which an application is now pending."[55]
[Illustration: Figure 28.--SINGER'S PATENT MODEL, 1851; a commercial
machine was used, bearing the serial number 22. (Smithsonian photo
45572-D.)]
In late December 1850 Singer had bought Phelps' interest in the company.
Whether the first application was later abandoned by Singer or whether
it was rejected is not known,[56] but a patent on the first application
was never issued. The final disposition of this first machine has
remained a mystery.[57]
[Illustration: Figure 29.--SINGER'S PERPENDICULAR ACTION sewing machine,
an engraving from _Illustrated News_, June 25, 1853, which states: "The
sewing machine has, within the last two years acquired a wide celebrity,
and established its character as one of the most efficient labor saving
instruments ever introduced to public notice.... We must not forget to
call attention to the fact that this instrument is peculiarly calculated
for female operatives. They should never allow its use to be monopolized
by men." (Smithsonian photo 48091-D.)]
A few machines were manufactured in late 1850 and early 1851, and these
attracted considerable attention; orders began to be received in advance
of production. The pending patent application did not delay the
manufacture, and a number of machines were sold before August 12, 1851,
when the patent was granted. The patent model is shown in figure 28.[58]
It made a lockstitch by means of a straight eye-pointed needle and a
reciprocating shuttle. The patent claims, as quoted from the
specifications, were as follows:
1. Giving to the shuttle an additional forward motion after it has
been stopped to close the loop, as described, for the purpose of
drawing the stitch tight, when such additional motion is given at
and in combination with the feed motion of the cloth in the reverse
direction, and the final upward motion of the needle, as described,
so that the two threads shall be drawn tight at the same time, as
described.
2. Controlling the thread during the downward motion of the needle
by the combination of a friction-pad to prevent the slack above the
cloth, with the eye on the needle-carrier for drawing back the
thread, for the purposes and in the manner substantially as
described.
3. Placing the bobbin from which the needle is supplied with thread
on an adjustable arm attached to the frame, substantially as
described, when this is combined with the carrying of the said
thread through an eye or guide attached to and moving with the
needle-carrier, as described, whereby any desired length of thread
can be given for the formation of the loop without varying the
range of motion of the needle, as described.
The feeding described in the Singer patent was "by the friction surface
of a wheel, whose periphery is formed with very fine grooves, the edges
of which are slightly serrated, against which the cloth is pressed by a
spring plate or pad." Although claimed by the inventor in the
handwritten specifications, it was not allowed as original.
The machines manufactured by the Singer company (fig. 29) were
duplicates of the patent model. These machines were quite heavy and
intended for manufacturing rather than for family use in the home.
[Illustration: Figure 30.--I. M. SINGER & CO. NEW YORK SHOWROOM of the
mid-1850s, as illustrated in _Frank Leslie's Illustrated Newspaper_,
August 29, 1857; only manufacturing machines are shown in this
illustration. (Smithsonian photo 48091-B.)]
[Illustration: Figure 31.--HUNT AND WEBSTER'S SEWING-MACHINE MANUFACTORY
exhibition and salesroom in Boston, as illustrated in _Ballou's
Pictorial_, July 5, 1856; only manufacturing machines are shown.
(Smithsonian photo 45771-A.)]
Singer enjoyed demonstrating the machine and showed it to church and
social groups and even at circuses; this personal association then
encouraged him to improve its reliability and convenience. He developed
a wooden packing case which doubled as a stand for the machine and a
treadle to allow it to be operated by foot. Because of the dimensions of
the packing case, Singer put the pivot of the treadle toward its center,
about where the instep of the foot would rest. This produced the
heel-and-toe action treadle, a familiar part of the sewing machine until
its replacement by the electric motor. Both hands were freed to guide
and arrange the cloth that was being stitched. Singer also added a
flywheel to smooth out the treadle action and later an iron stand with a
treadle wide enough for both feet. The treadle had been in use for two
years before a rival pointed out that it might have been patented. To
Singer's chagrin it was then too late for patent laws did not permit
patenting a device that had been in public use.
A new obstacle appeared in the Singer company's path when Howe demanded
$25,000 for infringement of his patent. Singer and Zieber decided to
fight, enlisting the legal aid of Edward Clark, a lawyer and financier.
Howe's action was opposed on the basis of Hunt's machine of 1834, which
they stated had anticipated Howe's invention.
While they were resisting, Howe sued three firms that were using and
selling Singer machines. The court order required the selling firms and
the purchasers to provide an account of the profits accrued from the
sale and the use of the sewing machines and restrained the firms from
selling the machines during the pendency of the suit.[59] As a result of
this action, a number of Singer's rivals purchased licenses from Howe
and advertised that anyone could sell their machines without fear of a
suit. This gave them a great competitive advantage, and Singer and
Clark[60] decided it was best to seek a settlement with Howe. On July 1,
1854, they paid him $15,000 and took out a license.
[Illustration: Figure 32.--SINGER'S NEW FAMILY SEWING MACHINE,
illustration from a brochure dating about 1858 or 1859 which states: "A
few months since, we came to the conclusion that the public taste
demanded a sewing machine for family purposes more exclusively; a
machine of smaller size, and of a lighter and more elegant form; a
machine decorated in the best style of art, so as to make a beautiful
ornament in the parlor or boudoir; a machine very easily operated, and
rapid in working.... To supply this public want, we have just produced,
and are now prepared to receive orders for, 'Singer's new Family Sewing
Machine.'" (Smithsonian photo 48091-H.)]
In spite of this defeat, the Singer company could claim several
important improvements to the sewing machine and the acquisition of the
patents rights to the Morey and Johnson machine of 1849, which gave them
control of the spring or curved arm to hold the cloth by a yielding
pressure. Although this point had not been claimed in the 1849 patent,
the established principle of patent law allowed that a novel device
introduced and used in a patented machine could be covered by a reissue
at any time during the life of the patent. Upon becoming owners of the
Morey and Johnson patent, Singer applied for a reissue which covered
this type of yielding pressure. It was granted on June 27, 1854. The
Singer company's acquisition of the Bachelder patent had given them
control of the yielding pressure bar also.
[Illustration: Figure 33.--SINGER FAMILY MACHINE, 1858, head only.
(Smithsonian photo 45524-F.)]
Singer's aggressive selling had begun to overcome the public's suspicion
of sewing machines. He pioneered in the use of lavishly decorated
sewing-machine showrooms when the company offices were expanded in the
mid-1850s (fig. 30). These were rich with carved walnut furniture,
gilded ornaments, and carpeted floors, places in which Victorian women
were not ashamed to be seen. The machines were demonstrated by pretty
young women. The total effect was a new concept of selling, and Singer
became the drum major of a new and coming industry that had many
followers (see fig. 31).
[Illustration: Figure 34.--GROVER AND BAKER'S PATENT MODEL, 1851.
(Smithsonian photo 32003-G.)]
The first, light, family sewing machine by the Singer company was not
manufactured until 1858 (figs. 32 and 33). Comparatively few of these
machines were made as they proved to be too small and light. The men in
the shop dubbed the machine "The Grasshopper," but it was officially
called the new Family Sewing Machine or the Family Machine.[61] Because
of its shape, Singer company brochures of the 1920s referred to it as
the Turtleback Machine.
Since the cost of sewing machines was quite high and the average family
income was low, Clark suggested the adoption of the hire-purchase plan.
Into the American economy thus came the now-familiar installment
buying.
Singer and Clark continued to be partners until 1863 when a corporation
was formed. At this time Singer decided to withdraw from active work. He
received 40 percent of the stock and retired to Paris and later to
England, where he died in 1875.
[Illustration: Figure 35.--THIS GROVER AND BAKER CABINET-STYLE SEWING
MACHINE of 1856 bears the serial number 5675 and the patent dates
February 11, 1851, June 22, 1852, February 22, 1853, and May 27, 1856.
(Smithsonian photo 45572-F.)]
By the mid-1850s the basic elements of a successful, practical sewing
machine were at hand, but the continuing court litigation over rival
patent rights seemed destined to ruin the economics of the new industry.
It was then that the lawyer of the Grover and Baker company, another
sewing-machine manufacturer of the early 1850s, supplied the solution.
Grover and Baker were manufacturing a machine that was mechanically
good, for this early period. William O. Grover was another Boston
tailor, who, unlike many others, was convinced that the sewing machine
was going to revolutionize his chosen trade. Although the sewing
machines that he had seen were not very practical, he began in 1849 to
experiment with an idea based on a new kind of stitch. His design was
for a machine that would take both its threads from spools and eliminate
the need to wind one thread upon a bobbin. After much experimenting, he
proved that it was possible to make a seam by interlocking two threads
in a succession of slipknots, but he found that building a machine to do
this was a much more difficult task. It is quite surprising that while
he was working on this idea, he did not stumble upon a good method to
produce the single-thread (as opposed to Grover and Baker's two-thread)
chainstitch, later worked out by another. Grover was working so intently
on the use of two threads that apparently no thought of forming a stitch
with one thread had a chance to develop.
At this time Grover became a partner with another Boston tailor,
William E. Baker, and on February 11, 1851, they were issued U.S. patent
No. 7,931 for a machine that did exactly what Grover had set out to do;
it made a double chainstitch with two threads both carried on ordinary
thread spools. The machine (figs. 34 and 35) used a vertical eye-pointed
needle for the top thread and a horizontal needle for the underthread.
The cloth was placed on the horizontal platform or table, which had a
hole for the entry of the vertical needle. When this needle passed
through the cloth, it formed a loop on the underside. The horizontal
needle passed through this loop forming another loop beyond, which was
retained until the redescending vertical needle enchained it, and the
process repeated. The slack in the needle thread was controlled by means
of a spring guide. The cloth was fed by feeding rolls and a band.
[Illustration: Figure 36.--GROVER'S PATENT MODEL FOR THE FIRST PORTABLE
CASE, 1856. The machine in the case is a commercial machine of 1854,
bearing the serial number 3012 and the patent dates "Feby 11, 1851, June
22, 1852, Feby 22, 1853." Powered by a single, foot-shaped treadle that
was connected by a removable wooden pitman, it also could be turned by
hand. (Smithsonian photo 45525-D.)]
A company was organized under the name of Grover and Baker Sewing
Machine Company, and soon the partners took Jacob Weatherill, mechanic,
and Orlando B. Potter, lawyer (who became the president), into the firm.
Potter contributed his ability as a lawyer in lieu of a financial
investment and handled the several succeeding patents of Grover and
Baker. These patents were primarily for mechanical improvements such as
U.S. patent No. 9,053 issued to Grover and Baker on June 22, 1852, for
devising a curved upper needle and an under looper[62] to form the
double-looped stitch which became known as the Grover and Baker stitch.
One of the more interesting of the patents, however, was for the box or
sewing case for which Grover was issued U.S. patent No. 14,956 on May
27, 1856. The inventor stated "that when open the box shall constitute
the bed for the machine to be operated upon, and hanging the machine
thereto to facilitate oiling, cleansing, and repairs without removing it
from the box." It was the first portable sewing machine (fig. 36).
Though the Grover and Baker company manufactured machines using a
shuttle and producing the more common lockstitch, both under royalty in
their own name and also for other smaller companies, Potter was
convinced that the Grover and Baker stitch was the one that eventually
would be used in both family and commercial machines. He, as president,
directed the efforts of the company to that end. When the basic patents
held by the "Sewing-Machine Combination" (discussed on pp. 41-42) began
to run out in the mid-1870s, dissolving its purpose and lowering the
selling price of sewing machines, the Grover and Baker company began a
systematic curtailing of expenses and closing of branch offices. All the
patents held by the company and the business itself were sold to
another company.[63] But the members of the Grover and Baker company
fared well financially by the strategic move.
The Grover and Baker machine and its unique stitch did not have a great
influence on the overall development of the mechanics of machine sewing.
The merits of a double-looped stitch--its elasticity and the taking of
both threads from commercial spools--were outweighed by the bulkiness of
the seam and its consumption of three times as much thread as the
lockstitch required. Machines making a similar type of stitch have
continued in limited use in the manufacture of knit goods and other
products requiring an elastic seam. But, more importantly, Grover and
Baker's astute Orlando B. Potter placed their names in the annals of
sewing-machine history by his work in forming the "Combination,"
believed to be the first "trust" of any prominence.
FOOTNOTES:
[33] See biographical sketch, pp. 138-141.
[34] _In the Matter of the Application of Elias Howe, Jr. for an
Extension of His Sewing Machine Patent Dated September 10, 1846_, New
York, 1860, with attachments A and B, U.S. Patent Office. [L.C. call no.
TJ 1512.H6265]
[35] It is interesting to note that when William Thomas applied for the
British patent of the Howe machine (issued Dec. 1, 1846), the courts
would not allow the claim for the combination of the eye-pointed needle
and shuttle to form a stitch, due to the Fisher and Gibbons patent of
1844. For more details on Howe's years in England see his biographical
sketch, pp. 138-141.
[36] The machine referred to as the London Sewing Machine is the British
patent of the Thimonnier machine. This patent was applied for by Jean
Marie Magnin and was published by _Newton's London Journal_, vol. 39, p.
317, as Magnin's invention.
[37] The exact date is not known; however, it was prior to 1856 as the
patent was included in the sewing-machine patent pool formed that year.
[38] JAMES PARTON, _History of the Sewing Machine_, p. 12, (originally
published in the _Atlantic Monthly_, May 1867), later reprinted by the
Howe Machine Company as a separate.
[39] _Sewing Machine Times_ (Feb. 25, 1907), vol. 17, no. 382, p. 1,
"His [Bonata's] shop was on Gold Street, New York, near the Bartholf
shop, where Howe was building some of his early machines."
[40] _Sewing Machine News_, vol. 3, no. 5, p. 5, Sept. 1881-Jan. 1882.
"History of the Sewing Machine."
[41] Op. cit. (footnote 34).
[42] _New York Daily Tribune_, Jan. 15, 1852, p. 2.
[43] See Howe's biographical sketch, p. 141.
[44] Op. cit. (footnote 34). Attachments A and B are copies of Judge
Sprague's decisions.
[45] _Sewing Machine Journal_ (July 1887), pp. 93-94.
[46] _Report of the Sixth Exhibition of the Massachusetts Charitable
Mechanics Association, in the City of Boston, September 1850_ (Boston,
1850).
[47] See biographical sketch, pp. 141-142.
[48]_Scientific American_ (Dec. 6, 1851), vol. 7, no. 12, p. 95.
[49] Ibid. (Sept. 20, 1851), vol. 7, no. 1, p. 7.
[50] Ibid. (June 4, 1853), vol. 7, no. 38, p. 298
[51] J. D. VAN SLYCK, _New England Manufactures and Manufactories_, vol.
2, pp. 672-682.
[52] See his biographical sketch, pp. 142-143.
[53] CHESTER MCNEIL, _A History of the Sewing Machine_ in Union Sales
Bulletin, vol. 3, Union Special Sewing Machine Co., Chicago, Illinois,
pp. 83-85. 1903.
[54] _Sewing Machine Times_ (Aug. 25, 1908), vol. 18, no. 418.
[55] Singer gives this limited description of the first machine, with
detailed improvements for which he was then applying for a patent: "In
my previous machine, to which reference has been made, the bobbin was
carried by the needle-carrier, and hence the motion of the needle had to
be equal to the length of thread required to form the loop, which was
objectionable, as in many instances this range of motion was
unnecessarily long for all other purposes...." Quoted from U.S. patent
8,294 issued to Isaac M. Singer, Aug. 12, 1851. It should be noted that
in some instances there was a considerable lapse of time from the date a
patent application was made until the patent was issued. In this case
the handwritten specifications were dated March 14, 1851, and the formal
Patent Office receipt was dated April 16, 1851.
[56] If a patent was not approved, for any reason, the records were
placed in an "Abandoned File." In 1930 Congress authorized the disposal
of the old "Abandoned Files," requiring them to be kept for twenty years
only. There are no Singer Company records giving an account of the first
patent application.
[57] Its whereabouts was unknown as early as 1908, as stated in the
_Sewing Machine Times_ (Aug. 25, 1908), vol. 18, no. 418. Models of
abandoned patents frequently remained at the Patent Office.
Approximately 76,000 models were ruined in a Patent Office fire in 1877.
In 1908 over 3000 models of abandoned patents were sold at auction.
Either incident could account for the machine's disappearance.
[58] The patent model of 8,294 is a machine that bears the serial number
22; it was manufactured before April 18, 1851, the date it was recorded
as received by the Patent Office.
[59] William R. Bagnall, in "Contributions to American Economic
History," vol. 1 (1908), MS, Harvard School of Business Library.
[60] Singer purchased Phelps' interest in the company in 1851 and sold
it to Edward Clark.
[61] This first, family sewing machine should not be confused in name
with a model brought out in the sixties. The name of this first, family
machine was in the sense of a new "family" sewing machine. In 1859 a
"Letter A" family machine was introduced. Thus in 1865 when the Singer
Company brought out another family machine they called it the "New"
Family Sewing Machine. Both the first-style Family machine and the
Letter A machine are illustrated in _Eighty Years of Progress of the
United States_ (New York, 1861), vol. 2, p. 417, and discussed in an
article, "The Place and Its Tenants," in the _Sewing Machine Times_
(Dec. 25, 1908), vol. 27, no. 893.
[62] A looper on the underside in place of the horizontal needle.
[63] Domestic Sewing Machine Company. See _Union Special Sewing Machine
Co. Sales Bulletin_, vol. 3, ch. 15, pp. 58-59.
_Chapter Three_
[Illustration:
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| A PARTIAL STATEMENT FROM RECORDS OF "THE SEWING-MACHINE COMBINATION," |
| SHOWING NUMBER OF SEWING-MACHINES LICENSED ANNUALLY |
| UNDER THE _ELIAS HOWE_ PATENT. |
+-----+--------+---------+---------+---------+------+-------+-------+--------+
|NAME |Wheeler |I. M. |The |Grover & |A. B. |Leavitt|Ladd & |Bartholf|
|OF |& |Singer |Singer |Baker |Howe |S. M. |Webster|S. M. |
|MANU-|Wilson |& Co. |Manufac- |S. M. Co.|S. M. |Co. |S. M. |Co. |
|FACT-|Mfg. Co.| |turing | |Co. | |Co. | |
|URER.| | |Co. | | | | | |
+-----+--------+---------+---------+---------+------+-------+-------+--------+
|1853 |799 |810 |.... |657 |.... |28 |100 |135 |
|1854 |756 |879 |.... |2,034 |60 |217 |268 |55 |
|1855 |1,171 |883 |.... |1,144 |53 |152 |73 |31 |
|1856 |2,210 |2,564 |.... |1,952 |47 |235 |180 |35 |
|1857 |4,591 |3,630 |.... |3,680 |133 |195 |453 |31 |
|1858 |7,978 |3,594 |.... |5,070 |179 |75 |490 |203 |
|1859 |21,306 |10,953 |.... |10,280 |921 |213 |1,788 |747 |
|1860 |25,102 |13,000(a)|.... |(b) |(b) |(b) |(b) | |
|1861 |18,556 |16,000(a)|.... |(b) |(b) |(b) |(b) |(b) |
|1862 |28,202 |18,396 |.... |(b) |(b) |(b) |(b) |(b) |
|1863 |29,778 |.... |20,030 |(b) |(b) |(b) |(b) |(b) |
|1864 |40,062 |.... |23,632 |(b) |(b) |(b) |(b) |(b) |
|1865 |39,157 |.... |26,340 |(b) |(b) |(b) |(b) |(b) |
|1866 |50,132 |.... |30,960 |(b) |(b) |(b) |(b) |(b) |
+-----+--------+---------+---------+---------+------+-------+-------+--------+
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| A PARTIAL STATEMENT SHOWING NUMBER OF SEWING-MACHINES LICENSED ANNUALLY |
| FROM 1867 TO 1876 INCLUSIVE. |
+----------------------------+----------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| NAME OF MANUFACTURER. | 1867. | 1868. | 1869. | 1870. | 1871. |
+----------------------------+----------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
|The Singer Manufacturing Co.|43,053 |59,629 |86,781 |127,833 |181,260 |
|Wheeler & Wilson Mfg. Co. |38,055 |(b) |78,866 |83,208 |128,526 |
|Grover & Baker S. M. Co. |32,999 |35,000(a)|35,188 |57,402 |50,838 |
|Weed Sewing-Machine Co. |3,638 |12,000 |19,687 |35,002 |39,655 |
|Howe Sewing-Machine Co. |11,053 |35,000(a)|45,000(a)|75,156 |134,010 |
|A. B. Howe " " |.... |.... |.... |.... |20,051 |
|B. P. Howe " " |.... |.... |.... |.... |.... |
|Willcox & Gibbs S. M. Co. |14,152 |15,000 |17,201 |28,890 |30,127 |
|Wilson (W. G.) " " |.... |.... |.... |.... |21,153 |
|American B. H. & S. M. Co. |.... |.... |7,792 |14,573 |20,121 |
|Florence S. M. Co. |10,534 |12,000 |13,661 |17,660 |15,947 |
|Shaw & Clark S. M. Co. |2,692 |3,000 |.... |.... |.... |
|Gold Medal " " " |.... |.... |.... |8,912 |13,562 |
|Davis " " " |.... |.... |.... |.... |11,568 |
|Domestic " " " |.... |.... |.... |.... |10,397 |
|Finkle & Lyon Mfg. Co. and |2,488 |2,000 |1,339 |2,420 |7,639 |
| Victor. | | | | | |
|Ætna Sewing-Machine Co. |2,958 |3,500 |4,548 |5,806 |4,720 |
|Blees " " " |.... |.... |.... |.... |4,557 |
|Elliptic " " " |3,185 |.... |.... |.... |4,555 |
|Empire " " " |2,121 |5,000 |8,700 |.... |.... |
|Remington Sewing-Machine Co.|.... |.... |.... |3,560 |2,965 |
|Parham " " " |.... |.... |1,141 |1,766 |2,056 |
|Bartram & Fanton Mfg. Co. |2,958 |.... |.... |.... |1,004 |
|Bartlett Sewing-Machine Co. |.... |.... |.... |.... |614 |
|J. G. Folsom |.... |.... |.... |.... |280 |
|McKay Sewing-Machine Asso. |.... |.... |.... |129 |218 |
|C. F. Thompson |.... |.... |.... |.... |147 |
|Union Buttonhole Machine Co.|.... |.... |.... |.... |124 |
|Leavitt Sewing-Machine Co. |1,051 |1,000 |771 |.... |.... |
|Goodspeed & Wyman S. M. Co. |2,126 |.... |.... |.... |.... |
|Keystone Sewing-Machine Co. |.... |.... |.... |.... |.... |
|Secor " " " |.... |.... |.... |.... |.... |
|Centennial " " " |.... |.... |.... |.... |.... |
+----------------------------+----------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| NAME OF MANUFACTURER. | 1872. | 1873. | 1874. | 1875. | 1876. |
+----------------------------+----------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
|The Singer Manufacturing Co.|219,758 |232,444 |241,679 |249,852 |262,316 |
|Wheeler & Wilson Mfg. Co. |174,088 |119,190 |92,827 |103,740 |108,997 |
|Grover & Baker S. M. Co. |52,010 |36,179 |20,000(a)|15,000(a)|.... |
|Weed Sewing-Machine Co. |42,444 |21,769 |20,495 |21,993 |14,425 |
|Howe Sewing-Machine Co. |145,000(a)|90,000(a)|35,000(a)|25,000(a)|109,294 |
|A. B. Howe " " |.... |.... |.... |.... |.... |
|B. P. Howe " " |14,907 |13,919 |.... |.... |.... |
|Willcox & Gibbs S. M. Co. |33,639 |15,881 |13,710 |14,522 |12,758 |
|Wilson (W. G.) " " |22,666 |21,247 |17,525 |9,508 |.... |
|American B. H. & S. M. Co. |18,930 |14,182 |13,529 |14,406 |17,937 |
|Florence S. M. Co. |15,793 |8,960 |5,517 |4,892 |2,978 |
|Shaw & Clark S. M. Co. |.... |.... |.... |.... |.... |
|Gold Medal " " " |18,897 |16,431 |15,214 |14,262 |7,185 |
|Davis " " " |11,376 |8,861 |.... |.... |.... |
|Domestic " " " |49,554 |40,114 |22,700 |21,452 |23,587 |
|Finkle & Lyon Mfg. Co. and |11,901 |7,446 |6,292 |6,103 |5,750 |
| Victor. | | | | | |
|Ætna Sewing-Machine Co. |4,262 |3,081 |1,866 |1,447 |707 |
|Blees " " " |6,053 |3,458 |.... |.... |.... |
|Elliptic " " " |.... |.... |.... |.... |.... |
|Empire " " " |.... |.... |.... |.... |.... |
|Remington Sewing-Machine Co.|4,982 |9,183 |17,608 |25,110 |12,716 |
|Parham " " " |.... |.... |.... |.... |.... |
|Bartram & Fanton Mfg. Co. |1,000 |1,000 |250 |.... |.... |
|Bartlett Sewing-Machine Co. |1,000 |.... |.... |.... |.... |
|J. G. Folsom |.... |.... |.... |.... |.... |
|McKay Sewing-Machine Asso. |.... |.... |128 |161 |102 |
|C. F. Thompson |.... |.... |.... |.... |.... |
|Union Buttonhole Machine Co.|.... |.... |.... |.... |.... |
|Leavitt Sewing-Machine Co. |.... |.... |.... |.... |.... |
|Goodspeed & Wyman S. M. Co. |.... |.... |.... |.... |.... |
|Keystone Sewing-Machine Co. |2,665 |217 |37 |.... |.... |
|Secor " " " |311 |3,430 |4,541 |1,307 |.... |
|Centennial " " " |.... |514 |.... |.... |.... |
+----------------------------+----------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
(a) Number estimated.
(b) No data.
Figure 37.--TABLE OF SEWING-MACHINE STATISTICS. From Frederick G.
Bourne, "American Sewing Machines" in _One Hundred Years of American
Commerce_, vol. 2. ed. Chauncey Mitchell Depew (New York: D. O. Haines,
1895), p. 530. (Smithsonian photo 42542-A.)]
The "Sewing-Machine Combination"
With the basic elements of a successful sewing machine assembled, the
various manufacturers should have been able to produce good machines
unencumbered. The court order, however, which restrained several firms
from selling Singer machines while the Howe suit was pending, started a
landslide; soon Wheeler, Wilson and company, Grover and Baker company,
and several others[64] purchased rights from Elias Howe. This gave Howe
almost absolute control of the sewing-machine business as these
companies agreed to his royalty terms of $25 for every machine sold. In
an attempt to improve his own machine, Howe was almost immediately
caught up in another series of legal battles in which he was the
defendant; the companies he had defeated were able to accuse him of
infringing on patents that they owned. To compound the confusion,
individual companies also were suing each other on various grounds.
Because of this situation Orlando B. Potter, president of the Grover and
Baker company, advanced in 1856 the idea of a "Combination" of
sewing-machine manufacturers. He pointed out how the various companies
were harming themselves by continuing litigation and tried to convince
Howe that all would benefit by an agreement of some kind. He proposed
that Elias Howe; Wheeler, Wilson and company; I. M. Singer and company;
and Grover and Baker company pool their patents covering the essential
features of the machine. The three companies had started production
about the same time and approved of Potter's idea; Howe opposed it as he
felt that he had the most to lose by joining the "Combination." He
finally consented to take part in Potter's plan if the others would
agree to certain stipulations. The first requirement was that at least
twenty-four manufacturers were to be licensed. The second was that, in
addition to sharing equally in the profits with the three companies,
Howe would receive a royalty of $5 for each machine sold in the United
States and $1 for each machine exported. It has been estimated that, as
a result of this agreement, Howe received at least $2,000,000 as his
share of the license fees between 1856 and 1867 when his patent
expired.[65]
The organization was called the Sewing-Machine Trust and/or the
Sewing-Machine Combination. The important patents contributed to it
were:
1. The grooved, eye-pointed needle used with a shuttle to form the
lockstitch (E. Howe patent, held by E. Howe);
2. The four-motion feeding mechanism (A. B. Wilson patent, held by
Wheeler and Wilson company);
3. The needle moving vertically above a horizontal work-plate
(Bachelder patent), a continuous feeding device by belt or wheel
(Bachelder patent), a yielding presser resting on the cloth
(Bachelder patent), the spring or curved arm to hold the cloth by a
yielding pressure (Morey and Johnson patent), the heart-shaped cam
as applied to moving the needle bar (Singer patent); all these
patents, held by the Singer Company.[66]
The Grover and Baker company contributed several patents of relative
importance, but its most important claim for admission was the fact that
Potter had promoted the idea.
The consent of all four member-parties was required before any license
could be granted, and all were required to have a license--even the
member companies. The fee was $15 per machine. A portion of this money
was set aside to pay the cost of prosecuting infringers, Howe received
his initial fee, and the rest was divided between the four parties. The
advantage to the licensee was that he was required to pay only one fee.
Most license applications were granted; only those manufacturing a
machine specifically imitating the product of a licensed manufacturer
were refused.
The "Combination's" three company members each continued to manufacture,
improve, and perfect its own machine. Other than the joint control of
the patents, there was no pooling of interests, and each company
competed to attract purchasers to buy its particular type of machine, as
did the companies who were licensed by them.
In 1860, the year Howe's patent was renewed, the general license fee was
reduced from $15 to $7, and Howe's special royalty was reduced to $1 per
machine. Howe remained a member until his patent ran out in 1867. The
other members continued the "Combination" until 1877, when the Bachelder
patent, which had been extended twice, finally expired. By that time the
fundamental features of the sewing machine were no longer controlled by
anyone. Open competition by the smaller manufacturers was possible, and
a slight reduction in price followed. Many new companies came into
being--some destined to be very short-lived.
From the beginning to the end of the "Combination" there was an army of
independents, including infringers and imitators, who kept up a constant
complaint against it, maintaining that its existence tended to retard
the improvement of the sewing machine and that the public suffered
thereby. In the period immediately following the termination of the
"Combination," however, only a few improvements of any importance were
made, and most of these were by the member companies.
FOOTNOTES:
[64] These included the American Magnetic Sewing Machine Co.; A.
Bartholf; Nichols and Bliss; J. A. Lerow; Woolridge, Keene, and Moore;
and A. B. Howe. _New York Daily Tribune_, Sept. 3, 1853.
[65] "Who Invented the Sewing-Machine," unsigned article in _The
Galaxy_, vol. 4, August 31, 1867, pp. 471-481.
[66] Singer has sometimes been credited as the inventor of the various
improvements covered by the patents that the Singer company purchased
and later contributed to the efforts of the Combination.
_Chapter Four_
[Illustration: Figure 38.--GIBBS' PATENT MODEL, 1857. (Smithsonian photo
45504-E.)]
Less Expensive Machines
While the "Combination" was attempting to solve the problems of patent
litigation, another problem faced the would-be home users of this new
invention. The budget limitations of the average family caused a demand
for a less expensive machine, for this first consumer appliance was a
most desirable commodity.[67]
There were many attempts to satisfy this demand, but one of the best and
most successful grew out of a young man's curiosity. James E. A. Gibbs'
first exposure to the sewing machine was in 1855 when, at the age of 24,
he saw a simple woodcut illustration of a Grover and Baker machine. The
woodcut represented only the upper part of the machine. Nothing in the
illustration indicated that more than one thread was used, and none of
the stitch-forming mechanism was visible. Gibbs assumed that the stitch
was formed with one thread; he then proceeded to imagine a mechanism
that would make a stitch with one thread. His solution was described in
his own statement:
As I was then living in a very out of the way place, far from
railroads and public conveyances of all kinds, modern improvements
seldom reached our locality, and not being likely to have my
curiosity satisfied otherwise, I set to work to see what I could
learn from the woodcut, which was not accompanied by any
description. I first discovered that the needle was attached to a
needle arm, and consequently could not pass entirely through the
material, but must retreat through the same hole by which it
entered. From this I saw that I could not make a stitch similar to
handwork, but must have some other mode of fastening the thread on
the underside, and among other possible methods of doing this, the
chainstitch occurred to me as a likely means of accomplishing the
end.
I next endeavored to discover how this stitch was or could be made,
and from the woodcut I saw that the driving shaft which had the
driving wheel on the outer end, passed along under the cloth plate
of the machine. I knew that the mechanism which made the stitch
must be connected with and actuated by this driving shaft. After
studying the position and relations of the needle and shaft with
each other, I conceived the idea of the revolving hook on the end
of the shaft, which might take hold of the thread and manipulate it
into a chainstitch. My ideas were, of course, very crude and
indefinite, but it will be seen that I then had the correct
conception of the invention afterwards embodied in my machine.[68]
[Illustration: Figure 39.--ONE OF THE FIRST COMMERCIAL MACHINES produced
by the Willcox & Gibbs Sewing Machine Co. in 1857, this machine bears no
serial number, although the name "James E. A. Gibbs" is inscribed in two
places on the cloth plate. It was used as the patent model for Gibbs'
improvement on his 1857 patent issued the following year on August 10,
1858. (Smithsonian photo P. 6393.)]
Gibbs had no immediate interest in the sewing machine other than to
satisfy his curiosity. He did not think of it again until January 1856
when he was visiting his father in Rockbridge County, Virginia. While in
a tailor's shop there, he happened to see a Singer machine. Gibbs was
very much impressed, but thought the machine entirely too heavy,
complicated, and cumbersome, and the price exorbitant. It was then that
he recalled the machine he had devised. Remembering how simple it was,
he decided to work in earnest to produce a less-expensive type of sewing
machine.
Gibbs had little time to spend on this invention since his family was
dependent upon him for support, but he managed to find time at night and
during inclement weather. In contemporary references, Gibbs is referred
to as a farmer, but since he is also reported to have had employers, it
may be surmised that he was a farmhand. In any event, his decision to
try to produce a less-expensive sewing machine suffered from a lack of
proper tools and adequate materials. Most of the machine had to be
constructed of wood, and he was forced to make his own needles. By the
end of April 1856, however, his model was sufficiently completed to
arouse the interest of his employers, who agreed to furnish the money
necessary to patent the machine.
Gibbs went to Washington, where he examined sewing-machine models in the
Patent Office and other machines then on the market. Completing his
investigations, Gibbs made a trip to Philadelphia and showed his
invention to a builder of models of new inventions, James Willcox. Much
impressed with the machine, Willcox arranged for Gibbs to work with his
son, Charles Willcox, in a small room in the rear of his shop. After
taking out two minor patents (on December 16, 1856, and January 20,
1857), Gibbs obtained his important one, U.S. patent No. 17,427 on June
2, 1857 (fig. 38). His association with Charles Willcox led to the
formation of the Willcox & Gibbs Sewing Machine Company, and they began
manufacturing chainstitch machines in 1857 (fig. 39). The machine used a
straight needle to make a chainstitch. At the forward end of the main
shaft was a hook which, as it rotated, carried the loop of
needle-thread, elongated and held it expanded while the feed moved the
cloth until the needle at the next stroke descended through the loop so
held. When the needle descended through the first loop, the point of the
hook was again in position to catch the second loop, at which time the
first loop was cast off and the second loop drawn through it, the first
loop having been drawn up against the lower edge of the cloth to form a
chain.
[Illustration: Figure 40.--A DOLPHIN sewing machine based on Clark's
patent of 1858. This design was first used by T. J. W. Robertson in
1855, but in his patent issued on May 22 of that year no claim was made
for the machine design, only for the chainstitch mechanism. The same
style was used by D. W. Clark in several of his chainstitch patents, but
he also made no claim for the design, stating that the machine "may be
made in any desired ornamental form." The dolphin-style machines are all
chainstitch models of solid brass, originally gilt. Although only about
five inches long, they are full-size machines using a full-size needle.
(Smithsonian photo 45505.)]
A Gibbs sewing machine, on a simple iron-frame stand with treadle, sold
for approximately $50 in the late 1850s,[69] while a Wheeler and
Wilson[70] machine or a Grover and Baker[71] with the same type of
stand sold for approximately $100. After the introduction of the Gibbs
machine, the Singer company[72] brought out a light family machine in
1858 that was also first sold for $100. It was then reduced to $50, but
it was not popular because it was too light (see discussion of Singer
machines, pp. 34-35). In 1859, Singer brought out its second, more
successful family machine, which sold for $75.
Like the other companies licensed by the "Combination," Willcox and
Gibbs company paid a royalty for the use of the patents it held.
Although the Willcox and Gibbs machine was a single-thread chainstitch
machine and the company held the Gibbs patents, the company was required
to be licensed to use the basic feed, vertical needle, and other
related patents held by the "Sewing-Machine Combination."
With the approach of the Civil War, Gibbs returned to Virginia. Poor
health prevented him from taking an active part in the war, but he
worked throughout the conflict in a factory processing saltpeter for
gunpowder. Afterward, Gibbs returned to Philadelphia and found that
Willcox had faithfully protected his sewing-machine interests during his
long absence. The firm prospered, and Gibbs finally retired to Virginia
a wealthy man. Interestingly, Gibbs named the Virginia village to which
he returned in later life "Raphine"--derived, somewhat incorrectly, from
the Greek word "to sew."
The Willcox & Gibbs Sewing Machine Company is one of the few old
companies still in existence. It discontinued making and selling
family-style machines many years ago and directed its energies toward
specialized commercial sewing machines, many of which are based on the
original chainstitch principle.
There was also an ever-increasing number of other patentees and
manufacturers who, in the late 1850s and 1860s, attempted to produce a
sewing machine that would circumvent both the "Combination" and the high
cost of manufacturing a more complicated type of machine. Some of the
more interesting of these are pictured and described in figures 40
through 54.
[Illustration: Figure 41.--THE CHERUB sewing machine was another
Robertson first which was adopted by Clark. Robertson's patent of
October 20, 1857, once again makes no claim for the design; neither does
Clark's patent of January 5, 1858, illustrated here. The machine is
approximately the same size as the dolphin and is made in the same
manner and of the same materials. Two cherubs form the main support, one
also supporting the spool and leashing a dragonfly which backs the
needle mechanism. (Smithsonian photo 45504-D.)]
[Illustration: Figure 42.--THE FOLIAGE SEWING MACHINE originated with D.
W. Clark. Once again he did not include the design in his June 8, 1858,
patent, which was aimed at improving the feeding mechanism. Like most
hand-turned models, these required a clamp to fasten them to the table
when in operation. (Smithsonian photo 45504-C.)]
[Illustration: Figure 43.--THE SEWING SHEARS was another popular machine
of unusual style. Some models were designed to both cut and sew, but
most derived their names from the method of motivating power. The
earliest example of the sewing-shears machine was invented by Joseph
Hendrick, who stated in his patent that he was attempting to produce "a
simple, portable, cheap, and efficient machine." His patent model of
October 5, 1858, is illustrated. (Smithsonian photo 45504-F.)]
[Illustration: Figure 44.--THE HORSE SEWING MACHINE is among the most
unusual of the patents issued for mechanical improvements. Although
James Perry, the patentee, made several claims for the looper, feeder,
and tension, he made no mention of the unusual design of the machine,
for which a patent was issued on November 23, 1858. Although it was
probably one of a kind, the horse machine illustrates the extent to
which the inventor's mind struggled for original design. (Smithsonian
photo 45505-C.)]
[Illustration: Figure 45.--MANY INVENTORS attempted to cut the cost of
manufacturing a complicated machine. One of these was Albert H. Hook,
whose machine is only about four inches high and two inches wide. His
patent, granted November 30, 1858, simplified the construction and
arrangement of the various parts. Although Hook used a barbed needle
reminiscent of the one used by Thimonnier, his method of forming the
stitch was entirely different. The thread was passed through the
necessary guides, and when the cloth was in place the needle was thrust
up from below. Passing through the fabric, the needle descended,
carrying with it a loop of thread. As the process was repeated, a
chainstitch was formed with the enchained loop on the under side. In
spite of its simple mechanism, Hook's machine was not a commercial
success. (Smithsonian photo 45505-D.)]
[Illustration: Figure 46.--IN ADDITION TO MECHANICAL PATENTS, a number
of design patents were also issued for sewing machines. These fall into
a separate series in the Patent Office's numerical records. This unusual
example featured two semidraped female figures holding the spool of
thread, a mermaid holding the needle, a serpent which served as the
presser foot, and a heart-shaped baster plate. The design was patented
by W. N. Brown, October 25, 1859, but no examples other than the patent
model are known to have been made. (Smithsonian photo 45504-A.)]
[Illustration: Figure 47.--THE SQUIRREL MACHINE was another interesting
design patent. S. B. Ellithorp had received a mechanical patent for a
two-thread, stationary-bobbin machine on August 26, 1857. That same
month he published a picture of his machine, shown here as republished
in the _Sewing Machine News_, vol. 7, no. 11, November 1885. The machine
was designed in the shape of "the ordinary gray squirrel so common
throughout this country--an animal that is selected as a type of
provident care and forethought, for its habits of frugality and for
making provision for seasons of scarcity and want in times of
plenty--and the different parts of the animal are each put to a useful
purpose; the moving power being placed within its body, the needle stock
through its head, one of its fore feet serving to guide the thread, and
the other to hold down the cloth while being sewed, and the tip of its
tail forming a support to the spool from which the thread is supplied."
Although the design patent was not secured until June 7, 1859, the
inventor was reported to have been perfecting his machine for
manufacture in 1857. Ellithorp planned "to place them in market at a
price that will permit families and individuals that have heretofore
been deterred from purchasing a machine by the excessive and exorbitant
price charged for those now in use, to possess one." Patent rights were
sold under the name of Ellithorp & Fox, but the machine was never
manufactured on a large scale, if at all. No squirrel machines are known
to have survived. (Smithsonian photo 53112.)]
[Illustration: Figure 48.--HEYER'S POCKET SEWING MACHINE patent model,
November 17, 1863. This patent model is one piece, and measures about
two inches in height and two inches in length. It will stitch--but only
coarse, loosely woven fabrics. As can be expected, a great deal of
manual dexterity is required to compensate for the omission of
mechanical parts. Heyer advertised patent rights for sale, but evidence
of manufactured machines of this type has yet to be discovered.
(Smithsonian photo 18115-D[a].)]
[Illustration: Figure 49.--HEYER'S MACHINE as illustrated in _Scientific
American_, July 30, 1864. The smallest and most original of all the
attempts to simplify machine sewing, Heyer's machine, which made a
chainstitch, was constructed of a single strip of metal. The _Scientific
American_ stated: "It is simply a steel spring ingeniously bent and
arranged and it is said to sew small articles very well. The whole
affair can easily be carried in the coat pocket."
One method of operation, vibrating with the finger, was illustrated. The
machine could be operated also by holding it in the hand and pressuring
it between two fingers. Cloth was inserted at _c_, and the prongs of the
spring feed _f_ carried it along after each stitch. It was stated that
the needle could be cut from the same strip of metal, but it was advised
also that the needle could be made as a separate piece and attached.
(Smithsonian photo 48221.)]
[Illustration: Figure 50.--ALTHOUGH BEAN'S AND RODGERS' running-stitch
machines, the second and fourth U.S. sewing-machine patents, experienced
little commercial success, small manufactured machines based on Aaron
Palmer's patent of May 13, 1862, were popular in the 1860s. The patent
model above is a small brass implement with crimping gears that forced
the fabric onto an ordinary sewing needle. The full needle was then
removed from its position, and the thread was pulled through the fabric
by hand. (Smithsonian photo 45524.)]
[Illustration: THE FAIRY SEWING-MACHINE. A HOLIDAY GIFT FOR THE
WORK-TABLE
Figure 51.--ONE OF THE EARLY COMMERCIAL MANUFACTURERS of the Palmer
patent was Madame Demorest, a New York dressmaker. She advertised her
Fairy sewing machine in _Godey's Lady's Book_, vol. 66, 1863, and
stated: "In the first place it will attract attention from its
diminutive, fairy-like size, and with the same ease with which it can be
carried, an important matter to a seamstress or dressmaker employed from
house to house ... What no other sewing machine attempts to do, it runs,
and does not stitch, it sews the more delicate materials an ordinary
sewing machine cuts or draws...." (Smithsonian photo 43690.)]
[Illustration: Figure 52.--THE FAIRY SEWING MACHINE sold for five
dollars and was adequate for its advertised purpose, sewing or running
very lightweight fabrics. The machine was marked with the Palmer patent,
the date May 13, 1862, and the name "Mme. Demorest."
A machine identical to the Fairy, but bearing both Palmer patent dates,
May 13, 1862, and June 19, 1863, and the name "Gold Medal," was
manufactured by a less-scrupulous company. This machine was advertised
as follows: "A first class sewing machine, handsomely ornamented, with
all working parts silver plated. Put up in a highly polished mahogany
case, packed ready for shipment. Price $10.00. This machine uses a
common sewing needle, is very simple. A child can operate it. Cash with
order." Some buyers felt they were swindled, as they had expected a
heavy-duty machine, but no recourse could be taken against the
advertiser. Another similar machine was also manufactured under the name
"Little Gem." (Smithsonian photo 45525.)]
[Illustration: Figures 53 and 54.--RUNNING-STITCH MACHINES were also
attempted by several other inventors. Shaw & Clark, manufacturers of
chainstitch machines, patented this running-stitch machine on April 21,
1863. From the appearance of the patent model, it was already in
commercial production. On May 26, 1863, John D. Dale also received a
patent for an improvement related to the method of holding the needle
and regulating the stitches in a running-stitch machine. Dale's patent
model was a commercial machine.
John Heberling patented several improvements in 1878 and 1880. His
machine, which was a little larger and in appearance resembled a more
conventional type of sewing machine, was a commercial success. (Shaw &
Clark: Smithsonian photo P. 6395; Dale: Smithsonian photo P. 6394.)]
FOOTNOTES:
[67] _Scientific American_ (Jan. 29, 1859), vol. 14, no. 21, p. 165. In
a description of the new Willcox and Gibbs sewing machine the following
observation is made: "It is astonishing how, in a few years, the sewing
machine has made such strides in popular favor, and become, from being a
mechanical wonder, a household necessity and extensive object of
manufacture. While the higher priced varieties have such a large sale,
it is no wonder that the cheaper ones sell in such tremendous
quantities, and that our inventors are always trying to produce
something new and cheap."
[68] Op. cit. (footnote 53), pp. 129-131.
[69] _Scientific American_, vol. 15, no. 21 (January 29, 1859), p. 165,
and Willcox and Gibbs advertising brochure, 1864.
[70] _Scientific American_, vol. 12, no. 8 (November 1, 1856), p. 62.
[71] Ibid., vol. 1, no. 19 (November 5, 1859), p. 303.
[72] I. M. Singer & Co.'s Gazette, vol. 5, no. 4 (March 1, 1859), p. 4,
and a brochure, _Singer's New Family Sewing Machine_ (in Singer
Manufacturing Company, Historic Archives).
_Appendixes_
I. Notes on the Development and Commercial Use of the Sewing Machine
INTRODUCTION
While researching the history of the invention and the development of
the sewing machine, many items of related interest concerning the
machine's economic value came to light. The manufacture of the machines
was in itself a boost to the economy of the emerging "industrial United
States," as was the production of attachments for specialized stitching
and the need for new types of needles and thread. Moreover, the
machine's ability to speed up production permitted it to permeate the
entire field of products manufactured by any type of stitching, from
umbrellas to tents. Since this aspect of the story was not completed for
this study, no attempt will be made to include any definitive statements
on the economic importance of the sewing machine at home or abroad. This
related information is of sufficient interest, however, to warrant
inclusion in this first Appendix. Perhaps these notes will suggest areas
of future research for students of American technology.
READY-MADE CLOTHING
Whether of the expensive or the inexpensive type, the sewing machine was
much more than a popular household appliance. Its introduction had
far-reaching effects on many different types of manufacturing
establishments as well as on the export trade. The newly developing
ready-made clothing industry was not only in a state of development to
welcome the new machine but also was, in all probability, responsible
for its immediate practical application and success.
Until the early part of the second quarter of the 19th century, the
ready-made clothing trade in the United States was confined almost
entirely to furnishing the clothing required by sailors about to ship
out to sea. The stores that kept these supplies were usually in the
neighborhood of wharf areas. But other than the needs of these seamen,
there was little market for ready-made goods. Out of necessity many of
the families in the early years in this country had made their own
clothing. As wealth was acquired and taste could be cultivated,
professional seamstresses and tailors were in increasing demand, moved
into the cities and towns, and even visited the smaller villages for as
long as their services were needed. At the same time a related trade was
also growing in the cities, especially in New York City, that of dealing
in second-hand clothing. Industrious persons bought up old clothes,
cleaned, repaired and refinished them, and sold the clothing to
immigrants and transients who wished to avoid the high cost of new
custom-made clothing.
The repairing of this second-hand clothing led to the purchase of cheap
cloth at auction--"half-burnt," "wet-goods," and other damaged yardage.
When in excess of the repairing needs, this fabric was made into
garments and sold with the second-hand items. Many visitors who passed
through New York City were found to be potential buyers of this
merchandise if a better class of ready-made clothes was made available.
Manufacture began to increase. Tailors of the city began to keep an
assortment of finished garments on hand. When visitors bought these,
they were also very likely to buy additional garments for resale at
home. The latter led to the establishment of the wholesale
garment-manufacturing industry in New York about 1834-35.
Most of the ready-made clothing establishments were small operations,
not large factories. Large quantities of cloth were purchased; cutting
was done in multiple layers with tailor's shears. Since many
seamstresses were needed, the garments were farmed out to the girls in
their homes. The manufacture of garments in quantity meant that the
profit on each garment was larger than a tailor could make on a single
custom-made item. The appeal of increased profits influenced many to
enter the new industry and, due to the ensuing competition, the retail
cost of each garment was lowered. Just as the new businesses were
getting underway, the Panic of 1837 ruined most of them. But the lower
cost and the convenience of ready-made clothing had left its mark. Not
only was the garment-manufacturing business re-established soon after
the Panic had subsided, but by 1841 the value of clothing sold at
wholesale in New York was estimated at $2,500,000 and by 1850--a year
before sewing machines were manufactured in any quantity--there were
4,278 clothing manufacturing establishments in the United States. Beside
New York City, Cincinnati was also one of the important ready-made
clothing centers. In 1850 the value of its products amounted to
$4,427,500 and in 1860 to $6,381,190. Boston was another important
center with a ready-made clothing production of $4,567,749 in 1860.
Philadelphia, Baltimore, Louisville, and St. Louis all had a large
wholesale clothing trade by 1860. Here was the ready market for a
practical sewing machine.[73]
Clothing establishments grew and began to have agencies in small towns
and the sewing work was distributed throughout the countryside. The new,
competing sewing-machine companies were willing to deliver a machine for
a small sum and to allow the buyer to pay a dollar or two a month until
the full amount of the sale was paid. This was an extension of the
hire-purchase plan (buying on credit) initiated by Clark of the Singer
Company. The home seamstresses were eager to buy, for they were able to
produce more piecework with a sewing machine and therefore earn more
money. An example of the effect that the sewing machine had on the
stitching time required was interestingly established through a series
of experiments conducted by the Wheeler and Wilson company. Four hand
sewers and four sewing-machine operators were used to provide the
average figures in this comparative time study, the results of which
were published in 1861;[74]
NUMBER OF STITCHES PER MINUTE
_By Hand_ _By Machine_
Patent leather, fine stitching 7 175
Binding hats 33 374
Stitching vamped shoes 10 210
Stitching fine linen 23 640
Stitching fine silk 30 550
TIME FOR GARMENTS STITCHED
_By Hand_ _By Machine_
Frock coats 16 hrs. 35 min. 2 hrs. 38 min.
Satin vests 7 hrs. 19 min. 1 hr. 14 min.
Summer pants 2 hrs. 50 min. 0 hr. 38 min.
Calico dress 6 hrs. 37 min. 0 hr. 57 min.
Plain apron 1 hr. 26 min. 0 hr. 9 min.
Gentlemen's shirts 14 hrs. 26 min. 1 hr. 16 min.
The factory manufacturer, with the sewing work done at the factory, was
also developing. In 1860, Oliver F. Winchester, a shirt manufacturer of
New Haven, Connecticut, stated that his factory turned out 800 dozen
shirts per week, using 400 sewing machines and operators to do the work
of 2,000 hand sewers. The price for hand sewing was then $3 per week,
which made labor costs $6000 per week. The 400 machine operators
received $4 per week, making the labor cost $1600 per week. Allowing
$150 as the cost of each machine, the sewing machines more than paid for
themselves in less than 14 weeks, increased the operators pay by $1 a
week, and lowered the retail cost of the item.[75] The greatest savings
of time, which was as much as fifty percent, was in the manufacture of
light goods--such items as shirts, aprons, and calico dresses. The
Commissioner of Patents weighed the monetary effect that this or any
invention had on the economy against the monetary gain received by the
patentee. When he found that the patentee had not been fairly
compensated, he had the authority to grant a seven-year extension to the
patent.[76]
The sewing machine also contributed to the popularity of certain
fashions. Ready-made cloaks for women were a business of a few years'
standing when the sewing machine was adopted for their manufacture in
1853. Machine sewing reduced the cost of constructing the garment by
about eighty percent, thereby decreasing its price and increasing its
popularity. In New York City alone, the value of the "cloak and
mantilla" manufacture in 1860 was $618,400.[77] Crinolines and
hoopskirts were easier to stitch by machine than by hand, and these
items had a spirited period of popularity due to the introduction of the
sewing machine. Braiding, pleating, and tucking adorned many costume
items because they could be produced by machine with ease and rapidity.
In addition to using the sewing machine for the manufacture of shirts,
collars, and related men's furnishings, the machine was also used in the
production of men's and boy's suits and reportedly gave "a vast impetus
to the trade."[78] The Army, however, was not quite convinced of the
sewing machine's practical adaptation to its needs. Although a sewing
machine was purchased for the Philadelphia Quartermaster Depot as early
as 1851, they had only six by 1860. On March 31, 1859, General Jesup of
the Philadelphia Depot wrote to a Nechard & Company stating that the
machine sewing had been tried but was not used for clothing, only for
stitching caps and chevrons. In another letter, on the same day, to
"Messers Hebrard & Co., Louisiana Steam Clothing Factory, N. Orleans,"
Jesup states: "Machine sewing has been tried with us, and though it
meets the requirements of a populous and civilized life, it has been
found not to answer for the hard wear and tear and limited means of our
frontier service. Particular attention has been paid to this subject,
and we have abandoned the use of machines for coats, jackets and
trousers, etc. and use them on caps and bands that are not exposed to
much hard usage...."[79] At this period prior to the Civil War, the Army
manufactured its own clothing. As the demands of war increased, more and
more of the Army's clothing supplies were furnished on open
contract--with no specifications as to stitching.[80] Machine
stitching, in fact, is found in most of the Civil War uniforms. One of
the problems that most probably affected the durability of the machine
stitching in the 1850s was the sewing thread, a problem that was not
solved until the 1860s and which is discussed later under "thread for
the machine."
[Illustration: Figure 55.--BLAKE'S LEATHER-STITCHING MACHINE patent
model of July 6, 1858; the inventor claimed the arrangement of the
mechanism used and an auxiliary arm capable of entering the shoe, which
enabled the outer sole to be stitched both to the inner sole and to the
upper part of the shoe. (Smithsonian photo 50361.)]
SHOE MANUFACTURE
Another industry that was aided by the new invention was that of shoe
manufacture. Although the earliest sewing-machine patents in the United
States reflect the inventors' efforts to solve the difficult task of
leather stitching, and, although machines were used to a limited extent
in stitching some parts of the shoe in the early and mid-1850s, it was
not until 1858 that a machine was invented that could stitch the sole to
the inner sole and to the upper part of the shoe. This was the invention
of Lyman R. Blake and was patented by him on July 8, 1858; the patent
model is shown in figure 55. Blake formed a chainstitch by using a
hooked needle, which descended from above, to draw a thread through the
supporting arm. Serving as the machine's bedplate, the arm was shaped to
accommodate the stitching of all the parts of the shoe.
[Illustration: Figure 56.--HARRIS' patent thread cutter, 1872.
(Smithsonian photo P-6397.)]
[Illustration: Figure 57.--WEST'S patent thread cutter, 1874.
(Smithsonian photo P-63100.)]
[Illustration: Figure 58.--KARR'S patent needle threader, 1871.
(Smithsonian photo P-63101.)]
The increased number of shoes required by the Army during the Civil War
spurred the use of the sewing machine in their manufacture. The first
"machine sewed bootees" were purchased by the Army in 1861. Inventors
continued their efforts; the most prominent of these was Gordon McKay,
who worked on an improvement of the Blake machine with Robert Mathies in
1862 and then with Blake in 1864. Reportedly, the Government at first
preferred the machine-stitched shoes as they lasted eight times longer
than those stitched by hand; during the war the Army purchased 473,000
pairs, but in 1871 the Quartermaster General wrote:
No complaints regarding the quality of these shoes were received up
to February 1867 when a Board of Survey, which convened at Hart's
Island, New York Harbor reported upon the inferior quality of
certain machine sewed bootees of the McKay patent, issued to the
enlisted men at that post. The acting Quartermaster General, Col.
D. H. Rucker, April 10, 1867, addressed a letter to all the
officers in charge of depots, with instructions not to issue any
more of the shoes in question, but to report to this office the
quantity remaining in store. From these reports it appears that
there were in store at that time 362,012 pairs M. S. Bootees, all
of which were ordered to be, and have since been sold at public
auction.[81]
The exact complaint against the shoes was not recorded. Possibly the
entire shoe was stitched by machine. It was found that although
machine-stitched shoes were more durable in some respects and the upper
parts of most shoes continued to be machine stitched, pegged soles for
the more durable varieties remained the fashion for a decade or more, as
did custom hand-stitched shoes for those who could afford them.
OTHER USES
The use of sewing machines in all types of manufacturing that required
stitching of any type continued to grow each year. While the principal
purpose for which they were utilized continued to be the manufacture of
clothing items, by the year 1900 they were also used for awnings, tents,
and sails; cloth bags; bookbinding and related book manufacture; flags
and banners; pocketbooks, trunks, and valises; saddlery and harnesses;
mattresses; umbrellas; linen and rubber belting and hose; to the
aggregate sum of nearly a billion dollars--$979,988,413.[82]
SEWING-MACHINE ATTACHMENTS
The growing popularity of the sewing machine offered still another boost
to the economy--the development of many minor, related manufacturing
industries. The repetitive need for machine needles, the development of
various types of attachments to simplify the many sewing tasks, and the
ever-increasing need for more and better sewing thread--the sewing
machine consumed from two to five times as much thread as stitching by
hand--created new manufacturing establishments and new jobs.
[Illustration: Figure 59.--SHANK'S patent bobbin winder, 1870.
(Smithsonian photo P-6398.)]
[Illustration: Figure 60.--SWEET'S patent binder, 1853. (Smithsonian
photo P-6396.)]
[Illustration: Figure 61.--SPOUL'S patent braid guide, 1871.
(Smithsonian photo P-63102.)]
[Illustration: Figure 62.--ROSE'S patent embroiderer, 1881. (Smithsonian
photo P-6399.)]
[Illustration: Figure 63.--HARRIS' patent buttonhole attachment, 1882.
(Smithsonian photo P-63103.)]
The method of manufacturing machine needles did not differ appreciably
from the method used in making the common sewing needle, but the latter
had never become an important permanent industry in the United States.
Since the manufacture of practical sewing machines was essentially an
American development and the eye-pointed needle a vital component of the
machine, it followed that the manufacture of needles would also develop
here. Although such a manufacture was established in 1852,[83] foreign
imports still supplied much of the need in the 1870s. As more highly
specialized stitching machines were developed, an ever-increasing
variety of needles was required, and the industry grew.
[Illustration: Figure 64.--THE TREADLE OF THE MACHINE was also used to
help create music. George D. Garvie and George Wood received patent
267,874, Nov. 21, 1882, for "a cover for a sewing machine provided with
a musical instrument and means for transmitting motion from the shaft of
the sewing machine to the operating parts of the musical instrument."
Although no patent model was submitted by the inventors, the "Musical
Sewing Machine Cover" was offered for sale as early as October 1882, as
shown by this advertisement that appeared in _The Sewing Machine News_
that month. (Smithsonian photo 57983.)]
Soon after the sewing machine was commercially successful, special
attachments for it were invented and manufactured. These ranged from the
simplest devices for cutting thread to complicated ones for making
buttonholes (see figs. 56 through 66).
[Illustration: Figure 65.--THIS FANNING ATTACHMENT was commercially
available from James Morrison & Co. in the early 1870s; it sold for one
dollar as stated in the advertising brochure from which this engraving
was copied. Other inventors also patented similar implements.
(Smithsonian photo 45513.)]
The first patent for an attachment was issued in 1853 to Harry Sweet for
a binder, used to stitch a special binding edge to the fabric. Other
related attachments followed; among these were the hemmer which was
similar to the binder, but turned the edge of the same piece of fabric
to itself as the stitching was performed. Guides for stitching braid in
any pattern, as directed by the movement of the goods below, were also
developed; this was followed by the embroiderer, an elaborate form of
braider. The first machine to stitch buttonholes was patented in 1854
and the first buttonhole attachment in 1856, but the latter was not
practical until improvements were made in the late 1860s. Special
devices for refilling the bobbins were invented and patented as early as
1862, and the popularity of tucked and ruffled garments inspired
inventors to provide sewing-machine attachments for these purposes also.
To keep the seamstress cool, C. D. Stewart patented an attachment for
fanning the operator by an action derived from the treadle (fig. 65).
While electric sewing machines did not become common until the 20th
century, several 19th-century inventors considered the possibility of
attaching a type of motor to the machine. One was the 1871 patent of
Solomon Jones, who added an "electro motor" to an 1865 Bartlett machine
(fig. 66). The attachments that were developed during the latter part of
the 19th century numbered in the thousands; many of these were
superfluous. Most of the basic ones in use today were developed by the
1880s and remain almost unchanged. Even the recently popular home zigzag
machine, an outgrowth of the buttonhole machine, was in commercial use
by the 1870s.
[Illustration: Figure 66.--JONES "ELECTRO MOTOR" PATENT MODEL of 1871 on
a Bartlett sewing machine. (Smithsonian photo P-63104.)]
Sewing-machine improvements have been made from time to time. Like other
mechanical items the machine has become increasingly automatic, but the
basic principles remain the same. One of the more recent developments,
patented[84] in 1933 by Valentine Naftali et al., is for a manufacturing
machine that imitates hand stitching. This machine uses a two-pointed
"floating needle" that is passed completely through the fabric--the very
idea that was attempted over one hundred years ago. The machine is
currently used by commercial manufacturers to produce decorative
edge-stitching that very closely resembles hand stitching.
THREAD FOR THE MACHINE
[Illustration: Figure 67.--SIX-CORD cabled thread.]
The need for a good thread durable enough to withstand the action of
machine stitching first created a problem and ultimately another new
industry in this country. When the sewing machine was first developed
the inventors necessarily had to use the sewing thread that was
available. But, although the contemporary thread was quite suitable for
hand sewing, it did not lend itself to the requirements of the machine.
Cotton thread, then more commonly a three-ply variety, had a glazed
finish and was wiry. Silk thread frequently broke owing to abrasion at
the needle eye. For the most part linen thread was too coarse, or the
fine variety was too expensive. All of the thread had imperfections that
went unnoticed in the hands of a seamstress, but caused havoc in a
machine. Quality silk thread that would withstand the rigors of machine
stitching could be produced, but it was quite expensive also. A new type
of inexpensive thread was needed; the obvious answer lay in improving
the cotton thread.[85]
In addition to the popular three-ply variety, cotton thread was also
made by twisting together either two single yarns or more than three
yarns. Increasing the number of yarns produced a more cylindrical
thread. The earliest record of a six-ply cotton thread was about
1840.[86] And in 1850 C. E. Bennett of Portsmouth, New Hampshire,
received a gold medal for superior six-cord, or six-ply, spool cotton at
the Fair of the American Institute. But the thread was still wiry and
far from satisfactory. By the mid-1860s the demonstrated need for thread
manufacturers in America brought George A. Clark and William Clark,
third generation cotton-thread manufacturers of Paisley, Scotland, to
Newark, New Jersey, where they built a large mill. George Clark decided
that a thread having both a softer finish and a different construction
was needed. He produced a six-cord cabled thread, made up of three
two-ply yarns (see fig. 67). The thread was called "Clark's 'Our New
Thread,'" which was later shortened to O.N.T. The basic machine-thread
problem was solved. When other manufacturers used the six-cord cabled
construction they referred to their thread as "Best Six-Cord"[87] or
"Superior Six-Cord"[88] to distinguish it from the earlier variety made
up of six single yarns in a simple twist. Another new side industry of
the sewing machine was successfully established.
MANUFACTURE AND EXPORT, TO 1900
Sewing machines were a commodity in themselves, both at home and abroad.
In 1850, there were no establishments exclusively devoted to the
manufacture of sewing machines, the few constructed were made in small
machine shops. The industry, however, experienced a very rapid growth
during the next ten years. By 1860 there were 74 factories in 12
States,[89] mainly in the East and Midwest,[90] producing over 111,000
sewing machines a year. In addition, there were 14 factories that
produced sewing-machine cases and attachments. The yearly value of these
products was approximately four and a half million dollars, of which the
amount exported in 1861 was $61,000. Although the number of
sewing-machine factories dropped from 74 in 1860 to 69 by 1870, the
value of the machines produced increased to almost sixteen million
dollars.
The number of sewing-machine companies fluctuated greatly from year to
year as many attempted to enter this new field of manufacture. Some were
not able to make a commercial success of their products. The Civil War
did not seem to be an important factor in the number of companies in
business in the North. Although one manufacturer ceased operations in
Richmond, Virginia, and a Vermont firm converted to arms manufacture,
several companies began operations during the war years. Of the 69 firms
in business in 1870, only part had been in business since 1860 or
before; some were quite new as a result of the expiration of the Howe
patent renewal in 1867.
Probably due to the termination of many of the major patents, there were
124 factories in 1880, but the yearly product value remained at sixteen
million dollars. The 1890 census reports only 66 factories with a yearly
production of a little less than the earlier decade. But by 1900, the
yearly production of a like number of factories had reached a value of
over twenty-one million, of which four and a half million dollars worth
were exported annually. The total value of American sewing machines
exported from 1860 to 1900 was approximately ninety million dollars. The
manufacture of sewing machines made a significant contribution to the
economic development of 19th-century America.
FOOTNOTES:
[73] _Eighth Census, 1860, Manufactures, Clothing_ (United States Census
Office, published Government Printing Office: Washington, D.C., 1865).
[74] _Eighty Years of Progress of the United States_ (New York, 1861),
vol. 2, pp. 413-429.
[75] GEORGE GIFFORD, "Argument of [George] Gifford in Favor of the Howe
Application for Extension of Patent" (New York: United States Patent
Office, 1860).
[76] Op. cit. (footnote 34).
[77] _Eighth Census, 1860, Manufactures_ (United States Census Office,
published Government Printing Office: Washington, D.C., 1865), "Women's
Ready-Made Clothing," p. 83.
[78] Ibid., p. 64.
[79] National Archives, Record Group 92, Office of the Quartermaster
General, Clothing Book, Letters Sent, volume 17.
[80] The author wishes to acknowledge the valuable help of Mr. Donald
Kloster of the Smithsonian Institution's Division of Military History
for the preceding four references and related information.
[81] Letter of Nov. 4, 1871, to Col. Theo. A. Dodge, USA (Ret.), Boston,
from Quartermaster General M. C. Meigs, in the National Archives, Record
Group 92, Quartermaster General's Office, Letters Sent, Clothing
Supplies, 1871.
[82] _Twelfth Census of the United States, 1900_, vol. 10,
_Manufactures_, Part 4, Special Reports on Selected Industries (United
States Census Office, Washington, D.C., 1902).
[83] CHARLES M. KARCH, "Needles: Historical and Descriptive," in
_Twelfth Census of the United States, 1900_, vol. 10, _Manufactures_,
Part 4, Special Reports on Selected Industries (United States Census
Office: Washington, D.C., 1902), pp. 429-432.
[84] U.S. patent 1,931,447, issued to Valentine Naftali, Henry Naftali,
and Rudolph Naftali, Oct. 17, 1933. The Naftali machines are
manufactured by the American Machine and Foundry Company and are called
AMF Stitching Machines.
[85] See Appendix V, p. 135, "A Brief History of Cotton Thread."
[86] _The Story of Cotton Thread_ (New York, The Spool Cotton Company,
1933).
[87] J. and P. Coats spool cotton.
[88] Willimantic spool cotton.
[89] New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut,
New York, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Kentucky.
_Eighth Census, 1860, Manufactures_ (United States Census Office,
published by Government Printing Office: Washington, D.C., 1865.)
[90] Sewing-machine manufacture in the South was just beginning to
blossom when it was curtailed by the outbreak of the Civil War. See
Lester sewing machine, figure 109 on page 102.
II. American Sewing-Machine Companies of the 19th Century
During the latter half of the 19th century, there was a total of two
hundred or more sewing-machine companies in the United States. Although
a great many manufacturing-type machines were sold, this business was
carried on by relatively few companies and most were primarily concerned
with the family-type machines. A representative number of these family
machines together with information concerning both the company and
serial-number dating are found in figures 68 through 132. A great many
of the companies were licensed by the "Combination," but, in addition,
some companies were constructing machines that did not infringe the
patents, other companies infringed the patents but managed to avoid
legal action, and there were numerous companies that mushroomed into
existence after the "Combination" was dissolved in 1877. Most of the
latter were very short-lived. It is difficult to establish the exact
dates of some of these companies as many of their records were
incomplete or have since disappeared; even a great many of the
"Combination" records were lost by fire. A summary of the existing
records kept by the "Combination" is given in figure 37.
As will be noted in the subsequent listing, only a small percentage of
the companies were in business for a period longer than ten years; of
those that continued longer, all but a few had disappeared by 1910.
Today there are about sixty United States sewing-machine companies. Most
of them manufacture highly specialized sewing machines used for specific
types of commercial work; only a few produce family or home-style
machines. Foreign competition has increased, and the high cost of
skilled labor in this country has made competition in this
consumer-product field increasingly difficult. The countless varieties
of American family sewing machines, so evident in the 19th century, have
passed away.
First Made Discontinued
Manufacturer or Earliest or Last
Sewing Machine or Company Record Record
Aetna Aetna Sewing Machine ca. 1867 ca. 1877
Co., Lowell, Mass.
Aiken and ----, Ithaca, N.Y. ca. 1855 before 1880
Felthousen
Alsop ---- -- ca. 1880
American American Sewing 1854 --
Machine Co.
American Buttonhole, American Buttonhole, 1869 ca. 1874
Overseaming and Overseaming and
Sewing Machine Sewing Machine Co.,
(fig. 68) Philadelphia, Pa.
Later New American Sewing ca. 1874 ca. 1886
American Machine Co.,
(fig. 69) Philadelphia, Pa.
American Magnetic American Magnetic 1853 1854
(fig. 70) Sewing Machine
Company, Ithaca, N.Y.
Atlantic (fig. 71) ---- 1869 ca. 1870
Atwater (fig. 87) ---- 1857 ca. 1860
Avery Avery Sewing Machine 1852 185-
Co., New York, N.Y.
Avery Avery Manufacturing 1875 1886-1900
Co., New York, N.Y.
A. Bartholf Manfr. A. Bartholf, ca. 1850 185-
Blodgett & Lerow manufacturer,
patent 1849 New York, N.Y.
(_see also_)
A. Bartholf Manfr. A. Bartholf, 1853 ca. 1856
Howe's patent, manufacturer,
1846 (fig. 72) New York, N.Y.
Bartholf A. Bartholf, 1857 1859
manufacturer
Bartholf Sewing 1859 ca. 1865
Machine Co.
Bartlett (fig. 73) Goodspeed & Wyman 1866 ca. 1870
Bartlett Sewing Machine ca. 1870 1872
Co., New York, N.Y.
Baker ---- -- before 1880
Bartram & Fanton Bartram & Fanton Mfg. 1867 1874
(fig. 74) Co., Danbury, Conn.
Bay State ---- -- before 1880
Beckwith (fig. 75) Barlow & Son, New York, 1871 1872
N.Y.
Beckwith Sewing Machine 1872 ca. 1876
Co., New York, N.Y.
Blees Blees Sewing Machine 1870 1873
Co.
Blodgett & Lerow O. Phelps, Boston, 1849 1849
(fig. 21) Mass.
Goddard, Rice & Co., 1849 1850
Worcester, Mass.
(fig. 20) A. Bartholf, 1849 185-
manufacturer, New
York, N.Y.
Bond ---- -- before 1880
Boston J. F. Paul & Co., 1880 --
Boston, Mass.
Later New Boston Boston Sewing Machine -- after 1886
Co., Boston, Mass.
Boudoir (fig. 76) Daniel Harris, 1857 ca. 1870
inventor and patentee
Manufacturer--several
Bradford & Barber Bradford & Barber, 1860 1861
manufacturers,
Boston, Mass.
Brattleboro Samuel Barker and ca. 1858 1861
Thomas White,
Brattleboro, Vt.
Buckeye Wilson [W.G.] Sewing ca. 1867 ca. 1876
Later New Buckeye Machine Company,
(fig. 77) Cleveland, Ohio
(_see_ Wilson)
Buell, "E. T. A. B. Buell, ca. 1860 --
Lathbury's Patent" Westmoreland, New York
Burnet & Broderick Burnet, Broderick and 1859 ca. 1860
Co.
Centennial Centennial Sewing 1873 1876
(fig. 78) Machine Co. (_see_
McLean and Hooper),
Philadelphia, Pa.
Chamberlain Woolridge, Keene and 1853 ca. 1854
Moore, Lynn, Mass.
Chicago Singer Scates, Tryber & 1879 1882
Sweetland Mfg. Co.,
Chicago, Ill.
Later Chicago Chicago Sewing Machine 1882 ca. 1885
Co.
Chicopee
(_see_ Shaw & Clark)
Clark (fig. 42) D. W. Clark, ca. 1858 after 1860
Bridgeport, Conn.
Clark's Revolving Lamson, Goodnow & Yale, 1859 1861
Looper [double Windsor, Vt.
thread] (fig. 79)
(_see_ Windsor)
Clinton Clinton Brothers, ca. 1861 ca. 1865
Ithaca, N.Y.
Companion Thurston Mfg. Co., 1882 --
Marlboro, N.H.
Crown Florence Sewing Machine 1879 after 1886
(_see_ Florence) Co., Florence, Mass.
Dauntless (later Dauntless Mfg. Co., 1877 after 1882
New Dauntless) Norwalk, Ohio
Davis J.A. Davis, New York, ca. 1860 --
N.Y.
Davis Vertical Davis Sewing Machine 1869 after 1886
Feed Co., Watertown, N.Y.
Davis Vertical Davis Sewing Machine after 1886 1924
Feed and Co., Dayton, Ohio
Rotary Shuttle
Decker (_also_ The Decker Mfg. Co., -- before 1881
Princess) Detroit, Mich.
Demorest Demorest Mfg. Co 1882 1908
(formerly N.Y.
Sewing Machine Co.)
Diamond (formerly Sigwalt Sewing Machine 1880 --
Sigwalt) Co., Chicago, Ill.
Domestic Wm. A. Mack & Co. and 1864 1869
N. S. Perkins,
Norwalk, Ohio
Domestic Domestic Sewing Machine 1869 [A]
Co., Norwalk, Ohio,
acquired by White
Sewing Machine Co. in
1924 and maintained
as a subsidiary at
Cleveland, Ohio.
Dorcas John P. Bowker, Boston, 1853 185-
Mass.
Du Laney (fig. 80)
Also called
Little Monitor
(_see_)
Durgin Charles A. Durgin, New 1853 after 1855
York, N.Y.
Eldredge Eldredge Sewing Machine 1869 1890
Co., Chicago, Ill.
Elliptic
Sloat's Elliptic George B. Sloat and Co., ca. 1858 ca. 1860
Philadelphia, Pa.
Sloat's Elliptic Union Sewing Machine 1860 1861
Co., Richmond, Va.
Elliptic Wheeler & Wilson Mfg. 1861 ca. 1867
Co.
Elliptic Sewing 1867 before 1880
Machine Co., N.Y.,
N.Y.
Empire (fig. 86) Empire Sewing Machine ca. 1860 1869
Later Co., Boston, Mass.
Remington-Empire
Empress Manufactured on order 1877 --
through Jerome B.
Secor, Bridgeport,
Conn.
Estey Estey Sewing Machine ca. 1880 1882
Co.
Estey, Brattleboro Sewing 1883 after 1886
Fuller-Model Machine Co.,
Brattleboro, Vt.
Eureka (fig. 81) Eureka Shuttle Sewing 1859 --
New York, N.Y.
Excelsior Excelsior Sewing Machine 1854 1854
Co., New York, N.Y.
Fairy (figs. 51, 52) Madame Demorest, New 1863 ca. 1865
York, N.Y.
Finkle, M. (fig. 82) M. Finkle, Boston, 1856 ca. 1859
Mass.
Finkle & Lyon Finkle & Lyon Sewing ca. 1859 1867
Machine Co., Boston,
Mass.
Later Victor
First and Frost First and Frost, New ca. 1859 ca. 1861
York, N.Y.
Florence (fig. 83) Florence Sewing Machine ca. 1860 after 1878
Later Crown Co., Florence, Mass.
Folsom Folsom, J. G., 1865 ca. 1871
(_see_ Globe and Winchendon, Mass.
New England)
Fosket and Savage Fosket and Savage, 1858 1859
Meriden, Conn.
Foxboro Foxboro Rotary Shuttle ca. 1882 --
Co., Foxboro, Mass.
Franklin Franklin Sewing Machine 1871 1871
Co., Mason
Village, N.H.
Free Free Sewing Machine 1898 [A]
Co., Chicago and
Rockford, Ill.
Gardner C. R. Gardner, 1856 --
Detroit, Mich.
Globe (figs. 84, 85) J. G. Folsom, 1865 1869
Winchendon, Mass.
Gold Medal Gold Medal Sewing 1863 1876
(chainstitch) Machine Co., Orange,
Mass.
Gold Medal ---- 1863 ca. 1865
(running stitch)
Gold Hibbard Hibbard, B. S., & Co. 1875 --
Goodbody (sewing Goodbody Sewing Machine 1880 ca. 1890
shears) Co., Bridgeport, Conn.
Goodes Rex & Bockius, ca. 1876 before 1881
Philadelphia, Pa.
Goodrich H. B. Goodrich, Chicago, ca. 1880 ca. 1895
Ill.
Grant Brothers Grant Bros. & Co., 1867 ca. 1870
(fig. 90) Philadelphia, Pa.
Greenman and True Greenman and True Mfg. 1859 1860
(fig. 91) Co. Norwich, Conn.
Morse and True 1860 1861
Green Mountain ---- ca. 1860 --
Griswold Variety L. Griswold, New York, ca. 1886 ca. 1890
N.Y.
Grover and Baker Grover and Baker Sewing 1851 1875
(figs. 34-36, 92) Machine Co., Boston,
Mass.
Hancock ---- 1868 before 1881
(figs. 93, 94)
Heberling Running John Heberling 1878 ca. 1885
Stitch
Herron's Patent ---- 1857 --
(fig. 95)
Higby Higby Sewing Machine ca. 1882 after 1886
Later Acme Co., Brattleboro, Vt.
Home Johnson, Clark & Co., 1869 after 1876
Home Shuttle Orange, Mass.
Homestead ---- ca. 1881 --
Household Providence Tool Co., 1880 ca. 1884
Providence, R.I.
Household Sewing ca. 1885 1906
Machine Co.
Howe (figs. 96, 97) Howe Sewing Machine Co., 1853 1873
New York, N.Y.
(company of A. B. Howe
sold to Howe Machine
Co.)
Howe (fig. 98) Howe Machine Co., 1867 1886
Bridgeport, Conn.
Howe's Improved Nichols and Bliss, 1852 1853
Patent (fig. 107) Boston, Mass.
J. B. Nichols & Co. 1853 1854
which became Nichols, Leavitt & Co., 1854 1856
Leavitt Boston, Mass.
N. Hunt, which N. Hunt & Co., Boston, 1853 1854
became Hunt and Mass.
Webster (figs. 99, Hunt and Webster, 1854 1857
100) Boston, Mass.
Later Ladd and
Webster (_see_)
Improved Common ---- ca. 1870 --
Sense (fig. 102)
Independent Independent Sewing 1873 --
Noiseless Machine Co.,
Binghamton, N.Y.
Jennie June June Mfg. Co., Chicago, 1881 1890
Ill. Later
Belvidere, Ill.
Jewel Jewel Mfg. Co., Toledo, 1884 after 1886
Ohio
Johnson (fig. 103) Emery, Houghton & Co., 1856 after 1865
Boston, Mass.
Keystone Keystone Sewing Machine before 1872 ca. 1874
Co.
Ladd & Webster Ladd, Webster & Co., 1858 ca. 1866
(fig. 101) Boston, Mass.
Ladies Companion ---- 1858 ca. 1858
(fig. 115)
(_see_ Pratt's Patent)
"Lady" (fig. 104) ---- 1859 --
Landfear's Patent Parkers, Snow, Brooks 1857 --
(fig. 105) & Co., West Meriden,
Conn.
Langdon L.W. Langdon 1856 --
Lathrop (fig. 106) Lathrop Combination 1873 --
Sewing Machine Co.
Leader Leader Sewing Machine 1882 --
Co., Springfield,
Mass.
Leavitt (fig. 108) Nichols, Leavitt & Co., 1855 1857
Boston, Mass.
Leavitt & Co. 1857 ca. 1865
Leavitt Sewing Machine ca. 1865 1870
Co.
Leslie Revolving Leslie Sewing Machine 1881 --
Shuttle Co., Cleveland, Ohio
Lester (fig. 109) J.H. Lester, Brooklyn, ca. 1858 early 1860
N.Y.
Lester Mfg. Co., early 1860 late 1860
Richmond, Va.
Union Sewing Machine late 1860 1861
Co., Richmond, Va.
Little Gem ---- -- ca. 1870
Little Giant Domestic Sewing Machine ca. 1882 --
Co., Norwalk, Ohio
Little Monitor (not G.L. Du Laney, Brooklyn, ca. 1866 after 1875
associated with N.Y.
Monitor)
Love Love Mfg. Co., 1885 after 1886
Pittsburgh, Pa.
Lyon Lyon Sewing Machine Co. 1879 ca. 1880
Macauley Thos. A. Macauley Mfg., before 1879 --
New York, N.Y.
Manhattan Manhattan Sewing Machine ca. 1868 ca. 1880
Co.
McKay McKay Sewing Machine 1870 1876
Assoc.
McLean and Hooper B. W. Lacy & Co., ca. 1869 ca. 1873
Philadelphia, Pa.
(_see_ Centennial)
Meyers J. M. Meyers 1859 --
Miller's Patent ---- 1853 --
Monitor (fig. 88) Shaw & Clark Sewing 1860 1864
Machine Co.,
Biddeford, Me.
Moore Moore Sewing Machine ca. 1860 --
Co.
Morey & Johnson Safford & Williams 1849 ca. 1851
(fig. 18) Makers, Boston,
Mass.
Morrison Morrison, Wilkinson & 1881 --
Co., Hartford, Conn.
Mower ---- ca. 1863 --
National Johnson, Clark & Co., 1874 --
Orange, Mass.
National (also sold National Sewing Machine 1890 1953
under distributor's Co. (consolidation of
name) the June and Eldredge
Companies), Belvidere,
Ill.
Ne Plus Ultra O. L. Reynolds 1857 --
(fig. 110) Manufacturing Co.,
Dover, N.H.
Nettleton & Raymond Nettleton & Raymond, ca. 1857 --
(fig. 111) Brattleboro, Vt.
New England Charles Raymond (also ca. 1859 1866
(figs. 112, 113) by: Grout & White, 1862 1863
Orange, Mass.; William 1863 --
Grout, Winchendon, 1865 1865
Mass.; and J. G. Folsom,
Winchendon, Mass.)
Newell ---- 1881 --
New Fairbanks J. H. Drew & Co. 1878 1880
Thomas M. Cochrane 1880 --
Co., Belleville, Ill.
New Home New Home Sewing Machine 1876 [A]
Co., Orange, Mass. (in
1928 became affiliated
with Free Sewing
Machine Co.)
New York ----, New York, N.Y. ca. 1855 ca. 1855
New York Shuttle N.Y. Sewing Machine Co., before 1880 1882
New York, N.Y. (later
Demorest Mfg. Co.)
Noble Noble Sewing Machine before 1881 after 1886
Co., Erie, Pa.
Novelty C. A. French, Boston, 1869 --
Mass.
Old Dominion Old Dominion Sewing ca. 1858 1860
Machine Co., Richmond,
Va.
Pardox ---- ca. 1865 --
Parham Parham Sewing Machine ca. 1869 ca. 1871
Co., Philadelphia, Pa.
Parker Charles Parker Co., before 1860 after 1865
Meriden, Conn.
Later Parker Sewing
Machine Co.
Pearl ---- Bennett ca. 1859 --
Philadelphia Philadelphia Sewing ca. 1872 ca. 1881
Machine Co.,
Philadelphia, Pa.
Post Combination Post Combination Sewing before 1885 after 1886
Machine Co.,
Washington, D.C.
Pratt's Patent ---- 1857 ca. 1858
(fig. 114) Later
Ladies Companion
Queen Dauntless Mfg Co., ca. 1881 --
Norwalk, Ohio
Quaker City Quaker City Sewing 1859 ca. 1861
(fig. 116) Machine Co.,
Philadelphia, Pa.
Remington Empire Remington Empire Sewing 1870 1872
Later Remington Machine Co.
E. Remington & Sons, 1873 ca. 1894
Philadelphia, Pa.
Robertson (dolphin T. W. Robertson, New 1855 after 1860
& cherub) (figs. York, N.Y.
40, 41)
Robinson F. R. Robinson, Boston, 1853 ca. 1855
Mass.
Robinson's patent Howard & Davis, Boston, 1855 --
sewing machine Mass.
with Roper's
improvement (fig. 117)
Later Robinson same 1856 before 1860
and Roper
(fig. 118)
Royal St. John Royal Sewing Machine ca. 1883 1898
(formerly St. John) Co., Springfield, Ohio
(later Free Co.)
Ruddick ---- ca. 1860 --
Secor Secor Machine Co., 1870 1876
Bridgeport, Conn.
Sewing Shears Nettleton & Raymond, ca. 1859 --
(Hendrick's patent) Bristol, Conn.
(fig. 43)
Sewing Shears American Hand Sewing ca. 1884 ca. 1900
Machine Co.,
Bridgeport, Conn.
Shaw & Clark Shaw & Clark Co., ca. 1857 1866
Running Stitch Biddeford, Me.
Machine (fig. 53)
Chainstitch
Machine (fig. 119)
Chainstitch Shaw & Clark Co., 1867 1868
Machine (fig. 120) Chicopee Falls, Mass.
Chicopee Sewing Machine 1868 ca. 1869
Co., Chicopee Falls,
Mass.
Sigwalt Sigwalt Sewing Machine ca. 1879 --
Co., Chicago, Ill.
Singer (figs. 28, I. M. Singer & Co. 1851 [A]
29, 30, 32, 33, (later Singer Mfg. Co.).
121, 122) Moved from Boston to
New York to
Elizabethport, N.J.
(factory).
Springfield Springfield Sewing 1880 --
Machine Co.,
Springfield, Mass.
Standard ---- 1870 --
(chainstitch)
(fig. 123)
Standard Standard Shuttle Sewing 1874 ca. 1881
(shuttle) Machine Co., New York,
N.Y.
Standard Standard Sewing Machine 1884 ca. 1930
Co., Cleveland, Ohio
(acquired by Singer Co.)
Stewart Henry Stewart & Co., 1874 1880
N.Y., N.Y.
Later New Stewart Mfg Co. 1880 ca. 1883
Stewart
St. John (later St. John Sewing Machine 1870 ca. 1883
Royal St. John) Co., Springfield, O.
Taggart & Farr Taggart & Farr, 1858 --
(figs. 124, 125) Philadelphia, Pa.
Thompson C. F. Thompson Co. 1871 1871
T. C. Thompson, Ithaca, ca. 1854 --
N.Y.
Union Johnson, Clark & Co., 1876 --
Orange, Mass.
Victor Finkle & Lyon Mfg. Co. 1867 ca. 1872
Victor Sewing Machine ca. 1872 ca. 1890
Co., Middletown, Conn.
Wardwell Wardwell Mfg. Co., St. ca. 1876 1890
Louis, Mo.
Watson (fig. 126) Jones & Lee 1850 ca. 1853
Watson & Wooster, ca. 1853 ca. 1860
Bristol, Conn.
Waterbury Waterbury Co., 1853 ca. 1860
Waterbury, Conn.
Weed T. E. Weed & Co. (became 1854 --
Whitney & Lyons)
Weed Weed Sewing Machine Co. 1865 --
(reorganized from
Whitney & Lyons),
Hartford, Conn.
Family Favorite 1867 --
Manu. Favorite 1868 --
General Favorite 1872 --
Hartford 1881 ca. 1900
Wesson Farmer & Gardner 1879 1880
Manufacturing Co.
D. B. Wesson Sewing 1880 --
Machine Co.,
Springfield, Mass.
West & Willson West & Willson Co., 1858 --
(fig. 127) Elyria, Ohio
A. B. Wilson E. E. Lee & Co., New 1851 1852
(fig. 23) York, N.Y.
A. B. Wilson's Wheeler, Wilson, Co., late 1851 1856
patent seaming Watertown, N.Y.
lathe
Later Wheeler Wheeler & Wilson Mfg. 1856 1905
and Wilson Co., Bridgeport, Conn.
(fig. 26, 27, Singer Co., Bridgeport, 1905 1907
128, 129) Conn.
White (fig. 130) White Sewing Machine 1876 [A]
Co., Cleveland, Ohio
Whitehill Whitehill Mfg. Co., ca. 1875 after 1886
Milwaukee, Wis.
Whitney Whitney Sewing Machine ca. 1872 ca. 1880
Co., Paterson, N.J.
Whitney & Lyons Whitney & Lyons (a ca. 1859 ca. 1865
machine based on the
1854 patent of T. E.
Weed)
Wickersham Butterfield & Stevens 1853 --
Mfg. Co., Boston, Mass.
Willcox & Gibbs Willcox & Gibbs Sewing 1857 [A]
(figs. 39, 131) Machine Co., New York,
N.Y.
Williams & Orvis Williams & Orvis Sewing ca. 1859 after 1860
Machine Co., Boston,
Mass.
Wilson (fig. 89) Wilson (W.G.) Sewing ca.1867 after 1885
(_see_ Buckeye) Machine Co., Cleveland,
Ohio
Windsor (one thread) Vermont Arms Co., 1856 1858
Windsor, Vt.
Windsor Lamson, Goodnow & Yale, 1859 1861
(_see_ Clark's Windsor, Vt.
Revolving Looper)
Name Unknown John W. Beane 1853 --
" Henry Brind 1860 --
" Garfield Sewing Machine 1881 --
Co.
" Geneva Sewing Machine 1880 --
Co.
" Gove & Howard 1855 --
" Charles W. Howland, ca. 1860 --
Wilmington, Del.
" Miles Greenwood & Co., ca. 1861 --
Cincinnati, Ohio
" Hood, Batelle & Co. 1854 1854
" Wells & Haynes 1854 1854
" Wilson H. Smith, ca. 1860 --
Birmingham, Conn.
[A] Still in existence.
[Illustration: Figure 68.--AMERICAN BUTTONHOLE, Overseaming & Sewing Machine of about
1870. Using serial numbers, these machines can be dated approximately as
follows: 1-7792, 1869; 7793-22366, 1870; 22367-42488, 1871; 42489-61419,
1872; 61420-75602, 1873; 75603-89132, 1874; 89133-103539, 1875; and
103540-121477, 1876. Figures are not available for the years from 1877
to 1886. (Smithsonian photo 46953-E.)]
[Illustration: Figure 69.--(NEW) AMERICAN SEWING MACHINE of about 1874.
Illustration is from a contemporary advertising brochure. (Smithsonian
photo 33507.)]
[Illustration: Figure 70.--AMERICAN MAGNETIC SEWING MACHINE, 1854.
Machines of this type were manufactured for only two years under the
patent of Thomas C. Thompson, March 29, 1853, and later under the
patents of Samuel J. Parker, April 11, 1854, and Simon Coon, May 9,
1854. On September 30, 1853, Elias Howe listed receipts of $1000 from
the American Magnetic Sewing Machine Co. for patent infringement. The
machines manufactured after that date carry the Howe name and 1846
patent date to show proper licensing. Judging by Howe's usual license
fee of $25 per machine, about 40 machines were manufactured prior to
September 1853. The company was reported to have made about 600 machines
in 1854 before it went out of business. The only American Magnetic
machine known to be in existence is in the collection of the Northern
Indiana Historical Society at South Bend, Indiana. (_Photo courtesy of
the Northern Indiana Historical Society._)]
[Illustration: Figure 71.--ATLANTIC SEWING MACHINE, 1869. This machine
is typical of the many varieties manufactured for a very short time in
the 1860s and 1870s. It is about the size of the average hand-turned
variety, 8 by 10 inches, but lighter in weight. The frame design was the
patent of L. Porter, May 11, 1869, and the mechanism was patented by
Alonzo Porter, February 8, 1870. The latter patent model bears the
painted legend "Atlantic" and is stamped "Aprl 1, 69," indicating that
it was probably already in commercial production. This date possibly may
refer also to L. Porter's design patent, since actual date of issue was
usually later than date of application. (Smithsonian photo 48329-A.)]
[Illustration: Figure 72.--A. BARTHOLF SEWING MACHINE, 1853. Abraham
Bartholf of New York began manufacturing Blodgett & Lerow machines (see
fig. 20) about 1850; the style and mechanics of these machines, however,
were primarily those of the Blodgett & Lerow patent as manufactured by
O. C. Phelps and Goddard, Rice & Co. For this reason they are considered
Blodgett & Lerow--not Bartholf--machines.
The true Bartholf machine evolved when the manufacturer substituted
Howe's reciprocating shuttle for the rotary shuttle of the Blodgett &
Lerow machine, continuing to manufacture the machine in his own adapted
style. Bartholf manufactured reciprocating-shuttle machines as early as
1853, and his was one of the first companies licensed by Howe.
All Bartholf machines licensed under Howe's patent carry the Howe name
and patent date. They are sometimes mistakenly referred to as Howe
machines, but they are no more Howe machines than those manufactured by
Wheeler & Wilson, Singer, or many others.
On April 6, 1858, Bartholf was granted a patent for an improvement of
the shuttle carrier. He continued to manufacture sewing machines under
the name "Bartholf Sewing Machine Co." until about 1865.
Using serial numbers, Bartholf machines can be dated approximately as
follows:
_Serial Number_ _Year_
1-20 1850
21-50 1851
51-100 1852
101-235 1853
236-290 1854
291-321 1855
322-356 1856
357-387 1857
388-590 1858
591-1337 1859
No record of the number of machines produced by Bartholf after 1859 is
available.
The Bartholf machine illustrated bears the serial number 128 and the
inscription "A. Bartholf Manfr., NY--Patented Sept. 1846 E. Howe, Jr."
This machine is in the collection of the Baltimore County Historical
Society. Note the close similarity between it and the 1850 Blodgett &
Lerow machine manufactured by Bartholf. (_Photo courtesy of the
Baltimore County Historical Society._)]
[Illustration: Figure 73.--BARTLETT SEWING MACHINE, 1867. The Bartlett
machine was first manufactured in 1866 under the January 31, 1865, and
October 10, 1865, patents of Joseph W. Bartlett. The machines were made
by Goodspeed & Wyman for the Bartlett Co. and were so marked. The
inventor received another patent on April 7, 1868, and later machines
carry this third date also. Although the first few hundred machines did
not bear the dates of patents held by the "Combination," before the end
of the first year of production Bartlett was paying royalties. He
continued to manufacture sewing machines until the early seventies when
he converted to the manufacturing of street lamps.
Using serial numbers, Bartlett's machines can be dated approximately as
follows: 1-1000, 1866; 1001-3126, 1867; 3127-?, 1868. There is no record
of serial numbers for the succeeding years. (Smithsonian photo
45524-G.)]
[Illustration: Figure 74.--BARTRAM & FANTON SEWING MACHINE, 1867. These
machines were first manufactured in 1867 under the patents of W. B.
Bartram, notably his patent of January 1, 1867. Three machines were
exhibited at The Eleventh Exhibition of the Massachusetts Charitable
Mechanics Association in 1869 where they were awarded a bronze medal.
They were compared favorably to the Willcox & Gibbs machine (see fig.
39), which they resembled. Bartram received additional patents in the
early seventies and also manufactured lockstitch machines.
Using serial numbers, machines may be approximately dated as follows:
1-2958, 1867; 2959-3958, 1868; 3959-4958, 1869; 4959-5958, 1870;
5959-6962, 1871; 6963-7961, 1872; 7962-8961, 1873; and 8962-9211, 1874.
(Smithsonian photo P63198.)]
[Illustration: Figure 75.--BECKWITH SEWING MACHINE, 1871. Among the
inventors whose patent claims were "to produce a cheap and effective
sewing machine" was William G. Beckwith. His machine was first
manufactured by Barlow & Son, and it realized considerable success in
the few years of its production. The earliest model was operated like a
pair of scissors or with a cord and ring as illustrated. Beckwith later
added a hand crank. The machine was purchased in Crewe, Cheshire,
England; it is stamped "Pat. April 18, 71 by Wm. G. Beckwith, Foreign
Pats. Secured, Barlow & Son Manuf. N.Y., [serial number] 706." By 1874
the machines were marked "Beckwith S.M. Co." and two 1872 patent dates
were added.
Using serial numbers, machines may be dated approximately as follows:
1-3500, 1871; 3501-7500, 1872; 7501-12500, 1873; 12501-18000, 1874;
18001-23000, 1875; 23001-?, 1876. (Smithsonian photo 46953-C.)]
[Illustration: Figure 76.--BOUDOIR SEWING MACHINE, 1858. This machine, a
single-thread, chainstitch model was based on the patents of Daniel
Harris, dated June 9, 1857, June 16, 1857, and October 5, 1858.
Manufactured primarily by Bennett in Chicago in 1859, it also may have
been produced in the East, although no manufacturer's name can be found.
In 1860, the Boudoir, also called Harris's Patent sewing machine, was
exhibited at the Massachusetts Charitable Mechanics Association
Exhibition where it won a silver medal for "its combination of parts,
its beauty and simplicity, together with its ease of operation." At this
time the machine was described as making a "double lock stitch" (another
name for the double chainstitch). It was also described as having been
before the public for some time and combining "the improvements of
others for which the parties pay license." The machine head was
positioned on the stand similarly to that of the West & Willson (fig.
127) and stitched from left to right.
It is not known exactly how many of these machines were made or how long
they were in vogue. Manufacture, although probably ceasing in the 1860s,
is known to have been discontinued before 1881, when a list of obsolete
sewing machines was published in _The Sewing Machine News_. (Smithsonian
photo P63199.)]
[Illustration: Figure 77.--(NEW) BUCKEYE SEWING MACHINE of about 1875.
The Buckeye machine was one of several manufactured by W. G. Wilson of
Cleveland, Ohio. It was licensed under Johnson's extended patent of
April 18, 1867. Although it was small and hand turned, it used two
threads and a shuttle to form a lockstitch. The machine was sufficiently
popular for Wilson to introduce an improved model in the early 1870s,
which he called the New Buckeye. W. G. Wilson continued to manufacture
sewing machines until about the mid-eighties, although the Buckeye
machines were discontinued in the seventies. (Smithsonian photo
45524-A.)]
[Illustration: Figure 78.--CENTENNIAL SEWING MACHINE, 1876. The
Centennial machine was basically a McLean and Hooper sewing machine
which was renamed to take advantage of the coming Centennial
celebration. It was based on the patents of J. N. McLean, March 30,
1869, and August 2, 1870, and made a two-thread chainstitch. Only about
five hundred Centennial machines were manufactured in 1873, but by 1876
over three thousand had been constructed. The machines were advertised
on white circulars which were printed in red and blue, and engraved with
two women sewing, one by hand, labeled "Sewing in 1776," and one at a
Centennial sewing machine, labeled "Sewing in 1876." There is no record
that the machines were made after 1876. (Smithsonian photo 48216-T.)]
[Illustration: Figure 79.--CLARK'S Revolving-Looper double-thread sewing
machine, 1860. This machine was manufactured by Lamson, Goodnow, & Yale
of Windsor, Vermont. It was an attempt to improve on the combined ideas
of the Grover and Baker machine, the Nettleton & Raymond machine, and
the earlier single-thread Windsor machine. The improvements were made
and patented by Edwin Clark on December 6, 1859. Widely advertised, the
machines sold for $35 with a foot-power table. They could also be
operated by hand. Over three thousand were manufactured and sold, and
preparations were being made to continue manufacture of the earlier
single-thread Windsor, originally made by the company's predecessor,
Vermont Arms Co., when the Civil War broke out. A flood of arms orders
arrived, and the sewing-machine manufacture was discontinued early in
the summer of 1861. The sewing-machine equipment and business was sold
to Grout & White of Massachusetts. (Smithsonian photo 48216.)]
[Illustration: Figure 80.--DU LANEY SEWING MACHINE of about 1872. Most
of the small, simple, chainstitch sewing machines of this period were
constructed so that they could either be turned by hand or set into a
treadle-powered table. Du Laney's Little Monitor, manufactured for only
a few years, was based on the patents of G.L. Du Laney, July 3, 1866,
and May 2, 1871. It was a two-thread, chainstitch machine powered only
by a foot treadle. By simple adjustment, the machine could also make the
cablestitch and the lockstitch. (Smithsonian photo 48221-C.)]
[Illustration: Figure 81.--EUREKA SEWING MACHINE, 1859. An example of
the many short-lived types of which no written record can be found, this
particular machine was used as a patent model for certain minor
improvements in 1859. It has the name "Eureka" painted on the top and
the following inscription incised on the baster plate: "Eureka Shuttle
S. M. Co. 469 Broadway, N.Y." Although it is a shuttle machine, it
carries no patent dates and was not included in the Howe royalty
records. Neither is it listed in the obsolescence list published in
1881. The company probably could not pay its royalty fees and was forced
out of business almost immediately. If this machine had not been used as
a patent model, no record of the company's existence might remain. It
should be noted that as in most shuttle machines the head was meant to
be set into a treadle-powered table. Since most tables are very similar,
they are not required for identification. (Smithsonian photo 48328-C.)]
[Illustration: Figure 82.--M. FINKLE SEWING MACHINE, 1857. The M. Finkle
machines were manufactured in 1856 and 1857. Sometime before or about
1859, the inventor, Milton Finkle, formed a partnership and the machines
were subsequently called M. Finkle & Lyon and later simply Finkle &
Lyon. In 1859 the machine was awarded a silver medal by the American
Institute for producing superior manufacturing and family lockstitch
sewing machines. It also won a silver medal in Boston in 1860 at the
Massachusetts Charitable Mechanics Association Exhibition. Although the
name of the machine was changed to Victor in 1867, the company name
remained Finkle & Lyon until about 1872 when it was changed to Victor
also. Victor machines were manufactured until about 1890.
Machines can be dated by their serial number approximately as follows:
_Serial Number_ _Year_
1-200 1856
201-450 1857
451-700 1858
701-950 1859
951-1500 1860
1501-3000 1861
3001-5000 1862
5001-7000 1863
7001-9000 1864
9001-11000 1865
11001-13000 1866
13001-15490 1867
15491-17490 1868
17491-18830 1869
18831-21250 1870
21251-28890 1871
28891-40790 1872
40791-48240 1873
48241-53530 1874
53531-59635 1875
59636-65385 1876
No estimates are available for the years 1877 to 1890. (Smithsonian
photo 48216-A.)]
[Illustration]
<----
[Illustration: Figure 83.--FLORENCE SEWING MACHINE. The Florence machine
was based on the patents of Leander W. Langdon, whose first patent was
obtained in 1855. Langdon sewing machines were manufactured by the
inventor for a few years. It was his patent of March 20, 1860, that was
the immediate forerunner of the Florence machine, whose name was derived
from the city of manufacture, Florence, Massachusetts. The Howe royalty
records of 1860 listed the Florence Sewing Machine Co. as one that took
out a license that year. Langdon's patent of July 14, 1863, was
incorporated into the machines manufactured after that date; however,
the date is always incorrectly stamped "July 18, 1863." In 1865, the
machine won a silver medal at the Tenth Exhibition of the Massachusetts
Charitable Mechanics Association.
Over 100,000 Florence machines were manufactured by 1870. About 1880 the
company changed the name of the machine to Crown. Improvements led to
the name New Crown by 1885. About this time the right to use the name
Florence for a sewing machine was purchased by a midwestern firm for an
entirely different machine. In 1885 the Florence company began to
manufacture lamp stoves and heating stoves and shortly thereafter they
discontinued the manufacture of sewing machines.
Using the serial numbers, Florence machines can be dated approximately
as follows:
_Serial Number_ _Year_
1-500 1860
501-2000 1861
2001-8000 1862
8001-20000 1863
20001-35000 1864
35001-50000 1865
50001-60000 1866
60001-70534 1867
70535-82534 1868
82535-96195 1869
96196-113855 1870
113856-129802 1871
129803-145592 1872
145593-154555 1873
154556-160072 1874
160073-164964 1875
164965-167942 1876
No record of the number of machines produced each year between 1877 and
1885 is available.
The machine shown here, serial number 49131, was manufactured in 1865.
It is stamped with the following patent dates: "Oct. 30, 1855, Mar. 20,
1860, Jan. 22, 1861, and July 18, 1863" and the Wilson patent date "Nov.
12, 1850." The machines from 1860-1863 are marked with the early Langdon
patents, excluding the 1863 one, and they have the additional patent
dates of Howe and others: "Sept. 10, 1846, Nov. 12, 1850, Aug. 12, 1851,
May 30, 1854, Dec. 19, 1854, Nov. 4, 1856." (Smithsonian photo
45572-A.)]
[Illustration: Figure 84.--GLOBE SEWING MACHINE. J. G. Folsom received
two design patents in 1864, one on March 1 for a spool holder and one on
May 17 for the basic style of the machine. Also in the same year, he was
awarded a mechanical patent for an adjustment in the lower looper that
would accommodate a change in needle size. Using these patents, he
manufactured a single-thread, chainstitch machine, the Globe. Folsom
also exhibited his machines at the Tenth Exhibition of the Massachusetts
Charitable Mechanics Association in 1865. The Globe attracted particular
attention and was awarded a silver medal.]
In 1866 Folsom devised a new treadle attachment for hand-operated
machines; the invention was featured in _Scientific American_, volume
14, number 17, with a Globe machine. Folsom again exhibited at the
Massachusetts Mechanics exhibition in 1869. In addition to an improved
single-thread Globe, he also showed a double-thread, elastic-stitch
(double chainstitch) machine for which he received a silver medal.
Folsom machines were manufactured until 1871; 280 machines were
manufactured in that year.
The Globe sewing machine illustrated is stamped "J. G. Folsom, Maker,
Winchendon, Mass. Patented April 28, 1863 [Ketchum's patent], Mar. 1,
1864. May 17, 1864." The machine was manufactured before November 1864
or it would include the patent for the lower loop adjustment.
(Smithsonian photo 48216-H.)
NOTE: At least five sewing machines, those in figures 84 through 89, are
similar enough in appearance to cause some confusion, because their
basic design stems from a short pillar.
[Illustration: Figure 85.--GLOBE SEWING MACHINE with treadle attachment
as illustrated in _Scientific American_, April 21, 1866. (Smithsonian
photo 48221-A.)]
[Illustration: Figure 86.--EMPIRE SEWING MACHINE, late 1860s. Although
an Empire Sewing Machine Co. existed in New York in the 1860s (the
predecessor of the Remington-Empire Co.), it is not known whether this
machine was manufactured by that same company, which was primarily
concerned with producing shuttle machines. This chainstitch machine is
marked "Empire Co., Patented April 23, 1863," the date referring again
to Ketchum's patent. It is very similar to Folsom's Globe, except that
it has claw feet rather than a closed base; the painted designs on the
base of both are almost identical to those on the Monitor. Its spool
holder, mounted in reverse, is a crude imitation of the Folsom patent.
The Empire machines were probably manufactured about the same time as
the Wilson machine. (_Photo courtesy of The Henry Ford Museum and
Greenfield Village, Dearborn, Michigan._)]
[Illustration: Figure 87.--ATWATER SEWING MACHINE, 1858. Atwater
machines, based on the patent of B. Atwater, issued May 5, 1857, were
manufactured from 1857 to about 1860. The machine illustrated, which is
designed to be operated by a hand-turned wheel, has an upper forked dog
feed, and its horizontally supported spool is directly over the
stitching area. Like the others, it has a striated pillar and claw feet.
The manufacturer is unknown. (Smithsonian photo P63200.)]
[Illustration: Figure 88.--MONITOR SEWING MACHINE, 1860-1866. The
Monitor machines of this style were not marked by their manufacturers,
Shaw & Clark of Biddeford, Maine. Later the company was forced by the
"Combination" to pay a royalty, so it changed the style and began
marking its machines with the company name and patent dates (see fig.
119 for copy of seal). The Monitor, which employed the conventional
vertical spindle to hold the spool of thread, had a top feed in the form
of a walking presser. Its striated pillar was similar to that of the
Atwater machine, and both featured the same claw feet and urn-like top.
Unlike the Atwater, however, the Monitor had a double drive from the
hand-turned wheel, which was grooved for operation with belt and
treadle. (Smithsonian photo 33458.)]
[Illustration: Figure 89.--WILSON SEWING MACHINE, late 1860s to early
1870s. In addition to the Buckeye (see fig. 77), W. G. Wilson
manufactured several other styles of sewing machines. This one, a
combination of the varying styles of the earlier pillar machine has even
duplicated the general style of the spool holder patented by Folsom. The
pillar is not striated, but the machine does repeat the claw feet of the
Atwater and Monitor machines. Wilson machines are usually marked "Wilson
Sewing Mach. Manuf'g Co. Cleveland, Ohio, Ketchum's Patent April 28,
1863." The latter name and/or patent date are found on many of the
machines of this general construction. The patent is that issued to
Stephen C. Ketchum for his method of converting rotary motion into
reciprocal motion. (_Photo courtesy of The Henry Ford Museum and
Greenfield Village, Dearborn, Michigan._)]
[Illustration: Figure 90.--GRANT BROTHERS SEWING MACHINE, 1867. This
machine was one of several styles that utilized Raymond's 1861 patented
chainstitch method. This machine, however, used an under feed rather
than a top feed.
Neither a name nor a date appears on the machine. In the June 25, 1907,
issue of the _Sewing Machine Times_ it was called the Common Sense
machine, but detailed research has turned up no evidence to substantiate
this name. However, a dated brochure advertising the Grant Brothers
machine and showing a model identical to that illustrated in the _Sewing
Machine Times_ has been found. The brochure states that the machine made
an elastic lockstitch; this was not a true lockstitch, however, but was
in fact a simple chainstitch.
Grant Brothers sold their machine, which had silver-plated mountings,
for $18; the price included hemmer, Barnum's self-sewer, oilcan,
screwdriver, clamp, gauge, and four silver needles. An additional charge
of $12 was made for a table and treadle. Compared to other chainstitch
machines the price was high, and the company was short-lived.
(Smithsonian photo 60794-E.)]
[Illustration: Figure 91.--GREENMAN AND TRUE SEWING MACHINE. This
lockstitch machine based on S. H. Roper's patent of 1857 was
manufactured at Norwich, Connecticut, from 1859 to 1861 by Cyrus B.
True, the inventor, and Jared F. Greenman, True's financial partner.
Licensed by the "Combination" and carrying the Howe patent date, the
machine had obvious merit: it was strong, well made--a good family
machine. Exhibited at the Ninth Exhibition of the Massachusetts
Charitable Mechanics Association in September 1860, it received a bronze
medal. (At this time the company was listed as Morse and True--the
inventor had obviously taken on a second financial backer.)
Unfortunately, the best market for the machine lay in the South, and the
outbreak of the Civil War made collections impossible. This greatly
retarded business and finally drove the firm into bankruptcy. In all, it
is doubtful that more than one thousand machines were produced in the
three years of manufacture.
The machine illustrated is marked "Greenman and True" and bears the
serial number 402; it was probably manufactured early in 1860.
(Smithsonian photo 48216-N.)]
[Illustration: Figure 92.--GROVER AND BAKER SEWING MACHINE. The Grover
and Baker machine was one of the more popular machines from the 1850s
until the early 1870s. The company produced iron-frame machines, fine
cabinet models, and portables (figs. 35 and 36). Their machines may be
dated by serial number approximately as follows:
_Serial Number_ _Year_
1-500 1851
501-1000 1852
1001-1658 1853
1659-3893 1854
3894-5038 1855
5039-7000 1856
7001-10681 1857
10682-15752 1858
15753-26033 1859
26034-44869 1860
44870-63705 1861
63706-82641 1862
82642-101477 1863
101478-120313 1864
120314-139148 1865
139149-157886 1866
157887-190886 1867
190887-225886 1868
225887-261004 1869
261005-338407 1870
338408-389246 1871
389247-441257 1872
441258-477437 1873
477438-497438 1874
497439-512439 1875
(Smithsonian photo 45513-B, an engraving of a Grover and Baker sewing
machine from an advertising brochure of about 1870.)]
[Illustration: Figure 93.--HANCOCK SEWING MACHINE, 1867. One of the many
inventors who turned his talents to inventing and producing a
mechanically simple and cheaper machine was Henry J. Hancock. His 1867
machine is only about six inches wide; it uses a tambour-type needle,
pulling a loop of thread from below the stitching surface. (Smithsonian
photo P63197.)]
[Illustration: Figure 94.--HANCOCK SEWING MACHINE, 1868. Hancock in 1868
received both a design patent and a mechanical patent now using the
eye-pointed needle and a hook to form the chainstitch. The design was an
open framework circle with a mirror mounted in front of the table clamp.
The purpose of the designated "looking glass" was decorative only. The
Hancock machines were only manufactured for a few years. They measure
10-1/2 inches in width, slightly larger than the earlier machine.
(Smithsonian photo 48328-M.)]
[Illustration: Figure 95.--[A.C.] HERRON'S PATENT SEWING MACHINE, 1858.
The manufacturer of this machine is not known, but the machine was based
on the patent of Abial C. Herron issued August 4, 1857. All the machines
carry a small heart-shaped plate just above the needle descent bearing
the patentee's name and the patent date. The patent covered an
improvement in the method of making the chainstitch. The machines were
provided with a hand crank, but were also meant to be operated by a belt
and treadle. No records of the extent of manufacture of this machine
have been found. This machine head measures 14 inches in width, about
standard size. (Smithsonian photo 48329-J.)]
[Illustration: Figure 96.--A. B. HOWE SEWING MACHINE of about 1860.
(Smithsonian photo 45525-C.)]
Figures 96, 97, and 98.--THE HOWE MACHINES. It is difficult for many to
believe that the stamped legend "Elias Howe patent, Sept. 10, 1846" does
not certify that a machine is an original Howe. Although Elias Howe was
granted a patent for the lockstitch machine in 1846, he did not
establish a sewing-machine factory for about twenty years. Early in the
1850s and later through the "Combination," however, he licensed others
to make machines using his patent. These machines bore that patent date
for which a royalty was being paid.
Among his early licensees was his elder brother Amasa who organized the
Howe Sewing Machine Co. in 1854. The Amasa Howe machines were very good
ones, and in 1862 Amasa won the prize medal at the London International
Exhibition. This immensely increased the popularity of the machine and
Elias offered to join Amasa by building a large factory at Bridgeport,
Connecticut, to fill the increasing demand for more machines. The
machines produced at Bridgeport, however, although imitating the Amasa
Howe machines, proved inferior in quality. Amasa found that, rather than
helping his business reputation, his brother's efforts were hurting him,
and he severed business relations with Elias.
Because of their brief association, the 1862 prize medal awarded to A.
B. Howe was sometimes credited to Elias. The latter did receive awards
for his patent, but never for his manufactured machines. When the two
brothers dissolved their joint venture, Elias attempted to call his new
company the Howe Sewing Machine Co., but Amasa's claim that this name
had been his exclusive property for many years was upheld by the courts.
Elias then omitted the word "Sewing" and called his company simply the
Howe Machine Co.
After Elias died in 1867, the company was run by his sons-in-law, the
Stockwell brothers. To distinguish their machines from those of A. B.
Howe, they marked each machine with a brass medallion picturing the head
and flowing locks of Elias Howe. They also continued to advertise their
machine as the "original" Howe. In about 1873, B. P. Howe, Amasa's son,
sold the Howe Sewing Machine Co. to the Stockwell brothers, who
continued to manufacture Howe machines until 1886.
The machines of the A. B. Howe Sewing Machine Co. may be dated by serial
number approximately as follows:
_Serial Number_ _Year_
1-60 1854
61-113 1855
114-166 1856
167-299 1857
300-478 1858
479-1399 1859
No figures are available for 1860-1870, but 20,051 machines were
manufactured in 1871.
The machines of the [Elias] Howe Machine Co. are not believed to have
begun with serial number 1, and no figures are available for 1865-1867.
After that, the machines may be dated by serial number approximately as
follows:
_Serial Number_ _Year_
11,000-46,000 1868
46,001-91,843 1869
91,844-167,000 1870
167,001-301,010 1871
301,011-446,010 1872
446,011-536,010 1873
536,011-571,010 1874
571,011-596,010 1875
596,011-705,304 1876
No figures are available for 1877-1886.
[Illustration: Figure 97.--ADVERTISING BROCHURE distributed by E. Howe
during the brothers' brief partnership; the machines are basically A. B.
Howe machines, 1863. (Smithsonian photo 49373-A.)]
[Illustration: Figure 98.--HOWE (STOCKWELL BROTHERS) MACHINE, 1870.
(Smithsonian photo 45572-E.)]
[Illustration: Figure 99.--PATENT MODEL OF CHRISTOPHER HODGKINS,
November 2, 1852, assigned to Nehemiah Hunt. (Smithsonian photo 34551.)]
Figures 99, 100, and 101.--THE N. HUNT (later, in 1856, Hunt & Webster
and finally in 1858 Ladd and Webster) sewing machine was based on the
patents of Christopher Hodgkins, November 2, 1852, and May 9, 1854, both
of which were assigned to Nehemiah Hunt. First manufactured in 1853, the
machine, which closely resembled the Hodgkins' patent, won a silver
medal at the exhibition of the Massachusetts Charitable Mechanics
Association that same year.
In 1856 Hunt took a partner, and the company became Hunt & Webster. An
interesting account of this company appeared as a feature article in
_Ballou's Pictorial_, July 5, 1856, where it was reported that "the
North American Shoe Company have over fifty of the latest improved
machines, represented in these drawings [fig. 31], now running...." The
article also estimated that a 55-million dollar increase in shoe
manufacturing in Massachusetts in 1855 was due to the sewing machine. In
1856 the Hunt & Webster machine again won a silver medal at the
exhibition. Very late in 1858 the company became Ladd, Webster, & Co.
and continued to manufacture both family and manufacturing sewing
machines until the mid-1860s.
The approximate date of manufacture can be determined by serial number:
_Serial Number_ _Year_
1-100 1853
101-368 1854
369-442 1855
443-622 1856
623-1075 1857
1076-1565 1858
1566-3353 1859
No figures are available for the 1860s.
[Illustration: Figure 100.--RIGHT: HUNT & WEBSTER sewing machine of
about 1855, serial number 414. (Smithsonian photo 48216-V.)]
[Illustration: Figure 101.--LADD, WEBSTER & CO. sewing machine of about
1858, Boston, serial number 1497. (Smithsonian photo 46953.)]
[Illustration: Figure 102.--IMPROVED COMMON SENSE sewing machine of
about 1870. This machine is so very similar to the New England machines
in its feed, threading, looping mechanism, and in its general design,
that it is sometimes mistaken for the earlier New England machines (see
figs. 112 and 113).
Dating from the early 1870s, the Improved Common Sense machine is about
10 inches in width, two inches larger than the New England machine. The
spool holder is similar to Folsom's patented design, but is less
refined. A page from an advertising brochure of the period verifies the
name of the machine, but does not identify the manufacturer.
There are no patent dates or identifying names or numbers on the machine
illustrated. Although the Empire Co. also produced a machine of this
style, their models are marked with their name and with Ketchum's patent
date, April 23, 1863. Of the several styles of machine using the Raymond
looper, this type seems to account for the largest volume manufactured,
as evidenced by the proportionately higher number of examples still
extant. (Smithsonian photo 48328-E.)]
[Illustration: Figure 103.--JOHNSON SEWING MACHINE, 1857. Another of the
all-but-forgotten manufacturers of the 1850s was Emery, Houghton & Co.,
who constructed the A.F. Johnson machines. Examination of existing
machines indicates that they were manufactured in 1856 and 1857, and
possibly a little longer. This one from 1857 bears the serial number
624, so we know that several hundred were manufactured. The head is
ornately attractive, slightly reminiscent of Wheeler & Wilson models,
and of standard size. (Smithsonian photo 48329-B.)]
[Illustration: Figure 104.--"LADY" SEWING MACHINE of about 1859. The
contemporary name of this machine is unknown. The unusual design of the
head, or main support, is based in part on the design patent, number
216, of Isaac F. Baker, issued April 10, 1849, for a "new and useful
design[,] for ornamenting furniture[,] called Cora Munro" who was a
character in James Fenimore Cooper's _Last of the Mohicans_. The design
shows a female figure wearing a riding dress and hat that is ornamented
with a plume and a bow. Her right hand holds a riding stick and the
left, her skirt. Trunks of trees and foliage complete the Baker design,
which is known to have been used for girandoles of the period. A
companion design was also patented by Baker, number 215, which is in the
form of a man in military costume and is named "Major Heyward," for
another character in _Last of the Mohicans_.
The sewing machines based on the "Cora Munro" design also use branch
designs as the overhanging arms. A mother bird sits in the upper branch
and descends to feed a young bird as the machine is in operation. The
one illustrated was used as the machine submitted with a request for
patent by George Hensel of New York City for which patent 24,737 was
issued on July 12, 1859. Since Hensel's patent application was for an
improvement in the feed, there was no need for the highly decorative
head unless such a machine was commercially available. The patent
specifications merely state that the head is "ornamented." Another
sewing machine of this type was used as the patent model by Sidney
Parker of Sing Sing, New York, number 24,780, issued on the same date as
the Hensel patent. Parker's patent also covered an improved feeding
mechanism. In the patent description, however, the inventor states that
"the general form of the machine is not unlike others now in use." By
this he might have meant in the design, or possibly in the basic
structural form. Other than the two machines described, no other
examples are known to have survived, but "Lady" or "Cora Munro" sewing
machines were manufactured. (Smithsonian photo 45506-D.)]
[Illustration: Figure 105.--LANDFEAR'S PATENT SEWING MACHINE of about
1857. Another of the many machines that, except for isolated examples,
have almost completely disappeared from the records is Landfear's
machine. Fortunately, this manufacturer marked his machine--where many
did not--stamping it: "Landfear's patent-Dec^r 1856, No. 262, W. H.
Johnson's Patent Feb. 26th 1856, Manfrd by Parkers, Snow, Brooks & Co.,
West Meriden, Conn." (There was a Parker sewing machine manufactured by
the Charles Parker Co. of Meriden, but his machine was a double-thread
chainstitch machine and was licensed by the "Combination." The Landfear
machine may have been an earlier attempt by a predecessor or closely
related company.)
The Landfear patent was for a shuttle machine, but it also included a
mode for regulating stitch length. The name chosen for this machine may
be incorrect, since the single-thread chainstitch mechanism is primarily
that of W. H. Johnson, but since the Johnson patent also was used on
other machines the name "Landfear" was assigned. The machine was
probably another attempt to evade royalty payment to the "Combination."
The serial number 262 indicates that at least that many machines were
manufactured, although this model is the only one known to be in
existence. The support arm of the machine head is iron, cast as a vase
of flowers and painted in natural colors. The paint on the head is
original, but the table has been refinished, and the iron legs, which
had rusted, have been repainted. (Smithsonian photo 48440-G.)]
[Illustration: Figure 106.--LATHROP SEWING MACHINE of about 1873. These
machines were manufactured by the Lathrop Combination Sewing Machine Co.
under the patents of Lebbeus W. Lathrop of 1869, 1870, and 1873. The
machine used two threads, both taken from spools; moreover, it produced
not only the double chainstitch, but it was constructed to produce also
a lockstitch and a combined "lock and chain stitch." The machine
illustrated bears the serial number 31 and the patent dates of Grover &
Baker, and Bachelder among others, in addition to the first two Lathrop
patent dates. The company lasted only a few years as it is included in
the 1881 list of manufacturers that had ceased to exist. (Smithsonian
photo 46953-F.)]
[Illustration: Figure 107.--ILLUSTRATION FROM A BROCHURE, marked in ink:
"The National Portrait Gallery, 1855." Singer Archives. (Smithsonian
photo 48091-E.)]
Figures 107 and 108.--THE NICHOLS AND LEAVITT sewing machines. One of
Elias Howe's earliest licensees was J. B. Nichols. His machine,
manufactured at first with George Bliss and later alone as J. B. Nichols
& Co., was called Howe's Improved Patent Sewing Machine. It was,
however, no more a Howe machine than any of the others produced under
the Howe patent.
In July 1855 Nichols went into partnership with Rufus Leavitt, and the
company name changed to Nichols, Leavitt & Co. In 1857 it was changed
again to Leavitt & Co., and finally in the mid-1860s to Leavitt Sewing
Machine Co. By the 1870s, it was defunct.
The Nichols-Leavitt machines can be dated by their serial numbers
approximately as follows:
_Serial Number_ _Year_ _Company_
1-28 1853 Nichols & Bliss
29-245 1854 J. B. Nichols & Co.
246-397 1855 J. B. Nichols & Co.--Nichols, Leavitt & Co.
398-632 1856 Nichols, Leavitt & Co.
633-827 1857 Leavitt & Co.
828-902 1858 "
903-1115 1859 "
1116-1436 1860 "
1437-1757 1861 "
1758-2077 1862 "
2078-2400 1863 "
2401-2900 1864 "
2901-3900 1865 Leavitt Sewing Machine Co.
3901-4900 1866 "
4901-5951 1867 "
5952-6951 1868 "
6952-7722 1869 "
There is no record that the company was in existence after 1869.
[Illustration: Figure 108.--LEAVITT SEWING MACHINE of about 1868, serial
number 6907. (Smithsonian photo 48328.)]
[Illustration: Figure 109.--LESTER SEWING MACHINE of about 1858. The
Lester machine was first manufactured by J. H. Lester in Brooklyn, New
York. His machine was based on the patents of William Johnson, John
Bradshaw and others but not on the patents held by the "Combination,"
although he had secured a license. When the Old Dominion Company applied
for a license from the "Combination," Lester learned of this, went to
Richmond, and arranged to combine his business with theirs. Since the
Lester machine was the better one, it was agreed to cease the
manufacture of the Old Dominion machines early in 1860 and in March the
company name was changed to the Lester Mfg. Co. Late in 1860, George
Sloat entered the company with his Elliptic machine; the name was
changed again, this time to Union Sewing Machine Co. The manufacture of
both sewing machines continued until the outbreak of the Civil War the
following year, which brought a conversion to arms production. The
manufacture of Lester machines was never resumed.
The machine illustrated was manufactured by J. H. Lester in Brooklyn; it
bears the serial number 96. The number of Lester machines manufactured
from 1858 through 1861 is not known, but it was probably less than
1,000. (Smithsonian photo P63359.)]
[Illustration: Figure 110.--NE PLUS ULTRA of about 1867. Another of the
interesting hand-turned chainstitch machines of the late 1850s and 1860s
was patented by O.L. Reynolds. The baster plates and the handle on the
wheel are missing on this machine, but an interesting shield and
draped-flag pattern is painted on the base.
Another machine of this type has the following inscription stamped on
the baster plate: "Ne Plus Ultra, Patent Applied For, 174, O.L.
Reynolds, Patentee & Manufacturer, Dover N.H." Reynold's patent model,
March 30, 1858, bears the serial number 110, indicating that the machine
illustrated here--which bears the serial number 26--was manufactured
before the patent was obtained. (Smithsonian photo 48216-F.)]
[Illustration: Figure 111.--NETTLETON & RAYMOND SEWING MACHINE. One of
the most ornate of the early, small, hand-turned sewing machines was
patented and manufactured by Willford H. Nettleton and Charles Raymond
whose first patent was received on April 14, 1857. The patent model,
believed to be a commercial machine, is beautifully silver-plated.
Whether this was a special one-of-a-kind model, or whether the inventors
tried to make a commercial success of a silver-plated machine is not
known. The machine made a two-thread chainstitch, taking both threads
from commercial spools. By October 1857, the inventors had received
their second patent. This time the machine was brass and gilt--brighter,
but less expensive. At the same time, Nettleton & Raymond began
manufacturing sewing-shears machines under the patent of J. E.
Hendricks.
By the latter half of 1858, Nettleton & Raymond had moved from Bristol,
Connecticut, to Brattleboro, Vermont. The patented improvement of the
two-thread chainstitch machine received that year was in the name of
"Raymond, assignor to Nettleton," although the machines of this type
bear neither name nor patent date. No record of the price for which they
were sold has been found, but it would be fair to estimate that it was
probably about $25. This style of machine was discontinued when the
manufacture of the simpler, more profitable New England model began, a
machine that Raymond had initiated just before the partners left
Bristol. (Smithsonian photo 45505-E.)]
[Illustration: Figure 112.--RAYMOND PATENT MODEL, March 9, 1858.
(Smithsonian photo 32009-O.)]
[Illustration: Figure 113.--NEW ENGLAND sewing machine of about 1860,
manufactured by Nettleton & Raymond; it bears the Raymond patent date of
March 9, 1858. (Smithsonian photo 45505-G.)]
[Illustration: Figures 112 and 113.--NEW ENGLAND SEWING MACHINES. The
small, hand-turned, sewing machines some of which were called Common
Sense, were manufactured by at least three companies and possibly more.
The earliest ones were those made by Nettleton & Raymond based on
Charles Raymond's patent of March 9, 1858, which featured a hinged
presser foot acting as the top feed. On July 30, 1861, Raymond received
a patent for an improved looper; this date is found on all machines
later manufactured by the inventor.
In 1858 Nettleton and Raymond had moved from Bristol, Connecticut, to
Brattleboro, Vermont. Also in Brattleboro at this time were Thomas H.
White and Samuel Barker, who were manufacturing a small machine called
the Brattleboro. White left Vermont in 1862 and went to Massachusetts.
There, in partnership with William Grout, he also began to manufacture
New England machines; these were basically the same as the Raymond
machines. After a short time, Grout left the partnership with White and
moved to Winchendon, there continuing to make New England machines for
approximately one more year. In 1865, J. G. Folsom of Winchendon
exhibited a New England machine at the Tenth Exhibition of the
Massachusetts Charitable Mechanics Association along with his Globe
machine. Whether both machines were manufactured by him or whether he
might have been exhibiting one of Grout's machines is not known.
There is no record that New England machines were manufactured after
1865. There is a great similarity between these machines and the
Improved Common Sense sewing machines of the 1870s. It is believed that
the name "Common Sense" was given by frugal New Englanders to several of
the cheaper chainstitch machines of the 1860s.]
[Illustration: Figure 114.--PRATT'S SECOND PATENT MODEL, March 3, 1857,
probably a commercial machine. (Smithsonian photo 48328-H.)]
[Illustration: Figures 114 and 115.--PRATT'S PATENT and the Ladies
Companion sewing machine. The machines manufactured under the patents of
Samuel F. Pratt were first sold in 1857 and 1858 as Pratt's patent.
These machines carry the Pratt name and the patent dates "Feb. 3, 1857
Mar. 3;" the latter is an 1857 patent date also. In 1859 the Pratt
machine was called the Ladies Companion and was so marked. It was also
marked with the 1857 patent dates, the date February 16, 1858, and a
serial number, and was stamped "Boston, Mass." Manufacture was
discontinued after a few years.]
[Illustration: Figure 115.--LADIES COMPANION, 1859. (_Photo courtesy of
The Henry Ford Museum and Greenfield Village, Dearborn, Michigan._)]
[Illustration: Figure 116.--QUAKER CITY SEWING MACHINE. During the first
decade of sewing-machine manufacture many types of handsome wooden cases
were developed to house the mechanisms. Although such cases increased
the total cost, they were greatly admired and were purchased whenever
family funds permitted. The machine was based on the patents of William
P. Uhlinger: a mechanical patent for a double chainstitch machine on
August 17, 1858 (antedated May 8), and a patent for the casing on
December 28, 1858. The machine head was lowered into the casing as the
lid was brought forward and closed--an idea much ahead of its time.
This Quaker City machine, serial number 18, was purchased by Benjamin F.
Meadows of Lafayette, Alabama, for $150 just prior to the Civil War.
Relatively few machines of this type were manufactured, and the Quaker
City Sewing Machine Co. existed for only a few years. Its apparent hope
for a southern market was short-lived, and it was unable to compete
either with the companies licensed under the "Combination" or with those
producing less expensive machines. (Smithsonian photo 46953-A.)]
[Illustration: Figure 117.--FROM AN ADVERTISING BROCHURE, marked in ink,
"The National Portrait Gallery, 1855," in the Singer Company's archives.
The brochure states "Howard & Davis, 34 Water Street, Boston,
Massachusetts Sole Manufacturers of Robinson's Patent Sewing Machine
with Rope[r]'s Improvements." (Smithsonian photo 48091-F.)]
[Illustration: Figure 118.--SEWING MACHINE OF ABOUT 1856 with
inscription "Howard & Davis Makers, Boston, Mass. Robinson & Roper Pat.
Dec. 10, 1850, Aug. 15, 1854"; the drive wheel and the circular
stitching plate of this machine are missing. (Smithsonian photo
48440-C.)]
[Illustration: Figures 117 and 118.--ROBINSON AND ROPER sewing machines,
1855-1856. This is one of the few machines producing a backstitch or
half backstitch to realize any commercial success. Manufactured a very
short time by Howard & Davis, it was a short-thread machine, based on
the Frederick Robinson patent of December 10, 1850, and the Samuel Roper
patent of August 15, 1854. Roper produced additional improvements for
which he received a patent on November 4, 1856. In the _Scientific
American_, November 1, 1856, the new machine was discussed: "Robinson &
Roper exhibit their new improved sewing machines, which appear to
operate with great success. Two needles are employed, the points of
which are furnished with hooks that alternately catch the thread and
form the stitch. The finest kind of cotton thread or silk can be used.
The work appears well done. Price $100."]
[Illustration: Figure 119.--ILLUSTRATED PAGE in a Shaw & Clark
advertising brochure, published in late 1864. (Smithsonian photo
61321.)]
[Illustration: Figure 120.--SHAW & CLARK SEWING MACHINE (Page patent) of
1867, Chicopee Falls, Massachusetts. (Smithsonian photo 48216-L.)]
[Illustration: Figures 119 and 120.--SHAW & CLARK SEWING MACHINES. In
addition to the early style Monitor sewing machine sold by Shaw & Clark
without a name or any identifying marks, the company continued to
manufacture machines after a lawsuit with the "Combination" forced them
to take out a license. They manufactured an adapted version of their
Monitor and an entirely new design patented in 1861. Their machines were
now marked with the company name and a list of patent dates including
those of Howe, Wheeler and Wilson, Grover and Baker, and Singer and the
Batchelder patent, together with their own design patents. In 1867 the
company moved from Biddeford, Maine, to Chicopee Falls, Massachusetts.
In the same year, they began manufacturing a machine of the design
patented by T. C. Page. The company is believed to have become the
Chicopee Sewing Machine Company which appeared the following year and
remained in business only a very short time. One Chicopee sewing machine
is in the Smithsonian collection.]
[Illustration: Figure 121.--SINGER "Traverse Shuttle Machine--Letter A."
(Smithsonian photo 58984.)]
Figures 121 and 122.--SINGER SEWING MACHINES. From 1850 to 1858 the
Singer company produced heavy manufacturing-type sewing machines similar
to the patent model shown earlier (fig. 28). The first machine for
family use, Singer's new "Family" sewing machine (fig. 33) was
manufactured from 1858-1861. Their second-style family machine was
called the "Traverse Shuttle Machine--Letter A;" it was manufactured
from 1859 to 1865, when they introduced their third family machine and
called it the "New Family" sewing machine. This style machine continued
until about 1883 when the "Improved Family" machine appeared. In
addition to the lockstitch machines, Singer also manufactured
chainstitch machines, and many highly specialized manufacturing
machines.
From 1857 through the 1880s, the Singer machines were marked with two
serial numbers. It is possible that the numbers were related to the
"Combination" royalties paid by the Singer company. Until about 1873
there was a difference of exactly 4,000 in the two numbers, thus one
machine would be marked 12163 and directly below it would be marked
16163. From 1873 the last three digits of the two numbers continued to
be the same but the lower number might be much lower in value than
either number used in earlier years. The larger number is believed to
have been a record of total production while the lower number may have
referred to a machine of a particular style. The Singer company records
can shed no light on the meaning of the top (or lower of the two) serial
numbers. Generally, in the earlier machines, the difference in the two
numbers will not affect the dating of a machine by more than one year.
Since dating by serial number can only be estimated, the two numbers do
not add an appreciable variable prior to 1873. Only the larger number,
however, should be considered in dating machines after 1873.
_Serial Number_ _Year_
1-100 1850
101-900 1851
901-1711 1852
1712-2521 1853
2522-3400 1854
3401-4283 1855
4284-6847 1856
6848-10477 1857
10478-14071 1858
14072-25024 1859
25025-43000 1860
43001-61000 1861
61001-79396 1862
79397-99426 1863
99427-123058 1864
123059-149399 1865
149400-180360 1866
180361-223414 1867
223415-283044 1868
283045-369826 1869
369827-497660 1870
497661-678921 1871
678922-898680 1872
898681-1121125 1873
1121126-1362805 1874
1362806-1612658 1875
1612659-1874975 1876
Since records of annual production from 1877 to the turn of the century
are not complete, it is difficult to establish yearly approximations.
Using the machines submitted as patent models, and thus known to have
been manufactured before the date of deposit, however, has provided us
with the following date guides. By 1877 there had been 2 million
machines manufactured, 3 million by 1880, 4 million by 1882, 5 million
by 1884, 6 million by 1886, 7 million by 1888, 8 million by 1889, 9
million by 1890, and 10 million by 1891.
[Illustration: Figure 122.--SINGER "New Family" sewing machine.
(Smithsonian photo 58987.)]
[Illustration: Figure 123.--STANDARD SEWING MACHINE of about 1870. This
chainstitch machine is believed to have been made by the company that
later became the Standard Shuttle Sewing Machine Company, when they
began manufacturing lockstitch machines about 1874. This machine is
marked with the name, "Standard," and with the dates "Patented July 14,
1870, Patented Jan. 22, 1856, Dec. 9, 1856, Dec. 12, 1865." The dates
refer to the reissue and extended reissue of the Bachelder and the A. B.
Wilson patents. The number of chainstitch machines of this type that
were manufactured is not known. (Smithsonian photo 45506-C.)]
[Illustration: Figure 124.--TAGGART & FARR sewing machine, front view.
(Smithsonian photo 48216-P.)]
Figures 124 and 125.--TAGGART & FARR sewing machine, 1860. The Taggart &
Farr is an almost forgotten machine. It was based on Chester Farr's
patent of August 9, 1859. The machine, however, was in commercial
production as early as 1858, the year the patent application was made.
Using two threads--both taken directly from the spool--to form a
chainstitch, the machine was operated basically by treadle but also by
hand. The drive wheel is missing on this machine, but it would normally
appear on the right.
The name and patent date were painted on the end of the machine. This
was true of many other machines of this period, which is why so many go
unidentified once the paint has become worn. Several thousand Taggart &
Farr machines were manufactured, but the company is believed to have had
a short life, for it was among those that had disappeared by 1881.
[Illustration: Figure 125.--TAGGART & FARR sewing machine, end view.
(Smithsonian photo 48216-M.)]
[Illustration: Figure 126.--WATSON SEWING MACHINE, 1856, illustrated in
Scientific American, December 13, 1856. The earliest Watson machines
were two-thread lockstitch machines, as described in the _Scientific
American_, August 10, 1850. Although the magazine reported that the
inventor had applied for a patent, the earliest lockstitch patent issued
to William C. Watson was on March 11, 1856. A few of his machines were
made in 1850, the article continued, "several of these machines are
nearly finished ... persons desirous of seeing them can be gratified by
calling upon Messrs. Jones & Lee." A Watson machine was exhibited by
Jones & Lee at the Sixth Exhibition of the Massachusetts Charitable
Mechanics Association held in Boston in September 1850.
In 1853 a Watson machine was exhibited at the New York Industry of All
Nations Exhibition, but this was a single-looping machine; Watson
received a patent for this single-thread machine on November 25, 1856.
In the December 13, 1856, issue of _Scientific American_ a machine
called Watson's "Family" sewing machine was illustrated and described.
It was a small machine (only 8 by 5 inches) manufactured by Watson &
Wooster and selling for $10. References to the Watson single-thread
machine occur as late as 1860, but no examples are known to have
survived. (Smithsonian photo 48221-B.)]
[Illustration: Figure 127.--WEST & WILLSON SEWING MACHINE of about 1859.
The West & Willson machine, manufactured under the patent of H. B. West
and H. F. Willson, enjoyed a very brief span of popularity. The patent
covered the peculiar method of operating a spring-looper in combination
with an eye-pointed needle to form a single chainstitch, but whether
machines of this single-thread variety were manufactured is unknown. The
machine illustrated here is a two-thread machine of basically the same
description. It stitches from left to right and bears serial number 1544
and the inscription "West & Willson Co. patented June 29, 1858."
(Smithsonian photo 49456-A.)]
[Illustration: Figure 128.--WHEELER & WILSON SEWING MACHINE of about
1872. Serial number 670974. (Smithsonian photo P63149-A.)]
[Illustration: Figure 129.--WHEELER AND WILSON NO. 8 sewing machine of
about 1876. (Smithsonian photo 17663-C.)]
[Illustration: Figures 128 and 129.--Wheeler and Wilson sewing machines.
The Wheeler and Wilson company was the largest manufacturer of sewing
machines in the 1850s and the 1860s.
It began in 1851 as A. B. Wilson; from 1852 to 1856 it was the Wheeler,
Wilson & Co., Watertown, Connecticut; and from 1856 to 1876, it was
Wheeler & Wilson Mfg. Co., Bridgeport, Connecticut.
The style of the head changed very little during these years (see figs.
26 and 27). Both a table style with iron legs and a cabinet model were
made: the head was usually mounted to stitch from left to right. In
1861, the company introduced the famous glass presser foot, patented on
March 5 of that year by J. L. Hyde. The presser foot was made of metal
but shaped like an open [?] into which was slid a small glass plate, with a
hole for the needle descent. The glass allowed the seamstress to observe
the stitching and to produce very close-edge stitching. It remained a
favorite of many women for years. In 1876, the new No. 8 machine was
introduced and a new series of serial numbers was initiated. It is,
therefore, imperative to know that the machine is one of the earlier
style machines before using the following list of serial numbers to date
the machines, approximately as follows:
_Serial Number_ _Year_
1-200 1851
201-650 1852
651-1449 1853
1450-2205 1854
2206-3376 1855
3377-5586 1856
5587-10177 1857
10178-18155 1858
18156-39461 1859
39462-64563 1860
64564-83119 1861
83120-111321 1862
111322-141099 1863
141100-181161 1864
181161-220318 1865
220319-270450 1866
270451-308505 1867
308506-357856 1868
357857-436722 1869
436723-519930 1870
519931-648456 1871
648457-822545 1872
822546-941735 1873
941736-1034563 1874
1034564-1318303 1875
1138304-1247300 1876
Records of the second series of serial numbers dating from 1876 are not
available.]
[Illustration: Figure 130.--WHITE SEWING MACHINE. Although the White
sewing machines date from 1876, Thomas H. White had been busy in the
manufacture of sewing machines for many years prior to this. White is
known to have been associated with Barker in the manufacture of the
Brattleboro machine and later with Grout in producing one of the several
New England machines. In 1866 he moved to Cleveland, Ohio, and began
manufacturing machines for sale under special trade names through
selling organizations. In 1876, the White Sewing Machine Company was
formed and machines were sold under the White name.
The machine illustrated is a standard lockstitch machine, which would
have been set into a sewing-machine table and operated by a treadle. The
small handle was used to start the wheel, and thus the stitching
operation, in the forward direction. This machine bears the serial
number 28241 and the following patents: "Mar. 14, 1876, May 2, 1876,
Oct. 24, 1876, Jan. 16, 1877, Mar. 20, 1877, Mar. 27, 1877," which are
primarily the patents of D'Arcy Porter and George W. Baker.
The machines of the 1870s may be dated approximately as follows:
_Serial Number_ _Year_
1-9000 1876
9000-27000 1877
27001-45000 1878
45001-63000 1879
(Smithsonian photo 48329-H.)]
[Illustration: Figure 131.--WILLCOX AND GIBBS SEWING MACHINE, serial
number 296572, of about 1878. From 1857 to the turn of the century, the
style of the Willcox and Gibbs sewing machine changed very little (fig.
39). It was the most popular and the most reliable of the many
chainstitch machines. In addition to the basic mechanical patents, Gibbs
also patented the design of the sewing-machine head in 1860. In the
specifications, he described it as an open ring set on a base or
pedestal. The lower part of the open section supported the cloth plate.
The design of the head, intentionally or not, formed a perfect letter G,
the initial of the inventor. Later the machine head as a letter G was
incorporated into the company's trademark. Additional patents were also
granted to James Willcox for a leg and treadle design and to Charles
Willcox for mechanical improvements.
It has not been possible to secure information on records of serial
numbers from the late 1870s through the 1920s to aid in dating machines
of that period. For the preceding years, however, the machines may be
dated approximately as follows:
_Serial Number_ _Year_
1-10000 1857
10001-20000 1858
20001-30000 1859
30001-40000 1860
40001-50000 1861
50001-60000 1862
60001-70000 1863
70001-80000 1864
80001-90000 1865
90001-100000 1866
100001-115000 1867
115001-130000 1868
130001-145000 1869
145001-160000 1870
160001-190127 1871
190128-223766 1872
223767-239647 1873
239648-253357 1874
253358-267879 1875
267880-279637 1876
Although the Willcox and Gibbs company is still in existence, for the
past several decades the company has limited itself to the production of
specialized manufacturing machines rather than family machines.
(Smithsonian photo 58986.)]
[Illustration]
<----
[Illustration: Figure 132.--ILLUSTRATION from _Knights American
Mechanical Dictionary_, vol. 3, p. 2122. The 68 sewing-machine stitches
in use by 1882 are as follows:
SINGLE THREAD
1. Running stitch.
2. Back stitch.
3. Fast stitch.
4. Chainstitch.
5. Coiled-loop chainstitch.
6. Knitted-loop chainstitch.
7. Knotted-loop chainstitch.
8. Loop enchained by second alternate stitch.
9. Each loop locks and enchains alternate loops.
10. Staple stitch (for waxed threads only).
TWO THREADS
11. Double-needle chainstitch.
12. Double-thread chainstitch (one needle).
13. Double-looped chainstitch.
14. Chain with interlocking thread.
15. Under-thread through its own loop.
16. Two needles penetrate fabric from opposite sides.
17. Two needles working from the same side.
18. Double interlocking loop.
19. Lockstitch.
20. Twist in needle thread.
21. Double twist in needle thread.
22. Twist in shuttle thread.
23. Double twist in shuttle thread.
24. Knot stitch, shuttle thread knotted at every stitch.
25. Knot stitch, shuttle thread knotted at every other stitch.
26. Knot stitch, shuttle thread through the needle thread loop and
knotted around the loop.
27. Shuttle thread pulled to the surface and interlocked with
succeeding stitch to form an embroidery stitch.
28. Wire-lock stitch, thread locked in place with wire.
THREE THREADS
29. Two shuttles, each locking alternate loops.
30. Double loop with interlocking third thread.
31. Two shuttle threads, both locking each loop.
32. Two shuttle threads intertwining and locking each loop.
33. Single thread; loop of needle thread drawn up over the edge and
locked by needle at its next descent.
34. Two threads; loops of needle thread, above and below, extend to
the edge of the fabric, and are locked by shuttle thread.
35. Two threads; needle penetrates back from edge, its loop passed
to and interlocked by the needle at its next descent over the
edge, and this second needle-loop locked by shuttle thread.
36. Two threads; shuttle thread drawn up over the edge of the
fabric to the line of the needle thread.
37. Two threads; needle loop through the fabric locked by needle
loop over the edge and second loop locked by second thread.
38. Two threads; edge of fabric covered by shuttle thread.
39. Three threads; third thread laid around the stitch at the edge
of the fabric.
ORNAMENTAL STITCHES
40. Zigzag; single thread chainstitch (4).
41. Zigzag; two-thread lockstitch (19).
42. Zigzag; two-thread chainstitch (13).
43. Zigzag; chain stitch with interlocking thread (14).
44. Zigzag; double loop with interlocking third thread (30).
45. Zigzag; running stitch (1).
46. Zigzag; two needles and shuttle.
47. Zigzag; variation of 46.
48-52. Zigzag stitches for sewing straw braid.
53-62. Straight straw-braid stitches.
63-67. Special embroidery stitches.
68. Saddler's stitch.]
* * * * *
In the _Sewing Machine News_, vol. 3, no. 5, p. 12 (1881), there were
listed a number of then "defunct" machines and companies. Among these
are many well-known names and little-known names for which at least one
additional reference can be found. There are some, however, for which
this is the only reference to date. These are: Blanchard, Babcock,
Banner, Brown Rotary, Cottage, Cole, Duplex, Economist, Erie, Gutman,
Hill, Hancock & Bennett, Jenks, Lockmar, La Favorite, Learned, Leggett,
McCoy, McCardy, Medallion, McArthur & Co., Monopoly, Moreau, Mack,
Niagra, New Cannaan, Orphean, Pride-of-the-West, Seamen & Guiness,
Surprise, Stackpole, Shanks, Stanford, Troy, Utica, United States
Family, Weaver, Wagner, and Williams. Some of these names may have been
a "special" name given to machines manufactured by one of the known
companies, but at least a few are names of machines manufactured for a
very short time prior to 1881 about which we would like to know more.
III. Chronological List of U.S. Sewing-Machine Patent Models in the
Smithsonian Collections
There are more than seven hundred sewing-machine patent models and a
similar number of attachment models in the Smithsonian collections. Most
of these machines were received in 1926 when the Patent Office disposed
of its collection of hundreds of thousands of models. Prior to 1880,
models had been required with the patent application; although the
requirement was discontinued that year, patentees continued to furnish
models for another decade or so. All models prior to 1836 were lost in a
Patent Office fire of that year, but since the sewing-machine patent
history dates from the 1840s, most of the historically important ones of
this subject have been preserved.
These models form a valuable part of the record of the invention,
supplementing the drawings and the text of the written specifications.
The early sewing-machine models were made to order, either by the
inventor or a commissioned model maker. As soon as sewing machines were
produced commercially, it was less expensive for the patentee to use a
commercial machine of the period, to which he added his change or
improvement, than to have a complete model constructed to order. Some of
the commercial machines used in this way are the only examples known to
be in existence, and as such, are of more interest in establishing the
history of the manufactured machine than for the minor patented changes.
During the period of the "Sewing Machine Combination," many patentees
attempted to invent and patent "the different machine." This was either
a radical change in style or an attempt to produce a far less-expensive
type of machine. These machines were not always put into commercial
production, but the patent models give an indication of the extent to
which some inventors went to simplify or vary the mechanics of machine
sewing.
The following is a list of those sewing-machine patent models in the
Smithsonian Institution collections:
_Patentee_ |_Date_ |_Patent Number_
| |
Greenough, John J. |Feb. 21, 1842 |2,466
Bean, Benjamin W. |March 4, 1843 |2,982
Corliss, George H. |Dec. 27, 1843 |3,389
Howe, Elias, Jr. |Sept. 10, 1846 |4,750
Bachelder, John |May 8, 1849 |6,439
Wilson, Allen B. |Nov. 12, 1850 |7,776
Robinson, Frederick R. |Dec. 10, 1850 |7,824
Grover & Baker |Feb. 11, 1851 |7,931
Singer, Isaac M. |Aug. 12, 1851 |8,294
Wilson, Allen B. |Aug. 12, 1851 |8,296
Wilson, Allen B. |June 15, 1852 |9,041
Miller, Charles |July 20, 1852 |9,139
Avery, Otis |Oct. 19, 1852 |9,338
Hodgkins, G. |Nov. 2, 1852 |9,365
Bradeen, J. G. |Nov. 2, 1852 |9,380
Bates, W. G. |Feb. 22, 1853 |9,592
Thompson, T. C. |March 29, 1853 |9,641
Wickersham, W. |April 19, 1853 |9,679
Johnson, W. H. |March 7, 1854 |10,597
Harrison, J., Jr. |April 11, 1854 |10,763
Avery, Otis |May 9, 1854 |10,880
Singer, Isaac |May 30, 1854 |10,975
Hunt, Walter |June 27, 1854 |11,161
Roper, S. H. |Aug. 15, 1854 |11,531
Shaw, P. |Sept. 12, 1854 |11,680
Ambler, D. C. |Nov. 1, 1854 |11,884
Robertson, T. J. W. |Nov. 28, 1854 |12,015
Lyon, W. |Dec. 12, 1854 |12,066
Stedman, G. W. |Dec. 12, 1854 |12,074
Ward, D. T. |Jan. 2, 1855 |12,146
Conant, J. S. |Jan. 16, 1855 |12,233
Smith, H. B. |Jan. 16, 1855 |12,247
Singer, I. M. |Feb. 6, 1855 |12,364
Stedman, G. W. |March 20, 1855 |12,573
Stedman, G. W. |May 1, 1855 |12,798
Chilcott, J., and Scrimgeour, J. |March 15, 1855 |12,856
Durgin, Charles A. |May 22, 1855 |12,902
Bond, J., Jr. |May 22, 1855 |12,939
Singer, Isaac |June 12, 1855 |13,065
Harrison, J., Jr. |Oct. 2, 1855 |13,616
Singer, I. M. |Oct. 9, 1855 |13,661
Singer, I. M. |Oct. 9, 1855 |13,662
Langdon, L. W. |Oct. 30, 1855 |13,727
Stedman, G. W. |Nov. 27, 1855 |13,856
Swingle, A. |Feb. 5, 1856 |14,207
Watson, Wm. C. |March 11, 1856 |14,433
Singer, I. M. |March 18, 1856 |14,475
Grover, W. O. |May 27, 1856 |14,956
Blodgett, S. C. |Aug. 5, 1856 |15,469
Roper, S. H. |Nov. 4, 1856 |16,026
Singer, Isaac M. |Nov. 4, 1856 |16,030
Gibbs, James E. A. |Dec. 16, 1856 |16,234
Jennings, L. |Dec. 16, 1856 |16,237
Johnson, A. F. |Jan. 13, 1857 |16,387
Gibbs, J. E. A. |Jan. 20, 1857 |16,434
Howe, Elias, Jr. |Jan. 20, 1857 |16,436
Alexander, Elisa |Feb. 3, 1857 |16,518
Gray, Joshua |Feb. 3, 1857 |16,566
Belcher, C. D. |March 3, 1857 |16,710
Pratt, S. F. |March 3, 1857 |16,745
Nettleton & Raymond |April 14, 1857 |17,049
Gibbs, J. E. A. |June 2, 1857 |17,427
Harris, Daniel |June 9, 1857 |17,508
Harris, Daniel |June 16, 1857 |17,571
Sage, William |June 30, 1857 |17,717
Lathbury, E. T. |July 7, 1857 |17,744
Wickersham, W. |Aug. 25, 1857 |18,068
Wickersham, W. |Aug. 25, 1857 |18,069
Behn, Henry |Aug. 25, 1857 |18,071
Nettleton, Wm. H., and |Oct. 6, 1857 |18,350
Raymond, Charles | |
Roper, S. H. |Oct. 27, 1857 |18,522
Fetter, George |Dec. 1, 1857 |18,793
Watson, W. C. |Dec. 8, 1857 |18,834
Behn, H. |Dec. 15, 1857 |18,880
Hubbard, George W. |Dec. 22, 1857 |18,904
Lazelle, W. H. |Dec. 22, 1857 |18,915
Clark, David W. |Jan. 5, 1858 |19,015
Fetter, George |Jan. 5, 1858 |19,059
Clark, David W. |Jan. 12, 1858 |19,072
Clark, David W. |Jan. 19, 1858 |19,129
Dimmock, Martial, and |Jan. 19, 1858 |19,135
Rixford, Nathan | |
Boyd, A. H. |Jan. 19, 1858 |19,171
Angell, Benjamin J. |Feb. 9, 1858 |19,285
Clark, David W. |Feb. 23, 1858 |19,409
Raymond, Charles |March 9, 1858 |19,612
Hendrick, Joseph E. |March 16, 1858 |19,660
Parker, Sidney |March 16, 1858 |19,662
Gray, Joshua |March 16, 1858 |19,665
Coates, F. S. |March 23, 1858 |19,684
Clark, David W. |March 23, 1858 |19,732
Reynolds, O. S. |March 30, 1858 |19,793
Bartholf, Abraham |April 6, 1858 |19,823
Savage, E. |April 6, 1858 |19,876
Atwood, J. E., J. C., and O. |April 13, 1858 |19,903
Bosworth, Chas. F. |April 20, 1858 |19,979
Clark, David W. |June 8, 1858 |20,481
Herron, A. C. |June 15, 1858 |20,557
Johnson, A. F. |June 22, 1858 |20,686
Barnes, W. T. |June 29, 1858 |20,688
Smith, E. H. |June 29, 1858 |20,739
West, H. B., and |June 29, 1858 |20,753
Willson, H. F. | |
Miller, W. |June 29, 1858 |20,763
Blake, Lyman R. |July 6, 1858 |20,775
Carpenter, Lunan |July 27, 1858 |20,990
Moore, Charles |July 27, 1858 |21,015
Smith, E. H. |Aug. 3, 1858 |21,089
Wheeler and Carpenter |Aug. 3, 1858 |21,100
Gibbs, J. E. A. |Aug. 10, 1858 |21,129
Uhlinger, W. P. |Aug. 17, 1858 |21,224
Clark, David W. |Aug. 31, 1858 |21,322
Blodgett, S. C. |Sept. 7, 1858 |21,465
Hubbard, G. W. |Sept. 14, 1858 |21,537
Hendrick, J. E. |Oct. 5, 1858 |21,722
Gibbs, J. E. A. |Oct. 12, 1858 |21,751
Sangster, Amos. W. |Oct. 26, 1858 |21,929
Avery, O. and Z. W. |Nov. 9, 1858 |22,007
Spencer and Lamb |Nov. 23, 1858 |22,137
Perry, James |Nov. 23, 1858 |22,148
Burnet and Broderick |Nov. 30, 1858 |22,160
Hook, Albert H. |Nov. 30, 1858 |22,179
Raymond, Charles |Nov. 30, 1858 |22,220
Bishop, H. H. |Dec. 7, 1858 |22,226
Pratt, S. F. |Dec. 7, 1858 |22,240
Atwood, J. E. |Dec. 14, 1858 |22,273
Fosket, W. A., and |Jan. 25, 1859 |22,719
Savage, Elliot | |
Snyder, W. |Feb. 15, 1859 |22,987
Clark, D. W. |May 3, 1859 |23,823
Boyd, A. H. |May 17, 1859 |24,003
Gray, Joshua |May 17, 1859 |24,022
Hook, Albert H. |May 17, 1859 |24,027
Spencer, James C. |May 17, 1859 |24,061
Carhart, Peter S. |May 24, 1859 |24,098
McCurdy, J. S. |June 14, 1859 |24,395
Goodwyn, H. H. |June 21, 1859 |24,455
Grout, William |July 5, 1859 |24,629
Hensel, George |July 12, 1859 |24,737
Parker, Sidney |July 12, 1859 |24,780
Hall, William |July 26, 1859 |24,870
Hayden, H. W. |Aug. 2, 1859 |24,937
Kelsey, D. |Aug. 2, 1859 |24,939
Emswiler, J. B. |Aug. 9, 1859 |25,002
Farr, C. N. |Aug. 9, 1859 |25,004
Harrison, James, Jr. |Aug. 9, 1859 |25,013
Tapley, G. S. |Aug. 9, 1859 |25,059
Barnes, W. T. |Aug. 16, 1859 |25,084
Booth, Ezekial |Aug. 16, 1859 |25,087
Hinkley, J. |Aug. 23, 1859 |25,231
Harrison, James, Jr. |Aug. 30, 1859 |25,262
Buell, J. S. |Sept. 13, 1859 |25,381
Vogel, Kasimir |Oct. 4, 1859 |25,692
Woodward, F. G. |Oct. 11, 1859 |25,782
Barrett, O. D. |Oct. 11, 1859 |25,785
Barnes, William T. |Oct. 25, 1859 |25,876
Sawyer, Irwin, and Alsop, T. |Oct. 25, 1859 |25,918
Budlong, William G. |Nov. 1, 1859 |25,946
Fosket, William A., |Nov. 1, 1859 |25,963
and Savage, E. | |
Hicks, W. C. |Nov. 8, 1859 |26,035
Scofield, C. |Nov. 8, 1859 |26,059
Pearson, William |Nov. 22, 1859 |26,201
McCurdy, James S. |Nov. 22, 1859 |26,234
Clark, Edwin |Dec. 6, 1859 |26,336
Dickinson, C. W. |Dec. 6, 1859 |26,346
Miller, Charles |Dec. 13, 1859 |26,462
Rowe, Jas. |Dec. 27, 1859 |26,638
Johnson, A. F. |Jan. 24, 1860 |26,948
Thomson, J. |Feb. 7, 1860 |27,082
Juengst, George |Feb. 14, 1860 |27,132
Davis, Job A. |Feb. 21, 1860 |27,208
Gibbs, James E. A. |Feb. 21, 1860 |27,214
Rowe, James |Feb. 21, 1860 |27,260
Dopp, H. W. |Feb. 28, 1860 |27,279
Paine, A. R. |March 6, 1860 |27,412
Smalley, J. |March 20, 1860 |27,577
Newlove, T. |April 3, 1860 |27,761
McCurdy, J. S. |May 1, 1860 |28,097
Arnold, G. B. |May 8, 1860 |28,139
Bean, E. E. |May 8, 1860 |28,144
Holly, Birdsill |May 8, 1860 |28,176
Chamberlain, J. N. |May 29, 1860 |28,452
Ruddick, H. |May 29, 1860 |28,538
Scofield, Chas., and |June 5, 1860 |28,610
Rice, Clarke | |
Smith, Wilson H. |June 19, 1860 |28,785
Rose, I. M. |June 19, 1860 |28,814
Gibbs, J. E. A. |June 26, 1860 |28,851
McCurdy, J. S. |July 3, 1860 |28,993
Mueller, H. |July 3, 1860 |28,996
Sutton, Wm. A. |July 17, 1860 |29,202
Hicks, W. C. |July 24, 1860 |29,268
Tracy, D. |Sept. 11, 1860 |30,012
Washburn, T. S. |Sept. 11, 1860 |30,031
Arnold, G. B., and A. |Sept. 25, 1860 |30,112
Leavitt, Rufus |Nov. 13, 1860 |30,634
Payne, R. S. |Nov. 13, 1860 |30,641
Heyer, Frederick |Nov. 27, 1860 |30,731
Hardie, J. W. |Dec. 4, 1860 |30,854
Earle, T. |Jan. 22, 1861 |31,156
Bruen, J. T. |Jan. 22, 1861 |31,208
Smith, J. M. |Feb. 5, 1861 |31,334
Smith, L. H. |Feb. 12, 1861 |31,411
Rice, Quartus |Feb. 12, 1861 |31,429
Rose, I. M. |March 5, 1861 |31,628
Ross, Noble G. |March 26, 1861 |31,829
Boyd, A. H. |April 2, 1861 |31,864
Mallary, G. H. |April 2, 1861 |31,897
Shaw, H. L. |April 9, 1861 |32,007
Burr, Theodore |April 9, 1861 |32,023
Jones, William, and |May 14, 1861 |32,297
Haughian, P. | |
Wilder, M. G. |May 14, 1861 |32,323
Smith, Lewis H. |May 21, 1861 |32,385
Stoakes, J. W. |May 28, 1861 |32,456
Fuller, William M. |June 4, 1861 |32,496
Norton, B. F. |July 9, 1861 |32,782
Raymond, C. |July 9, 1861 |32,785
Raymond, Charles |July 30, 1861 |32,925
Case, G. F. |Aug. 13, 1861 |33,029
Hodgkins, C. |Aug. 20, 1861 |33,085
Marble, F. E. |Oct. 8, 1861 |33,439
Mann, Charles |Oct. 22, 1861 |33,556
Grover, W. O. |Nov. 26, 1861 |33,778
Hendrickson, E. M. |Feb. 4, 1862 |34,330
Derocquigny, A. C. F., |March 25, 1862 |34,748
Gance, D., and Hanzo, L. | |
Thompson, R. |April 8, 1862 |34,926
Smith, John C. |April 15, 1862 |34,988
Palmer, Aaron |May 13, 1862 |35,252
Hall, W. S. |Aug. 5, 1862 |36,084
McCurdy, James S. |Aug. 19, 1862 |36,256
Grover, W. O. |Sept. 9, 1862 |36,405
Wilkins, J. N. |Sept. 30, 1862 |36,591
Humphrey, D. W. G. |Oct. 7, 1862 |36,617
House, H. A., and J. A. |Nov. 11, 1862 |36,932
Crossby, C. O., and Kellogg, H. |Dec. 2, 1862 |37,033
Shaw, A. B. |Dec. 16, 1862 |37,202
Pipo, John A. |Jan. 27, 1863 |37,550
Hollowell, J. G. |Feb. 10, 1863 |37,624
Howe, A. B. |March 17, 1863 |37,913
Weitling, W. |March 17, 1863 |37,931
Shaw & Clark |April 21, 1863 |38,246
Baldwin, Cyrus W. |April 28, 1863 |38,276
Grote, F. W. |May 5, 1863 |38,447
Palmer, C. H. |May 5, 1863 |38,450
Mack, W. A. |May 19, 1863 |38,592
Bosworth, C. F. |June 9, 1863 |38,807
McCurdy, J. S. |June 16, 1863 |38,931
Langdon, Leander W. |July 14, 1863 |39,256
House, J. A., and H.A. |Aug. 4, 1863 |39,442-39,445
(4 patents on 1 machine) | |
Tracy and Hobbs |Sept. 15, 1863 |40,000
Wagener, Jeptha A. |Oct. 13, 1863 |40,296
Rehfuss, G. |Oct. 13, 1863 |40,311
Lathrop, Lebbeus W., |Oct. 27, 1863 |40,446
and de Sanno, Wm. P. | |
Heyer, W. D. |Nov. 17, 1863 |40,622
Simmons, A. G., and Scofield, C. |March 1, 1864 |41,790
Guinness, W. S. |March 15, 1864 |41,916
Willcox, Charles H. |March 22, 1864 |42,036
(4 patents on 1 machine) |Aug. 9, 1864 |43,819
|Sept. 27, 1864 |44,490
|Sept. 27, 1864 |44,491
Sibley, J. J. |March 29, 1864 |42,117
Thompson, R. |April 19, 1864 |42,449
McKay & Blake |May 24, 1864 |42,916
Chittenden, H. H. |June 28, 1864 |43,289
Hall, Luther |July 5, 1864 |43,404
Planer, Louis |Aug. 23, 1864 |43,927
Atwater, B. |Sept. 6, 1864 |44,063
Dale, John D. |Oct. 11, 1864 |44,686
Gritzner, M. C. |Oct. 18, 1864 |44,720
Smith, DeWitt C. |Dec. 20, 1864 |45,528
Weitling, W. |Jan. 3, 1865 |45,777
Cadwell, C. |Jan. 24, 1865 |45,972
Bartlett, J. W. |Jan. 31, 1865 |46,064
McCurdy, James S. |Feb. 7, 1865 |46,303
Lamb, Thomas, and |Aug. 15, 1865 |49,421
Allen, John | |
Humphrey, D. W. G. |Aug. 29, 1865 |49,627
Tarbox, John N. |Sept. 5, 1865 |49,803
Crosby, C. O. |Oct. 3, 1865 |50,225
Cajar, E. |Oct. 3, 1865 |50,299
Hart, William |Oct. 17, 1865 |50,469
Hecht, A. |Oct. 17, 1865 |50,473
Emerson, John |Nov. 14, 1865 |50,989
Keats, John, and Clark, Wm. S. |Nov. 14, 1865 |50,995
Rehfuss, George |Nov. 21, 1865 |51,086
Eickemeyer, Rudolf |Feb. 20, 1866 |52,698
Hanlon, John |Feb. 27, 1866 |52,847
McCurdy, J. S. |April 3, 1866 |53,743
Bartram, W. B. |May 15, 1866 |54,670
Bartram, W. B. |May 15, 1866 |54,671
Goodspeed, G. N. |May 15, 1866 |54,816
Hayes, J. |May 22, 1866 |55,029
McCloskey, John |June 19, 1866 |55,688
House, J. A. and H. A. |June 26, 1866 |55,865
Tucker, Joseph C. |July 24, 1866 |56,641
Warth, Albin |July 24, 1866 |56,646
Destouy, A. |July 31, 1866 |56,729
Schwalback, M. |July 31, 1866 |56,805
Cately, William H. |Aug. 7, 1866 |56,902
Piper, D. B. |Aug. 7, 1866 |56,990
Leyden, Austin |Aug. 14, 1866 |57,157
Clements, James M. |Aug. 21, 1866 |57,451
Davis, Job A. |Oct. 9, 1866 |58,614
Rodier, Peter |Nov. 13, 1866 |59,659
Duchemin, Wm. |Nov. 13, 1866 |59,715
Kilbourn, E. E. |Nov. 20, 1866 |59,746
Reed, T. K. |Dec. 4, 1866 |60,241
Singer, I. M. |Dec. 11, 1866 |60,433
Bartram, W. B. |Jan. 1, 1867 |60,669
Rehfuss, G. |Jan. 8, 1867 |61,102
Singer, Isaac |Jan. 15, 1867 |61,270
Cajar, Emil |Feb. 5, 1867 |61,711
Craige, E. H. |Feb. 19, 1867 |62,186
Reed, T. K. |Feb. 19, 1867 |62,287
Bartram, W. B. |March 5, 1867 |62,520
Fuller, H. W. |March 19, 1867 |63,033
Stannard, M. |April 23, 1867 |64,184
Craige, E. H. |Aug. 13, 1867 |67,635
Doll, Arnold |Sept. 3, 1867 |68,420
Bruen, L. B. |Sept. 17, 1867 |68,839
Hodgkins, C. |Oct. 8, 1867 |69,666
Baker, G. W. |Oct. 29, 1867 |70,152
Cadwell, Caleb |Nov. 19, 1867 |71,131
Fanning, J. |Dec. 31, 1867 |72,829
Warth, Albin |Jan. 7, 1868 |73,064
Rehfuss, George |Jan. 7, 1868 |73,119
Cornely, E. |Jan. 28, 1868 |73,696
Blake, L. R. |Feb. 11, 1868 |74,289
Fales, J. F. |Feb. 11, 1868 |74,328
Jencks, G. L. |Feb. 18, 1868 |74,694
Clark, Edwin E. |Feb. 25, 1868 |74,751
Halbert, A. W. |March 31, 1868 |76,076
Gritzner, M. C. |April 7, 1868 |76,323
Bartlett, Joseph W. |April 7, 1868 |76,385
Waterbury, Enos |June 16, 1868 |79,037
Cole, W. H. |June 30, 1868 |79,447
Lamson, Henry P. |July 7, 1868 |79,579
French, S. |July 28, 1868 |80,345
Stein, M. J. |Sept. 8, 1868 |81,956
Hancock, H. J. |Oct. 27, 1868 |83,492
Bartram, W. B. |Nov. 3, 1868 |83,592
Benedict, C. P. |Nov. 3, 1868 |83,596
Bonnaz, A. |Nov. 10, 1868 |83,909
Bonnaz, A. |Nov. 10, 1868 |83,910
Elliott, F. |Jan. 19, 1869 |85,918
Canfield, F. P. |Jan. 19, 1869 |86,057
Arnold B. |Jan. 26, 1869 |86,121
Jones, John |Jan. 26, 1869 |86,163
Russell, W. W. |Feb. 9, 1869 |86,695
Eldridge, G. W. |March 2, 1869 |87,331
House, J. A. and H. A. |March 2, 1869 |87,338
Gird, E. D. |March 9, 1869 |87,559
Carpenter, William |March 9, 1869 |87,633
Dunbar, C. F. |March 30, 1869 |88,282
McLean, J. N. |March 30, 1869 |88,499
Billings, C. E. |April 6, 1869 |88,603
Winter, Wm. |April 13, 1869 |88,936
Tittman, A. |April 20, 1869 |89,093
Swartwout, H. L. |April 27, 1869 |89,357
Lyons, Lucius |April 27, 1869 |89,489
Crosby, C. O. |May 25, 1869 |90,507
Gutmann, J. |May 25, 1869 |90,528
Duchemin, William |June 8, 1869 |91,101
Adams, John Q. |July 6, 1869 |92,138
Bond, Joseph, Jr. |Aug. 10, 1869 |93,588
Hoffman, Geo. W. |Aug. 24, 1869 |94,112
Brown, John H. |Aug. 31, 1869 |94,389
Heery, Luke |Sept. 14, 1869 |94,740
Gray, Joshua |Oct. 5, 1869 |95,581
Smith, E. H. |Oct. 26, 1869 |96,160
Page, Chas. |Nov. 2, 1869 |96,343
Lyon, Lucius |Nov. 9, 1869 |96,713
Clever, P. J. |Nov. 16, 1869 |96,886
Mills, Daniel |Nov. 16, 1869 |96,944
Woodruff, Geo. B., and |Nov. 16, 1869 |97,014
Browning, Geo. | |
Keith, Jeremiah |Dec. 7, 1869 |97,518
Hurtu, Auguste J., and |Dec. 21, 1869 |98,064
Hautin, Victor J. | |
Lamb, Thomas |Dec. 28, 1869 |98,390
Rudolph, B. |Feb. 1, 1870 |99,481
Porter, Alonzo |Feb. 8, 1870 |99,704
Smith, W. T. |Feb. 8, 1870 |99,743
Meyers, N. |Feb. 15, 1870 |99,783
Grover, W. O. |Feb. 22, 1870 |100,139
Spoehr, F. |April 12, 1870 |101,779
Kendall, George F. |April 12, 1870 |101,887
Cooney, W. |April 26, 1870 |102,226
Brown, F. H. |April 26, 1870 |102,366
Howard E., and Jackson, W. H. |May 31, 1870 |103,745
Bartram, W. B. |June 14, 1870 |104,247
Henriksen, H. P. |June 21, 1870 |104,590
Martine, Charles F. |June 21, 1870 |104,612
Nasch, Isidor |June 21, 1870 |104,630
Hall, L. |July 12, 1870 |105,329
Lyon, Lucius |July 26, 1870 |105,820
Bennor, Joseph |Aug. 9, 1870 |106,249
Barnes, M. M. |Aug. 16, 1870 |106,307
Leslie, Arthur M. |Oct. 18, 1870 |108,492
Rayer, William A.,and |Nov. 1, 1870 |108,827
Lincoln, Wm. S. | |
Landfear, Wm. R. |Nov. 22, 1870 |109,427
Parham, Charles |Nov. 22, 1870 |109,443
Lamb, I. W. |Nov. 29, 1870 |109,632
Moreau, Eugene |Jan. 3, 1871 |110,669
Robinson, Charles E. |Jan. 3, 1871 |110,790
Goodyear, Charles, Jr. |Jan. 24, 1871 |111,197
Stevens, G., and Hendy, J. |Jan. 31, 1871 |111,488
Carpenter, Mary P. |Feb. 21, 1871 |112,016
Hancock, Henry J. |Feb. 21, 1871 |112,033
Sidenberg, W. |March 14, 1871 |112,745
Chase, M. |April 11, 1871 |113,498
Stein, M. J. |April 11, 1871 |113,593
Tate, Wm. J. |April 11, 1871 |113,704
House, J. A. and H. A. |May 2, 1871 |114,294
Sidenberg, W. |May 23, 1871 |115,117
Beuttels, Charles |May 23, 1871 |115,155
Thompson, G. |May 23, 1871 |115,255
Willcox and Carleton |June 27, 1871 |116,521
(3 patents on 1 machine) | |116,522
| |116,523
Willcox and Carleton |July 4, 1871 |116,783
Goodyear, Charles, Jr. |July 11, 1871 |116,947
Necker, Carl |July 18, 1871 |117,101
Pitt, James; Joseph; |July 18, 1871 |117,203
Edward; and Wm. | |
Jones, John T. |Aug. 1, 1871 |117,640
West, E. P. |Aug. 1, 1871 |117,708
Jones, Solomon |Aug. 29, 1871 |118,537
(2 patents on 1 machine) | |118,538
Lamb, Thomas |Sept. 5, 1871 |118,728
Bosworth, C. F. |Jan. 9, 1872 |122,555
Smyth, D. M. |Jan. 9, 1872 |122,673
Fish, Warren L. |Feb. 13, 1872 |123,625
Palmer, C. H. |March 19, 1872 |124,694
Baker, G. W. |April 9, 1872 |125,374
Gordon and Kinert |April 16, 1872 |125,807
Howard, C. W. |April 23, 1872 |126,056
(second machine) | |126,057
Smyth, D. M. |May 14, 1872 |126,845
Beckwith, W. G. |May 21, 1872 |126,921
Bouscay, Eloi, Jr. |May 28, 1872 |127,145
Braundbeck, E. |June 11, 1872 |127,675
Heidenthal, W. |June 11, 1872 |127,765
Cleminshaw, S. |June 25, 1872 |128,363
Wardwell, S. W., Jr. |July 2, 1872 |128,684
Springer, W. A. |July 9, 1872 |128,919
Fanning, John |July 16, 1872 |129,013
Parks, Volney |July 30, 1872 |129,981
Baker, G. W. |July 30, 1872 |130,005
Smyth, D. M. |Aug. 6, 1872 |130,324
McClure, A. T. |Aug. 13, 1872 |130,385
Ashe, Robert |Aug. 20, 1872 |130,555
Bartram, W. B. |Aug. 20, 1872 |130,557
West, Elliot P. |Aug. 20, 1872 |130,674
Happe, J., and Newman, W. |Aug. 20, 1872 |130,715
Hinds, Jesse L. |Sept. 10, 1872 |131,166
Brown, F. H. |Oct. 1, 1872 |131,735
Beckwith, W. G. |Nov. 26, 1872 |133,351
Turner, S. S. |Dec. 3, 1872 |133,553
Chandler, R. |Dec. 10, 1872 |133,757
Venner, O. |Dec. 10, 1872 |133,814
Duchemin, W. |Jan. 21, 1873 |135,032
Sheffield, G. V. |Jan. 21, 1873 |135,047
Parham, Charles |Feb. 4, 1873 |135,579
Goodes, E. A. |March 11, 1873 |136,718
Tittman, A. |March 11, 1873 |136,792
Happe, J., and Newman, W. |March 25, 1873 |137,199
Ragan, Daniel |April 1, 1873 |137,321
O'Neil, John |April 8, 1873 |137,618
Kallmeyer, G. |April 8, 1873 |137,689
Ross, J. G., and Miller, T. L. |May 13, 1873 |138,764
West, Elliott P. |May 13, 1873 |138,772
Koch and Brass |May 13, 1873 |138,898
Arnold, B. |May 20, 1873 |138,981
Arnold, B. |May 20, 1873 |138,982
Lathrop, L. W. |May 20, 1873 |139,067
Chandler, Rufus |May 27, 1873 |139,368
Jones, S. H. |July 8, 1873 |140,631
Smyth, D. M. |July 22, 1873 |141,088
Wardwell, S. W., Jr. |July 29, 1873 |141,245
Stewart, J., Jr. |July 29, 1873 |141,397
Walker, William |July 29, 1873 |141,407
Blanchard, Helen A. |Aug. 19, 1873 |141,987
Springer, W. A. |Aug. 26, 1873 |142,290
Cushman, C. S. |Sept. 2, 1873 |142,442
Porter, D. A. |Nov. 25, 1873 |144,864
Koch & Brass |Dec. 2, 1873 |145,215
Richardson, E. F. |Dec. 16, 1873 |145,687
Weber, Theo. A. |Dec. 23, 1873 |145,823
Scribner, Benjamin, Jr. |Jan. 13, 1874 |146,483
Black, Samuel S. |Jan. 20, 1874 |146,642
Taylor, F. B. |Jan. 20, 1874 |146,721
Richardson, Everett P. |Jan. 27, 1874 |146,948
Muir, William |Feb. 3, 1874 |147,152
Goodes, E. A. |Feb. 10, 1874 |147,387
Springer, Wm. A. |Feb. 10, 1874 |147,441
True, C. B. |March 10, 1874 |148,336
Wardwell, S. W., Jr. |March 10, 1874 |148,339
Shorey, Samuel W. |March 17, 1874 |148,765
Smith, James H. |March 24, 1874 |148,902
Horr, Addison D. |April 21, 1874 |149,862
Page, Chas. |May 5, 1874 |150,479
Crane, Thomas |May 5, 1874 |150,532
Buhr, J. |May 26, 1874 |151,272
Smyth, D. M. |June 9, 1874 |151,801
Wensley, James |June 16, 1874 |152,055
Dinsmore, A. S., and |June 30, 1874 |152,618
Carter, John T. | |
Speirs, J. |July 7, 1874 |152,813
Brewer, A. G. |July 14, 1874 |152,894
Baglin, Wm. |Aug. 18, 1874 |154,113
Howard, E. L. |Aug. 25, 1874 |154,485
Landfear, Wm. R. |Sept. 22, 1874 |155,193
Drake, Ellis |Oct. 13, 1874 |155,932
Barney, Samuel C. |Oct. 20, 1874 |156,119
Moreau, Eugene |Oct. 20, 1874 |156,171
Huntington, Thomas S. |Dec. 29, 1874 |158,214
Bartlett and Plant |Jan. 26, 1875 |159,065
Garland, H. P. |Feb. 16, 1875 |159,812
Dinsmore, Alfred S. |March 9, 1875 |160,512
McCloskey, John |March 30, 1875 |161,534
Schmidt, Albert E. |April 27, 1875 |162,697
Darling & Darling |May 25, 1875 |163,639
Richardson, Everett P. |July 13, 1875 |165,506
Whitehill, Robert |July 27, 1875 |166,172
Weber, Theodore A. |Aug. 3, 1875 |166,236
Pearson, Wm. |Aug. 17, 1875 |166,805
Beckwith, William G. |Sept. 7, 1875 |167,382
Hall, John S. |Oct. 11, 1875 |168,637
Jones, J. T. |Oct. 26, 1875 |169,106
Garland, H. P. |Oct. 26, 1875 |169,163
Wormald & Dobson |Nov. 9, 1875 |169,881
Rose, R. M. |Nov. 30, 1875 |170,596
Keith, Jeremiah |Dec. 7, 1875 |170,741
Keith, T. K. |Dec. 14, 1875 |170,955
Leavitte, Albert |Dec. 14, 1875 |171,147
Toll, Charles F. |Dec. 14, 1875 |171,193
Keats, Greenwood, & Keats |Dec. 28, 1875 |171,622
Thayer, Augustus |Jan. 11, 1876 |172,205
Frese, B. |Jan. 18, 1876 |172,308
Pearson, William |Jan. 18, 1876 |172,478
Sawyer & Esty |Feb. 29, 1876 |174,159
Porter & Baker |March 14, 1876 |174,703
Walker, William |April 11, 1876 |176,101
Upson, L. A. |April 18, 1876 |176,153
Witherspoon, S. A. |April 18, 1876 |176,211
Rice, T. M. |April 25, 1876 |176,686
Murphy, E. |May 2, 1876 |176,880
Bradford, E. F., and |May 16, 1876 |177,371
Pierce, V. R. | |
Applegate & Webb |May 25, 1876 |177,784
Sullivan, John J. |June 27, 1876 |179,232
Appleton, C. J., and |July 4, 1876 |179,440
Sibley, J. J. | |
Marin, Chas. |July 11, 1876 |179,709
Gullransen, P. E., and |July 25, 1876 |180,225
Rettinger, J. C. | |
Butcher, Joseph |Aug. 1, 1876 |180,542
Jackson, William |Sept. 5, 1876 |181,941
Barton, Kate C. |Sept. 12, 1876 |182,096
Eickemeyer, Rudolf |Sept. 12, 1876 |182,182
Webster, W. |Sept. 12, 1876 |182,249
Knoch, C. F. |Oct. 17, 1876 |183,400
Cushman, C. S. |Nov. 21, 1876 |184,594
Harris, David |Dec. 12, 1876 |185,228
Wood, J. |Dec. 26, 1876 |185,811
Oram, Henry |Jan. 2, 1877 |185,952
Palmer, Frank L. |Jan. 2, 1877 |185,954
Hall, John S. |Feb. 6, 1877 |187,006
Palmateer, William A. |Feb. 20, 1877 |187,479
Cummins, William G. |Feb. 27, 1877 |187,822
Esty, William |Feb. 27, 1877 |187,837
Leavitt & Drew |Feb. 27, 1877 |187,874
Henriksen, H. P. |March 20, 1877 |188,515
McKay, Gordon |March 27, 1877 |188,809
Follett, J. L. |April 10, 1877 |189,446
Bond, James, Jr. |April 17, 1877 |189,599
Jacob, F. |April 24, 1877 |190,047
Beck, A. |May 1, 1877 |190,184
Hallett, H. H. |June 5, 1877 |191,584
Randel, William |June 12, 1877 |192,008
Corbett, E., and Harlow, C. F. |July 3, 1877 |192,568
Brown, F. H. |July 24, 1877 |193,477
Melhuish, R. M. |Aug. 28, 1877 |194,610
Atwood, K. C. |Sept. 4, 1877 |194,759
Macaulay, F. A. |Oct. 9, 1877 |195,939
Dimond, George H. |Oct. 16, 1877 |196,198
Sedmihradsky, A. J. |Oct. 23, 1877 |196,486
Keith, J. |Nov. 6, 1877 |196,809
Beck, August |Nov. 6, 1877 |196,863
Keith, T. H. |Nov. 6, 1877 |196,909
Keats, John |Dec. 11, 1877 |198,120
Briggs, Thomas |Jan. 1, 1878 |198,790
Corey, J. W. |Jan. 8, 1878 |198,970
Howard, T. S. L. |Jan. 15, 1878 |199,206
Bosworth, C. F. |Jan. 22, 1878 |199,500
Dancel, C. |Jan. 29, 1878 |199,802
Pearson, M. H. |Feb. 5, 1878 |199,991
Morrell, Robert W.; |April 23, 1878 |202,857
Parkinson, Thomas; and | |
Parkinson, Joseph | |
Barcellos, D. |April 30, 1878 |203,102
Elderfield, F. D. |June 4, 1878 |204,429
Heberling, J. |June 4, 1878 |204,604
Beukler, William |June 11, 1878 |204,704
Varicas, L. |June 11, 1878 |204,864
Stewart, W. T. |July 2, 1878 |205,698
House, Jas. A. |July 23, 1878 |206,239
Martin, W., Jr.; Dawson, D. R.; |Aug. 6, 1878 |206,743
and Orchar, R. | |
Conklin, N. A. |Aug. 6, 1878 |206,774
Wollenberg, H., and Priesner, J. |Aug. 6, 1878 |206,848
Young, E. S., and Dimond, G. H. |Aug. 13, 1878 |206,992
Hoffman, Clara P., and |Aug. 13, 1878 |207,035
Meyers, Nicholas | |
Wensley, Jas. |Aug. 20, 1878 |207,230
Dimond, G. H. |Aug. 27, 1878 |207,400
Steward, A. |Aug. 27, 1878 |207,454
Wood, Richard G. |Sept. 10, 1878 |207,928
McCombs, Geo. F. |Sept. 24, 1878 |208,407
Keith, Jeremiah |Oct. 22, 1878 |209,126
Wells, W. W. |Nov. 12, 1878 |209,843
Bayley, C. H. |Feb. 11, 1879 |212,122
Parmenter, Charles O. |Feb. 18, 1879 |212,495
Ingalls, N., Jr. |Feb. 25, 1879 |212,602
Cleminshaw, S. |March 18, 1879 |213,391
Webb, T., and Heartfield, C. H. |March 25, 1879 |213,537
Borton, Stockton |April 8, 1879 |214,089
Henriksen, H. P. |May 20, 1879 |215,615
Bland, Henry |June 3, 1879 |216,016
Morrison, T. W. |June 10, 1879 |216,289
Bosworth, Charles F. |June 17, 1879 |216,504
Simmons, Frederick |June 24, 1879 |216,902
Junker, Carl |July 1, 1879 |217,112
Legat, Désiré Mathurin |Aug. 12, 1879 |218,388
Willcox, C. H. |Aug. 12, 1879 |218,413
Cornely, Emile |Sept. 2, 1879 |219,225
Hamm, E. |Sept. 16, 1879 |219,578
Tuttle, J. W., and Keith, T. K. |Sept. 16, 1879 |219,782
Stackpole, G., and |Oct. 7, 1879 |220,314
Applegate, J. H. | |
Otis, S. L. |Oct. 28, 1879 |221,093
Bland, H. |Nov. 11, 1879 |221,505
Bracher, T. W. |Nov. 11,1879 |221,508
Snediker, J. F. |Nov. 25, 1879 |222,089
Mooney, J. H. |Dec. 2, 1879 |222,298
Osborne, J. H. |Feb. 3, 1880 |224,219
Smith, W. M. |March 2, 1880 |225,199
Banks, C. M. |March 23, 1880 |225,784
Haberling, J. |May 4, 1880 |227,249
Haberling, J. |May 11, 1880 |227,525
Wiseman, Edmund |June 8, 1880 |228,711
Juengst, George |June 15, 1880 |228,820
Morley, J. H. |June 15, 1880 |228,918
Curtis, G. H. W. |June 22, 1880 |228,985
Lipe, C. E. |June 29, 1880 |229,322
Miller, L. B., and Diehl, P. |July 6, 1880 |229,629
Willcox, C. H. |July 20, 1880 |230,212
Shaw, E. |July 27, 1880 |230,580
Dinsmore, A. S. |Aug. 17, 1880 |231,155
Thurston, C. H. |Oct. 12, 1880 |231,300
Butcher, J. |Oct. 26, 1880 |233,657
Smyth, D. M. |Nov. 23, 1880 |234,732
Hesse, J. |Dec. 7, 1880 |235,085
Kjalman, H. N. |Dec. 21, 1880 |235,783
Morley, J. H. |Jan. 4, 1881 |236,350
Thomas, J. |Jan. 11, 1881 |236,466
Benson, G. |March 8, 1881 |238,556
Green, G. F. |March 8, 1881 |238,678
Eickemeyer, Rudolf |March 29, 1881 |239,319
Palmer, C. H. |April 26, 1881 |240,758
Campbell, D. H. |May 17, 1881 |241,612
Campbell, Duncan H. |May 17, 1881 |241,613
Leslie, A. M. |May 24, 1881 |241,808
Newell, George F. |June 7, 1881 |242,470
Gritzner, Max C. |June 28, 1881 |243,444
Keith, Jeremiah |July 5, 1881 |243,710
Choquette, A. E. |July 12, 1881 |244,033
Mooney, J. H. |July 19, 1881 |244,470
Beardslee, W. F. |Aug. 16, 1881 |245,781
Hine, Charlie M. |Aug. 23, 1881 |246,136
Willcox, C. H. |Sept. 6, 1881 |246,700
Hoefler, J. |Sept. 13, 1881 |246,883
Woodward, E. |Sept. 20, 1881 |247,285
Richards, Jean E. |Jan. 24, 1882 |252,799
Abbott, W. W. |Jan. 31, 1882 |252,984
Secor, J. B. |Feb. 14, 1882 |253,772
Deschamps, O. L. |Feb. 21, 1882 |253,915
Hull, E. H. |Feb. 28, 1882 |254,217
Roberts, William |March 7, 1882 |254,696
Willcox and Borton |March 28, 1882 |255,576
Borton and Willcox |March 28, 1882 |255,577
Borton and Willcox |March 28, 1882 |255,580
Borton and Willcox |March 28, 1882 |255,581
Veukler, W. |April 4, 1882 |255,916
Hurtu, A. J. |May 30, 1882 |258,761
Keats, Alphonso |July 11, 1882 |260,990
Ramsden, John W. |Aug. 1, 1882 |262,116
Koch, William |Aug. 8, 1882 |262,298
Bigelow, J. |Aug. 29, 1882 |263,467
Mills, Daniel |Oct. 10, 1882 |265,850
Wilkinson, Charles E. |Dec. 19, 1882 |269,251
Carlisle, W. S. |Jan. 9, 1883 |270,540
Holden, O. J., and Griswold, L. |Feb. 13, 1883 |272,050
Cameron, James W. |Feb. 20, 1883 |272,527
Miller, L. B., and Diehl, P. |March 20, 1883 |274,359
Ludeke, W. |April 10, 1883 |275,506
Bolton, J., and Petnz, A. D. |May 8, 1883 |277,106
Blodgett, John W. |June 12, 1883 |279,320
Haberling, J. |Sept. 4, 1883 |284,300
Thimonnier, E., and Vernaz, C. |Oct. 30, 1883 |287,592
Duchemin, William |Nov. 20, 1883 |288,929
Lawrence, G. H. |Dec. 25, 1883 |290,895
Clever, Peter J. |April 8, 1884 |296,529
Palmer, John H. |May 6, 1884 |298,228
Dowling, James, and |May 27, 1884 |299,118
Connolly, John | |
Boecher, Adam |June 10, 1884 |300,199
Luedeke, Waldemar |June 17, 1884 |300,380
VanVechten, Orville R. |July 15, 1884 |302,063
Carr, Wm. H., and Ostrom, F. W. |Aug. 12, 1884 |303,361
Trip, J. |Dec. 2, 1884 |308,711
Farrar, Arthur |Dec. 30, 1884 |309,837
Turner, M. G. |Feb. 17, 1885 |312,306
Mills, D. |March 3, 1885 |313,359
Hurtu, August J. |April 7, 1885 |315,037
Charmbury, Henry |April 28, 1885 |316,745
Woodward & Keith |April 28, 1885 |316,927
Walker, William |June 16, 1885 |320,099
Tucker, R. D. |June 23, 1885 |320,898
Wheeler and Dial |Oct. 13, 1885 |328,165
Thomas, Joseph |Nov. 10, 1885 |330,170
Muegge, C. A. |Dec. 8, 1885 |332,207
Diehl, P. |April 13, 1886 |339,623
Diehl, P. |Aug. 24, 1886 |347,776
Helwig, Arthur |Oct. 5, 1886 |350,364
Miehling, Charles |Nov. 2, 1886 |351,992
Dieterle, H. E. |Nov. 30, 1886 |353,542
Walker, William |Dec. 7, 1886 |353,720
Rosenthal, S. A. |Dec. 7, 1886 |353,970
Temple, John |Feb. 22, 1887 |358,088
Gee, W. V. |April 19, 1887 |361,406
Lingley, John W. |Aug. 16, 1887 |368,538
Boppel, Jacob |Jan. 29, 1889 |396,979
Webster, William |April 30, 1889 |402,497
Osterhout and Hallenbeck |May 7, 1889 |402,610
Bennett and Dowling |Aug. 27, 1889 |409,728
Hine, Charles M. |Jan. 28, 1890 |420,382
Wheeler, Nathaniel |Feb. 4, 1890 |420,847
Hallenbeck, J. P. |April 8, 1890 |425,422
Lisle, Myron C. |May 20, 1890 |428,171
Walker and Bennet |May 20, 1890 |428,548
Stewart, James, Jr. |July 15, 1890 |432,449
Dewees, J. W. |July 22, 1890 |432,746
Powell, Thomas |Dec. 16, 1890 |442,695
Fletcher, James H. |Dec. 30, 1890 |443,756
Rudolph, Ernst B., deceased, |April 7, 1891 |449,927
Boulter, W. E., administrator | |
Goodwin, Julius C. |April 21, 1891 |450,793
Cook, Hugo |June 23, 1891 |454,610
Bowyer, J. T. |June 23, 1891 |454,708
Willcox, C. H., and Borton, S. |April 5, 1892 |472,094
Legg and Weston |May 17, 1892 |474,840
Kern, Ferdinand |July 19, 1892 |479,369
Jackson, Francis |May 1, 1894 |519,064
Charles Abercrombi |June 5, 1892 |520,977
Taft, J. C. |Oct. 15, 1895 |547,866
IV. 19th-Century Sewing-Machine Leaflets in the Smithsonian Collections
_Machine or Manufacturer_ |_Date_ |_Type_
| |
American B.H.O. and Sewing Machine |1874 |Illustrated, advertising leaflet
Buckeye sewing machine |ca. 1870 |Illustrated, directions for using
| | the machine
New Buckeye |ca. 1872 |Illustrated, directions for using
| | the machine
Centennial sewing machine |1876 |Illustrated, advertising leaflet
Domestic sewing machine |1872 |Illustrated, advertising leaflet
Florence sewing machine |1873 |Illustrated, advertising leaflet
Florence sewing machine |1878 |Illustrated, directions for using
| | the machine
Goodes sewing machine |ca. 1876 |Advertising leaflet
Grant Brothers sewing machine |1867 |Illustrated, advertising leaflet
| | (Xerox copy)
Grover and Baker sewing machine |1853 |Illustrated, advertising leaflet
Grover and Baker sewing machine |ca. 1870 |Illustrated, advertising leaflet
Home sewing machine |ca. 1870 |Illustrated, advertising leaflet
Howe sewing machine, new "B" machine |1868 |Illustrated, instruction booklet
Howe sewing machine |1876 |Illustrated, catalog of machines
Independent Noiseless sewing machine |ca. 1874 |Illustrated, advertising leaflet
Ladd, Webster sewing machine |1861 |Illustrated, advertising leaflet
Little Monitor sewing machine |ca. 1872 |Illustrated, advertising leaflet
Remington Family sewing machine |ca. 1874 |Illustrated, advertising leaflet
Shaw and Clark sewing machine |1864 |Illustrated, advertising leaflet
Singer sewing machine |1871 |Illustrated, advertising leaflet
Singer sewing machine |1893 |Catalog of machines shown at the
| | Columbian Exposition
Standard Shuttle sewing machine |ca. 1875 |Illustrated, advertising leaflet
Ten Dollar Novelty sewing machine |ca. 1870 |Illustrated, advertising leaflet
Weed sewing machine |1873 |Illustrated, advertising leaflet
Wheeler and Wilson sewing machine |ca. 1869 |Illustrated, instruction booklet
Wheeler and Wilson sewing machine |ca. 1870-1875 |Illustrated, advertising leaflet
Wheeler and Wilson no. 8 machine |ca. 1878 |Illustrated, instruction booklet
Wilson sewing machine |1872 |Illustrated, advertising leaflet
V. A Brief History of Cotton Thread
Although Samuel Slater's wife is credited with making the first cotton
sewing thread from yarns spun at the Pawtucket, Rhode Island, mill in
about 1794, cotton thread did not become a manufactured item at that
time. Slater turned all his interests to producing cotton-twist yarns
needed for the warps of cotton fabrics. By 1809, however, the agents of
Almy and Brown, partners and distributors for Slater, were advertising
cotton thread as follows:
Factory Cotton and Thread Store, No. 26 Court Street opposite
Concert Hall. George Connell, Agent for Almy and Brown of
Providence and Pawtucket Manufactories, has now for sale from eight
to ten thousand weight of yarn, for weaving ... five hundred pounds
cotton thread, in hanks, from No. 12 to 60 of a superior quality
and very white.[91]
Although it was a short hop from the spinning of cotton warps to the
twisting of these cotton yarns to form a sewing thread, the general
manufacture of cotton thread as an industry did not originate in the
United States but rather in Scotland in the early 19th century.
Napoleon's blockade, which curtailed Great Britain's importation of
silk--needed not only for fabrics but also for making heddle strings for
the looms--stimulated the production of cotton thread there. James and
Patrick Clark, in desperation, attempted to substitute cotton for silk
in their manufacture of these heddle strings. When they were successful,
they considered that if cotton could be used successfully for this
purpose it could also be made suitable for sewing thread. In 1812 they
built a factory in Paisley, Scotland, which had long been noted for its
textile industries. The thread was sold in hanks. About 1820 James'
sons, James and John, who were now running J. & J. Clark & Co., began to
wind the thread on spools. For this service they charged an extra
halfpenny, which was refunded when the empty spool was returned. The
thread was usually a three-ply or so-called three-cord thread.
About 1815 James Coats, also of Paisley, started manufacturing thread at
Ferguslie, Scotland. His two sons took over the company in 1826 and
formed the J. & P. Coats Company. Another brother, Andrew Coats, became
the selling agent in the United States about 1840. But the cotton-thread
industry was not fully launched.
As reported in an 1853 _Scientific American_, there was "more American
thread made ten years ago than there is today."[92] It was not until the
six-cord cabled cotton thread, which was suitable for both machine and
hand sewing, was perfected that the industry progressed into full
operation.
FOOTNOTES:
[91] William R. Bagnall, _Textile Industries of the United States_
(Cambridge, Mass., 1893), vol. 1, p. 164.
VI. Biographical Sketches
BARTHELEMY THIMONNIER
The first man known to have put a sewing machine into practical
operation, Barthelemy Thimonnier, was a Frenchman of obscure parentage.
His father, a textile dyer of Lyon, left that city in 1793 as a result
of the Revolution and journeyed with his family to l'Arbresle where
Barthelemy was born in August of that year.
The family resources were small, and, although the young Thimonnier was
able to begin studies at the Seminaire de Saint-Jean at Lyons, he soon
was forced to leave school for financial reasons and return to his home,
then at Amplepuis. There he learned the tailoring trade and by 1813 was
fairly well established in his own shop.
At that time many of the town's inhabitants were weavers and almost
every house possessed one or two looms. The noise of the shuttle echoed
from these family workshops. Thimonnier noted the relatively small
amount of time needed to weave a fabric compared with the slow
painstaking task of sewing a garment by passing the needle in and out
for each stitch of each seam. When his mind began to dwell on the idea
of producing a machine to do this stitching, another of the town's
occupations supplied him with a clue and an additional incentive. This
village industry produced a type of embroidery work called _point de
chainette_, in which a needle with a small hook was used to form the
chainstitch, a popular type of decorative stitch long used in countries
all over the world. It was Thimonnier's plan to use this type of hooked
needle and produce the stitch by machine, employing it both as a
decorative stitch and a seam-forming one.
In 1825 Thimonnier moved to St. Etienne, where he became completely
absorbed in the idea of inventing a sewing machine. Ignorant of any of
the principles of mechanics, he worked alone and in secret for four
years, neglecting his tailoring business to the extent that neighbors
looked upon him as peculiar, if not crazy. By 1829 he had not only
mastered the mechanical difficulties of bringing his dream to
realization, but also had made the acquaintance of the man who helped
him to success. Ferrand, of l'Ecole des Mines of Saint-Etienne, became
interested in the machine and helped finance Thimonnier through his
trials and disappointments. In 1830 Thimonnier received a patent on his
machine, which produced the chainstitch by means of a needle shaped like
a small crochet hook.
[Illustration: Figure 133.--BARTHELEMY THIMONNIER, 1793-1857. From an
engraving in the _Sewing Machine Advance_, November 15, 1880.
(Smithsonian photo 10569-A.)]
Thimonnier, together with Ferrand and a M. Beaunier, made attempts to
introduce his machine in Paris. By 1841 they were successful in having
eighty of Thimonnier's machines in use sewing army clothing in a shop in
Paris. But the fears of the tailors could not be quieted. The machines
were destroyed by an ignorant and infuriated mob, as had been earlier
labor-saving devices such as the Jacquard attachment for the loom and
Hargreaves' spinning jenny. Thimonnier was forced to flee to his home in
St. Etienne, once more penniless.
Soon after this, Jean Marie Magnin, an engineer from
Villefranche-sur-Saône became interested in Thimonnier's machine and
provided the inventor again with financial backing. In 1845 under the
name of Thimonnier and Magnin the patent of 1830 was renewed, and under
it they organized the first French sewing-machine company. The machines
they manufactured could produce 200 stitches per minute.
The Revolution of 1848 curtailed the manufacture and sale of the
machines. Thimonnier, remembering his unpleasant experience in 1841,
decided to go to England with Magnin, where, on February 8, 1848, they
received the English patent for his chainstitch machine. He was also
granted United States patent 7,622 on September 20, 1850. This later
machine had some advantages over his French machine of 1830, but by this
time other inventors had joined the field with machines that were more
practical. Magnin entered a sewing machine (which from the description
in the catalog must have been Thimonnier's invention) in the Crystal
Palace Exhibition in London in 1850, but because it was late in arriving
it was overlooked by the judges and not even considered in the
competition. Thimonnier died in poverty at Amplepuis on July 5, 1857.
WALTER HUNT
Walter Hunt was born near Martinsburg, New York, on July 29, 1796.
Although little is known of Hunt's early childhood, we do learn from the
author of his obituary, which appeared in _Scientific American_, July 9,
1860, that even as a child he was more interested in people and what he
could do for them than in what he could do to insure his own welfare. He
is said to have devoted his life to his friends, frequently giving away
his last cent when he did not have enough to provide for himself.
There is no record that Hunt maintained a regular business other than
the occupation of inventor. His interests were numerous and varied. He
received his first patent on June 26, 1826, for a machine for spinning
flax and hemp. During the next 33 years he patented 26 ideas. In
addition he sold or dropped several more. His second patent was for a
coach alarm, and through the years he also received patents for a
variety of things including a knife sharpener, heating stove, ice boat,
nail machine, inkwell, fountain pen, safety pin, bottle stopper, sewing
machine (1854), paper collars, and a reversible metallic heel.
[Illustration: Figure 134.--WALTER HUNT, 1796-1860. From a daguerreotype
owned by his great-grandson, C. N. Hunt. (Smithsonian photo 32066-A.)]
ELIAS HOWE, JR.
Elias Howe, Jr., was born on his father's farm in Spencer,
Massachusetts, on July 9, 1819. This was one of those barren New England
farms with many rock-filled acres. All possible ingenuity was necessary
to secure a living. The elder Howe supplemented his farming by having a
small gristmill, a sawmill, and also by manufacturing cards for the
fast-growing cotton industry of New England. Elias Jr.'s earliest
recollections were of the latter. He worked with his brothers and
sisters sticking wire teeth into strips of leather to make these cotton
cards, but, not being very good at this, his family decided to let him
"live out" with a neighboring farmer. (Children were leased in those
days; they received their board and keep in exchange for chores they
would perform.) After a few years, Elias returned home and worked in his
father's mill until he was sixteen. Then, against the wishes of his
family, he went to Lowell, Massachusetts. Here, he obtained a learner's
place in a machine shop where cotton-spinning machinery was made and
repaired.
In 1837, when a financial panic hit the country, Howe lost his job. He
then decided to go to Boston, and this marked a turning point in his
career. In Boston he met Ari Davis, a maker of mariners' instruments and
scientific apparatus. Howe began to work in Davis' shop, a place to
which inventors often came to ask advice about their ideas. Davis
sometimes helped them, but just as often he shouted at them in anger--he
is said to have been one of the noisiest men in Boston. One day Howe
overheard his employer bellowing at a man who had brought a knitting
machine to the shop to seek Davis' advice. "Why are you wasting your
time over a knitting machine?" said Davis, "Take my advice, try
something that will pay. Make a sewing machine." "It can't be done," was
the reply. "Can't be done?" shouted Davis, "Don't tell me that. Why--I
can make a sewing machine myself." "If you do," interrupted the
capitalist, "I can make an independent fortune for you." Davis, like
most men of many words, often talked of more than he planned to do. He
never attempted to invent a sewing machine.
But the loud voices interested Howe, who, it is said, determined then
that he would produce a sewing machine and win the fortune that the
prosperous-looking man had asserted was waiting for such a deed. A kind
of lameness since birth had made physical tasks painful for Howe, and he
perhaps felt that this would offer an opportunity to become independent
of hard physical work.
After marrying on a journeyman machinist's pay of $9 a week, Howe's
health worsened and by 1843 was so bad that he had to stop work for days
at a time. His wife was forced to take in sewing to maintain the family.
It was the sight of his wife toiling at her stitches together with the
pressure of poverty that recalled to Howe his earlier interest in a
machine to sew. He decided to make an earnest attempt to invent one.
Watching his wife for hours at a time, he tried to visualize a machine
that would duplicate the motions of the arm. After many trials, he
conceived the idea of using an eye-pointed needle in combination with a
shuttle to form a stitch. It is possible that, as some authors state,
the solution appeared to him in a dream, a manifestation of the
subconscious at work. Others have suggested that he may have learned of
Hunt's machine. There is a general similarity in the two, not only in
the combination of eye-pointed needle and shuttle but in the overhanging
arm and vertical cloth suspension.
After conceiving the idea, whatever his inspiration, Howe determined to
devote all of his time to producing a working model of his machine.
Elias' father, who had then started a factory for splitting palm leaves
in Cambridge, gave him permission to set up a lathe and a few tools in
the garret of the factory. Elias moved his family to Cambridge. Soon
after his arrival, unfortunately, the building burned down, and Howe
despaired of finding a place to work. He had a friend, however, in
George Fisher, who had just come into a small inheritance, and Howe
persuaded him to enter into partnership with him for the development of
the machine. Fisher agreed to board Howe and his family, which now
included two children, while Howe completed the model. Fisher also
agreed to supply $500 for material and tools in exchange for a half
interest in a patent if one was obtained.
[Illustration: Figure 135.--ELIAS HOWE, JR., 1819-1867. From an oil
painting in the Smithsonian Institution presented by the inventor's
grandson, Elias Howe Stockwell. (Smithsonian photo 622.)]
At long last Howe was able to spend his full time and concentration on
building his machine. His family was being fed and had a roof over its
head. Within a few months Howe had completed a model and by April 1845
had sewed his first seam (see fig. 14). In July of that year he sewed
all the principal seams of two suits of wool clothes, one for George
Fisher and one for himself.
Several efforts were made to solicit public interest in the new machine.
One was installed in a public hall in Boston, and a tailor was employed
to operate it at three times the regular wage. The reception was similar
to that of Thimonnier's: crowds came to see the "contraption," but, when
Howe tried to interest large clothing establishments in using the
machine, the protests of the tailors effectively blocked him. He took
his sewing machine to the Quincy Hall Clothing Manufactory and offered
to sew up any seams brought to him. Daily he sat in one of the rooms
demonstrating his machine, and finally he challenged five of the
swiftest seamstresses there to a race. Ten seams of equal length were
prepared for stitching. One was given to each of the girls while the
remaining five were given to Howe. Howe finished his five a little
sooner than the girls each finished one, and his seams were declared the
strongest and neatest. (Had any curved or angular work been brought, he
could not have stitched it.) Still Howe did not receive a single order.
The fear of throwing hand sewers out of work was again expressed, and,
in addition, the cost of the machine was said to be too high. When it
was estimated that a large shirtmaker would have to buy thirty or forty
such machines, the necessary large investment was dismissed as
ridiculous.
Howe was not too discouraged. In the meantime, he had finished a second
machine for deposit with the patent specifications, as the patent laws
then required. The second was a better made machine (fig. 15) and showed
several minor changes. As soon as the patent was issued on September 10,
1846, Howe and his partner returned to Cambridge.
Without the inventor's enthusiasm or love of his own invention, George
Fisher became thoroughly discouraged. He had boarded Howe and his family
for nearly two years, had furnished the money needed to purchase the
tools and materials for making the two sewing machines, had met the
expense of obtaining the patent and the trip of Howe and himself to
Washington; representing in all an outlay of practically $2000. Since no
orders for machines had been received from either garment makers or
tailors, Fisher did not see the slightest probability of the machine's
becoming profitable and regarded his advances of cash as a dead loss.
Howe moved back to his father's house with a plan to look elsewhere for
a chance to introduce the machine. Obtaining a loan from his father, he
built another machine and sent it to England by his brother Amasa. After
many discouraging attempts to interest the British, Amasa met William
Thomas, a manufacturer of umbrellas, corsets, and leather goods. Thomas
employed many workmen, all of whom stitched by hand, and he immediately
saw the possibilities of a sewing machine. He proposed that Howe sell
the machine to him for £250 sterling (about $1250). Thomas further
proposed to engage the inventor to adapt this machine to the making of
corsets, at a salary of £3 a week.
When Amasa Howe returned to Cambridge with the news, Elias was reluctant
to accept Thomas' offer but had nothing better in sight. So the brothers
sailed for London in February 1847, taking with them Howe's first
machine and his patent papers. Thomas later advanced the passage money
for Howe's wife and three children so that they could join Howe in
England.
At this point, historians disagree on how long Howe was in Thomas'
employ and whether he succeeded in adapting the machine to meet Thomas'
needs. He was in England long enough, however, to find himself without
employment in a strange country, his funds nearly exhausted, and his
wife ill. He hoped to profit by the notice that his work had received
and began to build another machine. He sent his family home to reduce
expenses while he stayed on to finish the machine.
After working on it for three or four months, he was forced to sell it
for five pounds and to take a note for that. To collect enough for his
passage home, he sold the note for four pounds cash and pawned his
precious first machine and his patent papers. He landed in New York in
April 1849 with but half a crown in his pocket to show for his labors. A
short time after he arrived, he learned that his wife was desperately
ill. Only with a loan from his father was he able to reach her side
before she died. Friends were found to look after the children, and
Elias returned to work as a journeyman machinist.
Howe discovered, much to his surprise, that during his absence in
England the sewing machine had become recognized in the United States.
Several machines made in Boston had been sold to manufacturers and were
in daily operation. Upon investigating them, he felt that they utilized
all or part of the invention that he had patented in 1846, and he
prepared to secure just compensation for its use. The first thing he did
was to regain his first machine and patent papers from the London
pawnshop. It was no easy matter for Howe to raise the money, but by
summer he had managed. It was sent to London with Anson Burlingame, who
redeemed the loans, and by autumn of the same year the precious
possessions were back in Howe's hands. Though Howe gained nothing by his
English experience, William Thomas by his modest expenditure obtained
all rights to the machine for Great Britain. This later proved to be a
valuable property.
Howe then began writing letters to those whom he considered patent
infringers, requesting them to pay a fee or discontinue the manufacture
of sewing machines which incorporated his patented inventions. Some at
first were willing to pay the fee, but they were persuaded by the others
to stand with them and resist Howe. This action forced Howe to the
courts. With his father's aid he began a suit, but soon found that
considerably more money than either possessed was necessary for such
actions. Howe turned once more to George Fisher, but years of investing
money in Howe's machine without any monetary return had cooled him to
the idea. Fisher, however, agreed to sell his half interest, and in
February 1851 George S. Jackson, Daniel C. Johnson, and William E.
Whiting became joint owners with Howe. These men helped Howe to procure
witnesses in the furtherance of numerous suits, but more money was
needed than they could raise. The following year a Massachusetts man by
the name of George W. Bliss was persuaded to advance the money for the
heavy legal expenses needed to protect the patent. Bliss did this as a
speculation and demanded additional security. Once more Elias'
long-suffering parent came to the rescue and mortgaged his farm to get
the necessary collateral.
Only one of these suits was prosecuted to a hearing, but this one,
relatively unimportant in itself, set the precedent. In it the defense
relied on the earlier invention of Walter Hunt to oppose Howe's claims.
The defendant succeeded in proving that Hunt invented, perfected, and
sold two machines in 1834 and 1835 which contained all the essential
devices in Howe's machine of 1846. But Howe showed that the defendant's
machine (which was a Blodgett and Lerow) contained some features of
Howe's machine which were not in Hunt's. The jury decided the case in
favor of Howe. Howe later fought a vigorous battle with Isaac Singer,
but after much legal controversy the ultimate decision in that case also
was in Howe's favor. The suits and payments to each patent holder for
the right to use his idea were choking the sewing-machine industry. Even
Howe could not manufacture a practical machine without an infringement.
Finally an agreement was reached and a "Combination" was formed by the
major patent holders (see pp. 41-42).
In the meantime, eight years of the first term of Howe's patent had
expired without producing much revenue. This permitted Howe, upon the
death of his partner, George Bliss, to buy Bliss' half interest for a
small sum. He became, then, the sole owner of his patent just as it was
to bring him a fortune. He obtained a seven-year extension for his
patent in 1860 without any difficulty, and in 1867, when he applied for
another extension, he stated that he had received $1,185,000 from it.
Though he endeavored to show that because of the machine's great value
to the public he was entitled to receive at least $150,000,000, the
second application was denied.
During the Civil War, Howe enlisted as a private soldier in the 17th
Regiment Connecticut Volunteers. He went into the field and served as an
enlisted man. On occasion when the Government was pressed for funds to
pay its soldiers, he advanced the money necessary to pay his entire
regiment.
Howe did not establish a sewing-machine factory until just before his
death in 1867. One of his early licensees had been his elder brother,
Amasa, who had organized the Howe Sewing Machine Company about 1853.
When Elias began manufacturing machines on his own, he sunk into the
bedplate of each machine a brass medallion bearing his likeness. Elias
gave his company the same name that his elder brother had used. As this
had been Amasa's exclusive property for many years, he took the matter
to the courts where the decision went against Elias. He then organized
the Howe Machine Company and began to manufacture sewing machines. On
October 3, 1867, Elias died in Brooklyn, New York, at the home of one of
his sons-in-law. The company was then carried on by his two sons-in-law,
who were Stockwell brothers. In 1872 the Howe Sewing Machine Company was
sold by Amasa's son to the Stockwells' Howe Machine Company, which in
turn went out of business in the mid-1880s.
ALLEN BENJAMIN WILSON
Allen B. Wilson was born in the small town of Willett, Cortlandt County,
New York, in 1824. At sixteen he was apprenticed to a distant relative,
a cabinetmaker. Unfortunate circumstances caused him to leave this
employ, and in 1847 Wilson was in Adrian, Michigan, working as a
journeyman cabinetmaker. The place and year are important, for it was at
this time that he conceived his idea of a sewing machine. Because of the
distant location, it is believed that he was not aware of similar
efforts being made in New England. Wilson became ill and for many months
could not work at his trade. By August 1848 he was able to work again
and found employment at Pittsfield, Massachusetts. Resolving to develop
his idea of a sewing machine, he worked diligently and by November had
made full drawings of all the parts, according to his previous
conceptions.
In comparison to the monetary returns received by the inventors Howe and
Singer, Wilson himself did not receive as great a monetary reward for
his outstanding sewing-machine inventions. Because of his health Wilson
retired in 1853, when the stock company was formed, but he received a
regular salary and additional money from the patent renewals. Wilson
petitioned for a second extension of his patents on April 7, 1874,
stating that, due to his early poverty, he had been compelled to sell a
half interest in a patent (his first one) for the sum of $200. Also he
stated that he had not received more than his expenses during the
original fourteen-year term. Wilson also stated that he had received
only $137,000 during the first seven-year extension period. These
figures were verified by his partner. The petition was read before both
Houses of Congress and referred to the Committee on Patents.[94] There
was strong feeling against the extension of the Wilson patents. The New
York _Daily Graphic_, December 30, 1874, reported:
[Illustration: Figure 136.--ALLEN BENJAMIN WILSON, 1824-1888. From a
drawing owned by the Singer Mfg. Co. Formerly, the drawing was owned by
the Wheeler & Wilson Mfg. Co. (Smithsonian photo 32066.)]
So valuable has been this latter four-motion feed that few or no
cloth-sewing machines are now made without it. The joint ownership
of this feature of the Wilson patents has served to bind the
combination of sewing-machine builders together, and enabled them
to defy competition by force of the monopoly. It is this feature
which the combination wishes to further monopolize for seven years
by act of Congress. The inventor has probably realized millions for
his invention. Singer admits that his patents, which are much less
important, paid him two millions prior to 1870, since which time he
has not been compelled to render an account. The Wilson patents
with their extended terms were worth a much larger sum. They have
been public property, so far as the feed is concerned, since June
15, 1873, and will remain so if too great a pressure is not brought
to bear on Congress for their extension. A monopoly of this feed
motion for seven years more would be worth from ten to thirty
millions to the owner--and would cost the people four times as
much.
Wilson had not made the millions for he only received a small percentage
of the renewals' earnings plus his salary from the patents' owner, the
Wheeler and Wilson Manufacturing Company.
The Congressional Committee on Patents made an adverse report in 1874
and again in 1875 and 1876, when applications for an extension were
continued
Wilson died on April 29, 1888.
ISAAC MERRITT SINGER
[Illustration: Figure 137.--- ISAAC MERRITT SINGER, 1811-1875. From a
charcoal drawing owned by the Singer Mfg. Co. (Smithsonian photo
32066-B)]
Isaac Singer, whose name is known around the world as a manufacturer of
sewing machines, was the eighth child of poor German immigrants. Isaac
was born on October 27, 1811, in Pittstown, New York, but most of his
early life was spent in Oswego. He worked as a mechanic and
cabinetmaker, but acquired an interest in the theater. Under the name of
Isaac Merritt, he went to Rochester and became an actor. In 1839, during
an absence from the theater, he completed his first invention, a
mechanical excavator, which he sold for $2000. With the money Singer
organized a theatrical troupe of his own, which he called "The Merritt
Players." When the group failed in Fredericksburg, Ohio, Singer was
stranded for lack of funds.
Forced to find some type of employment, Singer took a job in a
Fredericksburg plant that manufactured wooden printers' type. He quickly
recognized the need for an improved type-carving machine. After
inventing and patenting one, he found no financial support in
Fredericksburg and decided to take the machine to New York City. Here,
the firm of A. B. Taylor and Co. agreed to furnish the money and give
Singer room in its Hague Street factory to build machines. A boiler
explosion destroyed the first machine, and Taylor refused to advance
more money.
While Singer was with Taylor, George B. Zieber, a bookseller who had
seen the type-carving machine, considered its value to publishers.
Zieber offered to help Singer and raised $1700 to build another model.
In June 1850 the machine was completed. Singer and Zieber took the
machine to Boston where they rented display space in the steam-powered
workshop of Orson C. Phelps at 19 Harvard Place. Only a few publishers
came to look at the machine, and none wanted to buy it.
Singer, contemplating his future, became interested in Phelps' work,
manufacturing sewing machines for J. A. Lerow and S. C. Blodgett. Phelps
welcomed Singer's interest as the design of the mechanism was faulty and
purchasers kept returning the machines for repairs. Singer examined the
sewing machine with the eyes of a practical machinist. He criticized the
action of the shuttle, which passed around a circle, and the needle bar,
which pushed a curved needle horizontally. Singer suggested that the
shuttle move to and fro in a straight path and that a straight needle be
used vertically. Phelps encouraged Singer to abandon the type-carving
machine and turn his energies toward the improvement of the sewing
machine. Convinced that he could make his ideas work, Singer sketched a
rough draft of his proposed machine, and with the support of Zieber and
Phelps the work began.
Singer continued to be active in the sewing-machine business until 1863.
He made his home in Paris for a short time and then moved to England.
While living at Torquay he conceived the idea of a fabulous Greco-Roman
mansion, which he planned to have built at Paignton. Singer called it
"The Wigwam." Unfortunately, after all his plans, he did not live to see
its completion. Singer died on July 23, 1875, of heart disease at the
age of sixty-three.
FOOTNOTES:
[93] _The Proceedings and Debates of the 43rd Congress_, First Session,
1874 Congressional Record, vol. 2, part 3, petition read to the House by
Mr. Creamer on April 7, 1874. In part 4 of the same, Mr. Buckingham read
a similar petition to the Senate on May 19, 1874. Both were referred to
the Committee on Patents; an extension was not granted.
_Bibliography_
ADAMS, CHARLES K. Sewing machines. In vol. 7 of _Johnson's
universal cyclopaedia_, New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1895.
ALEXANDER, EDWIN P. Sewing, plaiting, and felting machines. Pp.
341-353 in _The Practical Mechanic's Journal's record of the great
exhibition, 1862_. 1862.
----. On the sewing machine: Its history and progress. _Journal of
the Royal Society of Arts_ (April 10, 1863), vol. 2, no. 542, p.
358.
AMERICAN HISTORICAL SOCIETY. _The life and works of George H.
Corliss._ (Privately printed for Mary Corliss by the Society.)
1930.
Biography of Isaac M. Singer. _The Atlas_, New York, N.Y., March
20, 1853.
BISHOP, J. LEANDER. In vol. 2 of _A history of American
manufactures from 1608 to 1860_, by Bishop; Philadelphia: Edward
Young and Company, 1866.
BOLTON, JAMES. Sewing machines, special report on special subjects.
In vol. 2 of _Report of the Committee on Awards_; Chicago: World's
Columbian Exposition, 1893.
BROCKETT, LINUS P. Sewing machines. In vol. 4 of _Johnson's
universal cyclopaedia_; New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1874.
BURR, J. B. _The great industries of the United States._ Hartford:
J. B. Burr and Hyde, n.d.
COOK, ROSAMOND C. _Sewing machines._ Peoria, Illinois: Manual Arts
Press, 1922.
DEPEW, C. M. 100 years of American commerce. In vol. 2, _American
sewing machines_ by F. G. Bourne. New York: D. O. Haines, 1895.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT COURT. Case of Hunt vs. Howe. In
_Federal Cases_, case 6891, book 12, 1855.
DOOLITTLE, WILLIAM H. _Inventions._ Vol. in Library of modern
progress. Philadelphia: Modern Progress Publishing Company, 1905.
DURGIN, CHARLES A. _Digest of patents on sewing machines, Feb. 21,
1842-July 1, 1859._ New York: Livesey Brothers, 1859.
FAIRFIELD, GEORGE A. Report on sewing machines. In vol. 3 of
_Report of the commissioners of the United States to the
international exhibition held at Vienna, 1873._ 1874.
FISKE, BRADLEY A. _Invention, the master-key to progress._ New
York: E. P. Dutton and Company, 1921.
GIFFORD, GEORGE W. [Counsel for Elias Howe, Jr.] _Argument of
Gifford in favor of Howe's application for extension of patent._
Washington: U.S. Patent Office, 1860.
GRANGER, JEAN. Thimonnier et la machine à coudre. In vol. 2 of _Les
publications techniques._ Paris, 1943. [Source for biographical
sketch on Barthelemy Thimonnier.]
GREGORY, GEORGE W. _Machines, etc., used in sewing and making
clothing._ Vol. 7 of _Reports and Awards_. Philadelphia
International Exhibition, 1876. U.S. Centennial Commission,
Washington, D.C., 1880.
HERSBERG, RUDOLPH. _The sewing machine, its history, construction
and application._ Transl. Upfield Green. London: E. & F. N. Spon,
1864.
HOWE, HENRY. _Adventures and achievements of Americans._ Published
by the author, 1860.
HOWE MACHINE COMPANY. _The Howe exhibition catalog of sewing
machines._ Published by the company for the Philadelphia Centennial
Exposition, 1876.
HUBERT, PHILIP G., JR. _Men of achievement: inventors._ New York:
Charles Scribner's Sons, 1894.
HUNT, CLINTON N. _Walter Hunt, American inventor._ Published by the
author, 1935. [Source for biographical sketch on Walter Hunt.]
INTERNATIONAL EXHIBITION. Sewing and knitting machines. In _Reports
of the Juries_, Class VII, Section A. London, 1862.
JOHNSON CLARK AND COMPANY. _Sewing machines for domestic and export
trade._ Published by the company, 1883.
KAEMPFFERT, WALDEMAR. A popular history of American invention.
_Making clothes by machine_, by John Walker Harrington, vol 2. New
York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1924.
KILGARE, C. B. _Sewing-machines._ Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott
Company, 1892.
KNIGHT, EDWARD H. Vol. 3 of _Knight's American mechanical
dictionary_. Boston: Houghton, Mifflin and Company, 1882.
LEWTON, FREDERICK L. The servant in the house: a brief history of
the sewing machine. Pp. 559-583 in Annual Report of the Smithsonian
Institution (1929); Washington: 1930.
LUTH, ERICH. _Ein Mayener Strumpfwirker, Balthasar Krems,
1760-1813, Erfinder der Nähmaschine._ Hamburg, Germany: Verlag
Herbert Luth, 1941.
----. _Josef Madersperger oder der unscheinbore Genius._ Hamburg,
Germany: Reichsnerband des Deutschen Nähmaschinenhandels EV, 1933
[?].
Obituary of Isaac M. Singer. _New York Tribune_, July 26, 1875.
MADERSPERGER, JOSEPH. _Beschreibung einer Nähmaschine._ Vienna, ca.
1816.
O'BRIEN, WALTER. Sewing machines. _Textile American_, reprinted
March 1931. [A paper read at a meeting of the Leicester Textile
Society.]
ORCUTT, REV. SAMUEL. _A history of the old town of Stratford and
the city of Bridgeport, Connecticut._ 2 vols. Fairfield County
Historical Society, 1886.
PARIS UNIVERSAL EXPOSITION. _Reports of the U.S. Commissioners
General Survey_, vol. 1, pp. 293-297. 1867.
PARTON, JAMES. History of the sewing machine. _Atlantic Monthly_,
May 1867.
RAYMOND, WILLIAM CHANDLER. _Curiosities of the Patent Office._
Syracuse, N.Y.: published by the author, 1888.
REID, J. A. _A monograph prepared for American industrial education
conference and exposition._ Elizabethport, N.J.: Singer
Manufacturing Company, 1915.
RENTERS, WILHELM. _Praktisches Wissen von der Nähmaschine._
Langensalza, Berlin, and Leipzig: Verlag Julius Beltz, 1933.
_Scientific American._ Issues of January 27, February 3, and
November 24, 1849; July 17, 1852; July 9 and November 5, 1859;
January 3 and May 16, 1863; October 19, 1867; and July 25, 1896.
SCOTT, JOHN. _Genius rewarded, or the story of the sewing machine._
New York: J. J. Caulon, 1880.
_Sewing Machine Advance._ Chicago. Vols. 1-35, no. 5, May 1879 to
1913.
_Sewing Machine Journal._ September 1879 to December 1884.
_Sewing Machine News._ New York. Vols. 1-6, 1877-1879; n.s. vols.
1-16, 1879-1893.
_Sewing Machine Times._ New York. Vols. 1-9, 1882-1890; n.s. vols.
1-38 (nos. 1-725), 1891-April 1924.
STAMBAUGH, JOHN P. _Sewing machines at the 22nd annual exhibition
of the Maryland Institute, also a history of the sewing machine._
Hartford, Conn.: Weed Sewing Machine Company, 1872.
Story of sewing machine patents. _New York Tribune_, May 23, 1862.
THOMPSON, HOLLAND. The age of invention. Vol. 37 of the Chronicles
of America. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1921.
TOWERS, HENRY M. _Historical sketches relating to Spencer,
Massachusetts._ Vol. 1. Spencer, Mass.: W. G. Heffernan, 1901.
URQUHART, J. W. _Sewing machinery._ Vol. 8 in Weale's rudimentary
scientific and educational series. London: Crosby Lockwood and Co.,
1881.
VAN SLYCK, J. D. _New England manufacturers and manufactories._
Vol. 2. Boston: Van Slyck and Company, 1879. [Source for
biographical sketch on Allen Benjamin Wilson, Van Slyck, vol. 2,
pp. 672-682.]
WALSO, GEORGE C., JR. _History of Bridgeport and vicinity._ Vol. 2.
Bridgeport, Conn.: S. J. Clarke Publishing Company, 1917.
Who invented the sewing machine? _The Galaxy_ [article unsigned],
vol. 4, August 1867.
_Indexes_
Geographical Index to Companies listed in Appendix II
CONNECTICUT
Bridgeport
D. W. Clark, 67
Jerome B. Secor, 68
Goodbody Sewing Machine Co., 69
Howe Machine Co., 69
Secor Machine Co., 72
American Hand Sewing Machine Co., 72
Wheeler & Wilson Mfg. Co., 74
Bristol
Nettleton & Raymond, 72
Watson & Wooster, 73
Danbury
Bartram & Fanton Mfg. Co., 66
Hartford
Morrison, Wilkinson & Co., 71
Weed Sewing Machine Co., 74
Meriden
Fosket and Savage, 68
Charles Parker Co., 72
Parker Sewing Machine Co., 72
Middletown
Victor Sewing Machine Co., 73
Norwich
Greenman and True Mfg. Co., 69
Waterbury
Waterbury Co., 73
West Meriden
Parkers, Snow, Brooks & Co., 70
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Washington
Post Combination Sewing Machine Co., 72
ILLINOIS
Belleville
Thomas M. Cochrane Co., 71
J. H. Drew & Co., 71
Belvidere
June Mfg. Co., 70
National Sewing Machine Co., 71
Chicago
Chicago Sewing Machine Co., 67
Eldredge Sewing Machine Co., 68
Free Sewing Machine Co., 69
Scates, Tryber & Sweetland Mfg., 67
Sigwalt Sewing Machine Co., 67, 73
H. B. Goodrich, 69
June Mfg. Co., 70
Rockford
Free Sewing Machine Co., 69
MAINE
Biddeford
Shaw & Clark Sewing Machine Co., 71, 73
MASSACHUSETTS
Boston
O. Phelps, 66
J. F. Paul & Co., 66
Boston Sewing Machine Co., 66
Bradford & Barber, mfgs., 66
John P. Bowker, 68
Empire Sewing Machine Co., 68
Finkle & Lyon Sewing Machine Co., 68, 73
Grover and Baker Sewing Machine Co., 69
Nichols and Bliss, 69
J. B. Nichols & Co., 69
Nichols, Leavitt & Co., 69, 70
N. Hunt & Co., 70
Hunt and Webster, 70
Emery, Houghton & Co., 70
Ladd, Webster & Co., 70
Leavitt & Co., 70
Leavitt Sewing Machine Co., 70
Safford & Williams Makers, 71
C. A. French, 72
F. R. Robinson, 72
Howard & Davis, 72
I. M. Singer & Co., 73
Butterfield & Stevens Mfg. Co., 74
Williams & Orvis Sewing Machine Co., 74
Chicopee Falls
Shaw & Clark Co., 73
Chicopee Sewing Machine Co., 73
Florence
Florence Sewing Machine Co., 67, 68
Foxboro
Foxboro Rotary Shuttle Co., 68
Lowell
Aetna Sewing Machine Co., 65
Lynn
Woolridge, Keene and Moore, 67
Orange
Gold Medal Sewing Machine Co., 69
Johnson, Clark & Co., 69, 71, 73
Grout & White, 71
New Home Sewing Machine Co., 71
Springfield
Leader Sewing Machine Co., 70
Springfield Sewing Machine Co., 73
D. B. Wesson Sewing Machine Co.,74
Winchendon
J. G. Folsom, 68, 69, 71
William Grout, 71
Worcester
Goddard, Rice & Co., 66
MICHIGAN
Detroit
Decker Mfg. Co., 67
C. G. Gardner, 69
MISSOURI
St. Louis
Wardwell Mfg. Co., 73
NEW HAMPSHIRE
Dover
O. L. Reynolds Manufacturing Co., 71
Marlboro
Thurston Mfg. Co., 67
Mason Village
Franklin Sewing Machine Co., 68
NEW JERSEY
Elizabethport
Singer Mfg. Co. (manufactory, not office), 73
Paterson
Whitney Sewing Machine Co., 74
NEW YORK
Binghamton
Independent Sewing Machine Co., 70
Brooklyn
J. H. Lester, 70
G. L. Du Laney, 70
Ithaca
Aiken and Felthousen (patentees), 65
American Magnetic Sewing Machine Co., 65
Clinton Brothers, 67
T. C. Thompson, 73
New York
Avery Sewing Machine Co., 66
A. Bartholf, mfg., 66
Bartholf Sewing Machine Co., 66
Bartlett Sewing Machine Co., 66
Barlow & Son, 66
Beckwith Sewing Machine Co., 66
J. A. Davis, 67
Demorest Mfg. Co., 67
Charles A. Durgin, 68
Elliptic Sewing Machine Co., 68
Eureka Shuttle Sewing Machine Co., 68
Excelsior Sewing Machine Co., 68
Madame Demorest, 68
First and Frost, 68
L. Griswold, 69
Howe Sewing Machine Co., 69
Thos. A. Macauley Mfg., 70
New York Sewing Machine Co., 71
T. W. Robertson, 72
I. M. Singer & Co., 73
Singer Mfg. Co., 73
Standard Shuttle Sewing Machine Co., 73
Henry Stewart & Co., 73
Stewart Mfg. Co., 73
E. E. Lee & Co., 74
Willcox & Gibbs Sewing Machine Co., 74
Watertown
Davis Sewing Machine Co., 67
Wheeler, Wilson & Co., 74
Westmoreland
A. B. Buell, 67
OHIO
Cleveland
Wilson (W. G.) Sewing Machine Co., 66, 74
Domestic Sewing Machine Co. (after 1924), 67
Leslie Sewing Machine Co., 70
Standard Sewing Machine Co., 73
White Sewing Machine Co., 74
Dayton
Davis Sewing Machine Co., 67
Elyria
West & Willson Co., 74
Norwalk
Dauntless Mfg. Co., 67, 72
Wm. A. Mack & Co., and N. S. Perkins, 67
Domestic Sewing Machine Co., 67, 70
Springfield
Royal Sewing Machine Co., 72
St. John Sewing Machine Co., 73
Toledo
Jewel Mfg. Co., 70
PENNSYLVANIA
Erie
Noble Sewing Machine Co., 72
Philadelphia
American Buttonhole, Overseaming and Sewing Machine Co., 65
Centennial Sewing Machine Co., 67
George B. Sloat and Co., 68
Rex & Bockius, 69
Grant Bros. & Co., 69
B. W. Lacey & Co., 71
Parham Sewing Machine Co., 72
Philadelphia Sewing Machine Co., 72
Quaker City Sewing Machine Co., 72
E. Remington & Sons, 72
Taggart & Farr, 73
Pittsburgh
Love Mfg. Co., 70
RHODE ISLAND
Providence
Household Sewing Machine Co., 69
Providence Tool Co., 69
VERMONT
Brattleboro
Samuel Barker and Thomas White, 66
Brattleboro Sewing Machine Co., 68
Estey Sewing Machine Co., 68
Higby Sewing Machine Co., 69
Nettleton & Raymond (Charles Raymond), 71
Windsor
Lamson, Goodnow & Yale, 67, 74
Vermont Arms Co., 74
VIRGINIA
Richmond
Lester Mfg. Co., 70
Union Sewing Machine Co., 68, 70
Old Dominion Sewing Machine Co., 72
WISCONSIN
Milwaukee
Whitehill Mfg. Co., 74
Alphabetical Index to Patentees listed in Appendix III
Abercrombi, Charles, 520977
Abbott, W. W., 252984
Adams, John Q., 92138
Alexander, Elisa, 16518
Ambler, D. C., 11884
Angell, Benjamin J., 19285
Applegate, John H., and Webb, Charles B., 177784
Appleton, C. J., and Sibley, J. J., 179440
Arnold, B., 86121, 138981, 138982
Arnold, G. B. and A., 30112
Arnold, G. B., 28139
Atwater, B., 44063
Atwood, J. E., 22273
Atwood, K. C., 194759
Atwood, J. E., J. C., and O., 19903
Avery, Otis, 9338, 10880
Avery, O. and Z. W., 22007
Bachelder, J., 6439
Baglin, William, 154113
Baker, G. W., 70152, 125374, 130005
Baldwin, Cyrus W., 38276
Banks, C. M., 225784
Barcellos, D., 203102
Barnes, M. M., 106307
Barnes, William T., 20688, 25084, 25876
Barney, Samuel C., 156119
Barrett, O. D., 25785
Bartholf, Abraham, 19823
Bartlett, Joseph W., 46064, 76385
Bartlett, Joseph W., and Plant, Frederick, 159065
Barton, Kate C., 182096
Bartram, W. B., 54670, 54671, 60669, 62520, 83592, 104247, 130557
Bates, W. G., assignor to Johnson, William H., 9592
Bayley, C. H., 212122
Bean, Benjamin W., 2982
Bean, E. E., 28144
Beardslee, W. F., 245781
Beck, August, 190184, 196863
Beckwith, William G., 126921, 133351, 167382
Behn, Henry, 18071, 18880
Belcher, C. D., 16710
Benedict, C. P., 83596
Bennett, Frank Howard, and Dowling, James, 409728
Bennor, Joseph, 106249
Benson, George, 238556
Beukler, William, 204704
Beuttel, Charles, 115155
Bigelow, J., 263467
Billings, C. E., 88603
Bishop, H. H., 22226
Black, Samuel S., 146642
Blake, Lyman R., 20775, 74289
Blanchard, Helen A., 141987
Bland, Henry, 216016, 221505
Blodgett, S. C, 15469, 21465
Blodgett, John W., 279320
Boecher, Adam, 300199
Bond, Joseph Jr., 12939, 93588, 189599
Booth, Ezekiel, 25087
Boppel, Jacob, 396979
Borton, S., 214089
Borton, Stockton, and Willcox, Charles H., 255576, 255577, 255580, 255581
Bosworth, C. F., 19979, 38807, 122555, 199500, 216504
Bounaz, A., 83909, 83910
Bouscay, Eloi, Jr., 127145
Bowyer, J. T., 454708
Boyd, A. H., 19171, 24003, 31864
Bracher, T. W., 221508
Bradeen, J. G., 9380
Bradford, E. F. and Pierce, V. R., 177371
Braundbeck, E., 127675
Brewer, A. G., 152894
Briggs, Thomas, 198790
Brown, F. H., 94389, 102366, 131735, 193477
Bruen, J. T., 31208
Bruen, L. B., 68839
Budlong, William G., 25946
Buell, J. S., 25381
Buhr, Johannes, 151272
Burnet, S. S. and Broderick, W., 22160
Burr, Theodore, 32023
Butcher, Joseph, 180542, 233657
Cadwell, Caleb, 45972, 71131
Cajar, Emil, 50299, 61711
Cameron, James W., 272527
Campbell, Duncan H., 241612, 241613
Canfield, F. P., 86057
Carhart, Peter S., 24098
Carlisle, W. S., 270540
Carpenter, Lunan, 20990
Carpenter, Mary P., 112016
Carpenter, William, 87633
Carr, William H. and Ostrom, F. W., 303361
Case, George F., 33029
Cately, William H., 56902
Chamberlain, J. N., 28452
Chandler, Rufus, 133757, 139368
Charmbury, H., 316745
Chase, M., 113498
Chilcott, J. and Scrimgeour, J., 12856
Chittenden, H. H., 43289
Choquette, A. E., 244033
Clark, David W., 19015, 19072, 19129, 19409, 19732, 20481, 21322, 23823
Clark, Edwin, 26336
Clark, Edwin E., 74751
Clements, James M., 57451
Cleminshaw, S., 128363, 213391
Clever, P. J., 96886
Clever, Peter J., 296529
Coates, F. S., 19684
Cole, W. H., 79447
Conant, J. S., 12233
Conklin, N. A., 206774
Cook, Hugo, 454610
Cooney, W., 102226
Corbett, E. and Harlow, C. F., 192568
Corey, J. W., 198970
Corliss, George H., 3389
Cornely, E., 73696
Cornely, Emile, 219225
Craige, E. H., 62186, 67635
Crane, Thomas, 150532
Crosby, C. O., 50225, 90507
Crosby, C. O. and Kellogg, H., 37033
Cummins, William G., 187822
Curtis, G. H. W., 228985
Cushman, C. S., 142442, 184594
Dale, John D., 44686
Dancel, Christian, 199802
Darling and Darling, 163639
Davis, Job A., 27208, 58614
Derocquigny, A. C. F., Gance, D., and Hanzo, L., 34748
Deschamps, O. L., 253915
Destouy, Auguste, 56729
Dewees, John W., 432746
Dickinson, C. W., 26346
Diehl, Philipp, 339623, 347776, 347777, 348113
Dieterle, H. E., 353542
Dimmock, Martial and Rixford, Nathan, 19135
Dimond, George H., 196198, 207400
Dinsmore, Alfred S., 160512, 231155
Dinsmore, A. S., and Carter, John T., 152618
Doll, Arnold, 68420
Dopp, H. W., 27279
Dowling, James, and Connolly, John, 299118
Drake, Ellis, 155932
Duchemin, William, 59715, 91101, 135032, 288929
Dunbar, C. F., 88282
Durgin, Charles A., 12902
Earle, T., 31156
Eickemeyer, Rudolf, 52698, 182182, 239319
Elderfield, F. D., 204429
Eldridge, G. W., 87331
Elliott, F., 85918
Emerson, John, 50989
Emswiler, J. B., 25002
Esty, William, 187837
Fales, J. F., 74328
Fanning, John, 72829, 129013
Farr, Chester N., 25004
Farrar, Arthur, 309837
Fetter, George, 18793, 19059
Fish, Warren L., 123625
Fletcher, James N., 443756
Follett, Joseph L., 189446
Fosket, William A., and Savage, Elliot, 22719, 25963
French, Stephen, 80345
Frese, B., 172308
Fuller, H. W., 63033
Fuller, William M., 32496
Garland, H. P., 159812, 169163
Gee, W. V., 361406
Gibbs, James E. A., 16234, 16434, 17427, 21129, 21751, 27214, 28851
Gird, E. D., 87559
Goodes, E. A., 136718, 147387
Goodspeed, G. N., 54816
Goodwin, Julius C., 450793
Goodwyn, H. H., 24455
Goodyear, Charles Jr., 111197, 116947
Gordon, James, and Kinert, William, 125807
Gray, Joshua, 16566, 19665, 24022, 95581
Green, George F., 238678
Greenough, John J., 2466
Gritzner, M. C., 44720, 76323
Gritzner, Max C., 243444
Grote, F. W., 38447
Grout, William, 24629
Grover, William O., 14956, 33778, 36405, 100139
Grover, William O., and Baker, William E., 7931
Guinness, William S., 41916
Gullrandsen, P. E., and Rettinger, J. C., 180225
Gutmann, Julius, 90528
Halbert, A. W., 76076
Hall, William, 24870
Hale, William S., 36084
Hall, Luther, 43404
Hall, L., 105329
Hall, John S., 168637, 187006
Hallenbeck, J. P., 425422
Hallett, H. H., 191584
Hamm, E., 219578
Hancock, Henry J., 83492, 112033
Hanlon, John, 52847
Happe, J., and Newman, W., 130715, 137199
Hardie, J. W., 30854
Harris, Daniel, 17508, 17571
Harris, David, 185228
Harrison, J. Jr., 10763, 13616, 25013, 25262
Hart, William, 50469
Hayes, James, 55029
Hayden, H. W., 24937
Heberling, J., 204604, 227249, 227525, 284300
Hecht, A., 50473
Heery, Luke, 94740
Heidenthal, William, 127765
Helwig, Arthur, 350364
Hendrick, Joseph E., 19660, 21722
Hendrickson, E. M., 34330
Henriksen, H. P., 104590, 188515, 215615
Hensel, George, 24737
Herron, A. C., 20557
Hesse, Joseph, 235085
Heyer, W. D., 40622
Heyer, Frederick, 30731
Hicks, William C., 26035, 29268
Hinkley, Jonas, 25231
Hinds, Jesse L., 131166
Hine, Charles M., 420382
Hine, Charlie M., 246136
Hodgkins, Christopher, 9365, 33085, 69666
Hoefler, J., 246883
Hoffman, George W., 94112
Hoffman, Clara P., and Meyers, Nicholas, 207035
Holden, O. J., and Griswold, L., 272050
Hollowell, J. G., 27624
Holly, Birdsill, 28176
Hook, Albert H., 22179, 24027
Horr, Addison D., 149862
House, James A., 206239
House, James A., and House, Henry A., 36932, 39442, 39445, 55865, 87338, 114294
Howard, C. W., 126056, 126057
Howard, T. S. L., 199206
Howard, E. L., 154485
Howard, E., and Jackson, W. H., 103745
Howe, Amasa Bemis, 37913
Howe, Elias, 4750, 16436
Hubbard, George W., 18904, 21537
Hull, E. H., 254217
Humphrey, D. W. G., 36617, 49627
Hunt, Walter, 11161
Huntington, Thomas S., 158214
Hurtu, Auguste J., 258761, 315037
Hurtu, Auguste J., and Hautin, Victor J., 98064
Ingalls, N., Jr., 212602
Jackson, Francis, 519064
Jackson, William, 181941
Jacob, Frederick, 190047
Jencks, G. L., 74694
Jennings, L., 16237
Johnson, Albert F., 16387, 20686, 26948
Johnson, W. H., 10597
Jones, John T., 86163, 117640, 169106
Jones, Samuel H., 140631
Jones, Solomon, 118537, 118538
Jones, William, and Haughian, P., 32297
Juengst, George, 27132, 228820
Junker, Carl, 217112
Kallmeyer, G., 137689
Keats, Alphonso, 260990
Keats, John, 198120
Keats, John; Greenwood, Arthur; and Keats, Alphonso, 171622
Keats, John, and Clark. Wm. S., 50995
Keith, Jeremiah, 97518, 170741, 196809, 209126, 243710
Keith, T. H., 196909
Keith, T. K., 170955
Kelsey, D., 24939
Kendall, George F., 101887
Kern, Ferdinand, 479369
Kilbourn, E. E., 59746
Kjalman, H. N., 235783
Knoch, Charles F., 183400
Koch, William, 262298
Koch, Friederich, and Brass, Robert, 138898, 145215
Lamb, Isaac W., 109632
Lamb, Thomas, 98390, 118728
Lamb, Thomas, and Allen, John, 49421
Lamson, Henry P., 79579
Landfear, William R., 109427, 155193
Langdon, Leander W., 13727, 39256
Lathbury, E. T., 17744
Lathrop, Lebbeus W., 139067
Lathrop, Lebbeus W., and de Sanno, William P., 40446
Lawrence, G. H., 290895
Lazelle, W. H., 18915
Leavitte, Albert, 171147
Leavitt, Rufus, 30634
Leavitt, Albert, and Drew, Henry L., 187874
Legat, D. M., 218388
Legg, Albert, and Weston, Charles W., 474840
Leslie, A. M., 241808
Leyden, Austin, 57157
Lingley, John W., 368538
Lipe, C. E., 229322
Lisle, Myron C., 428171
Ludeke, Waldemar, 275506, 300380
Lyon, Lucius, 89489, 96713, 105820
Lyon, W., 12066
Macauley, F. A., 195939
Mack, William A., 38592
Mallary, G. H., 31897
Mann, Charles, 33556
Marble, F. E., 33439
Marin, Charles, 179709
Martin, W., Jr.; Dawson, D. R.; and Orchar, R., 206743
Martine, Charles F., 104612
Meyers, Nicholas, 99783
Melhuish, R. M., 194610
McCloskey, John, 55688, 161534
McClure, A. T., 130385
McKay, Gordon, and Blake, Lyman, 42916
McKay, Gordon, 188809
McLean, J. N., 88499
McCombs, George F., 208407
McCurdy, James S., 24395, 26234, 28097, 28993, 36256, 38931, 46303, 53743
Miehling, Charles, 351992
Miller, Charles, 9139, 26462
Miller, Westley, 20763
Miller, Lebbens B., and Diehl, Philipp, 229629, 274359
Mills, Daniel, 96944, 265850, 313359
Mooney, John H., 222298, 244470
Moore, Charles, 21015
Moreau, Eugene, 110669, 156171
Morley, J. H., 228918, 236350
Morrell, R. W.; Parkinson, T.; Parkinson, J., 202857
Morrison, T. W., 216289
Muegge, C. A., 332207
Mueller, H., 28996
Muir, William, 147152
Murphy, E., 176880
Nasch, Isidor, 104630
Necker, Carl, 117101
Nettleton, William H., and Raymond, Charles, 17049, 18350
Newell, George F., 242470
Newlove, Thomas, 27761
Norton, B. F., 32782
O'Neil, John, 137618
Oram, Henry, 185952
Osborne, J. H., 224219
Otis, S. L., 221093
Osterhout, James A., and Hallenbeck, Joseph P., 402610
Page, Charles, 96343, 150479
Paine, A. R., 27412
Palmateer, William A., 187479
Palmer, Aaron, 35252
Palmer, C. H., 38450, 124694, 240758
Palmer, Frank L., 185954
Palmer, John H., 298228
Parham, Charles, 109443, 135579
Parker, Sidney, 19662, 24780
Parks, Volney, 129981
Parmenter, Charles O., 212495
Payne, R. S., 30641
Pearson, M. H., 199991
Pearson, William, 26201
Pearson, William, 166805, 172478
Perry, James, 22148
Piper, D. B., 56990
Pipo, John A., 37550
Pitt, James; Joseph; Edward; and William, 117203
Planer, Louis, 43927
Porter, D. A., 144864
Porter, Alonzo, 99704
Porter, D'Arcy, and Baker, George W., 174703
Powell, Thomas, 442695
Pratt, Samuel F., 16745, 22240
Ragan, Daniel, 137321
Ramsden, John W., 262116
Randel, William, 192008
Rayer, William A., and Lincoln, William S., 108827
Raymond, Charles, 19612, 22220, 32785, 32925
Reed, T. K., 60241, 62287
Rehfuss, George, 40311, 51086, 61102, 73119
Reynolds, O. S., 19793
Rice, T. M., 176686
Rice, Quartus, 31429
Richards, Jean E., 252799
Richardson, E. F., 145687
Richardson, Everett P., 146948, 165506
Roberts, William, 254696
Robertson, T. J. W., 12015
Robinson, Charles E., 110790
Robinson, Frederick R., 7824
Rodier, Peter, 59659
Roper, S. H., 11531, 16026, 18522
Rose, Israel M., 28814, 31628
Rose, Reubin M., 170596
Rosenthal, Sally Adolph, 353970
Ross, Noble G., 31829
Ross, J. G., and Miller, T. L., 138764
Rowe, James, 26638, 27260
Ruddick, H., 28538
Rudolph, Bruno, 99481
Rudolph, Ernst B. (deceased), Boulter, W. E. (administrator), 449927
Russell, W. W., 86695
Sage, William, 17717
Sangster, Amos W., 21929
Savage, Elliott, 19876
Sawyer, Irvin P., and Alsop, T., 25918
Sawyer, Sylvanus, and Esty, William, 174159
Schmidt, Albert E., 162697
Schwalback, M., 56805
Scofield, Charles, 26059
Scofield, Charles, and Rice, Clarke, 28610
Scribner, Benjamin, Jr., 146483
Secor, J. B., 253772
Sedmihradsky, A. J., 196486
Shaw, E., 230580
Shaw, Philander, 11680
Shaw, A. B., 37202
Shaw, Henry L., 32007
Shaw and Clark, 38246
Sheffield, G. V., 135047
Shorey, Samuel W., 148765
Sibley, J. J., 42117
Sidenberg, William, 112745, 115117
Simmons, Frederick, 216902
Simmons, A. G., and Scofield, C., 41790
Singer, Isaac M., 8294, 10975, 12364, 13065, 13661, 13662, 14475, 60433, 61270
Smalley, J., 27577
Smith, DeWitt C., 45528
Smith, E. H., 20739, 21089, 96160
Smith, H. B., 12247
Smith, J. M., 31334
Smith, Lewis H., 31411, 32385
Smith, John C., 34988
Smith, James H., 148902
Smith, Wilson H., 28785
Smith, W. M., 225199
Smith, William T., 99743
Smyth, D. M., 126845, 234732
Snediker, J. F., 222089
Snyder, Watson, 22987
Spencer, James C., 24061
Spencer, James H., and Lamb, Thomas, 22137
Speirs, John, 152813
Spoehr, F., 101779
Springer, William A., 128919, 142290, 147441
Stackpole, G., and Applegate, J. H., 220314
Stannard, M., 64184
Stedman, G. W., 12074, 12573, 12798, 13856
Stein, M. J., 81956, 113593
Stevens, George, and Hendy, Joshua, 111488
Steward, A., 207454
Stewart, James, Jr., 141397, 432449
Stewart, W. T., 205698
Stoakes, J. W., 32456
Sullivan, John J., 179232
Sutton, William A., 29202
Swartwout, H. L., 89357
Swingle, A., 14207
Taft, J. C., 547866
Tapley, G. S., 25059
Tarbox, John N., 49803
Tate, William J., 113704
Taylor, F. B., 146721
Temple, John, 358088
Thayer, Augustus, 172205
Thimonnier, E., and Vernaz, C., 287592
Thomas, Joseph, 330170
Thomas, J., 236466
Thompson, J., 27082
Thompson, T. C., 9641
Thompson, Rosewell, 34926, 42449
Thurston, C. H., 233300
Tittman, Alexander, 89093, 136792
Toll, Charles F., 171193
Tracy, Dwight, 30012
Tracy, Dwight, and Hobbs, George, 40000
Trip, J., 308711
True, Cyrus B., 148336
Tucker, R. D., 320898
Tucker, Joseph C., 56641
Turner, M. G., 312306
Turner, S. S., 133553
Tuttle, J. W., and Keith, T. K., 219782
Thompson, George, 115255
Uhlinger, W. P., 21224
Upson, L. A., 176153
Van Vechten, O. R., 302063
Varicas, L., 204864
Venner, O., 133814
Veukler, W., 255916
Wagener, Jeptha A., 40296
Walker, William, 141407, 176101, 320099, 353720
Walker and Bennet, 428548
Ward, D. T., 12146
Wardwell, Simon W., Jr., 128684, 141245, 148339
Warth, Albin, 56646, 73064
Washburn, T. S., 30031
Waterbury, Enos, 79037
Watson, William C., 14433, 18834
Weber, Theodore A., 145823, 166236
Webb, T., and Heartfield, C. H., 213537
Webster, W., 182249, 402497
Weitling, W., 37931, 45777
Wells, W. W., 209843
Wensley, James, 152055, 207230
West, Elliott P., 117708, 130674, 138772
West, H. B., and Willson, H. F., 20753
Wheeler, Nathaniel, 420847
Wheeler, Nathaniel, and Dial, Wilbur F., 328165
Wheeler, Darius, and Carpenter, Lunan, 21100
Whitehill, Robert, 166172
Wickersham, William, 9679, 18068, 18069
Wilder, M. G., 32323
Wilkins, J. N., 36591
Wilkinson, Charles E., 269251
Willcox, Charles H., 42036, 43819, 44490, 44491, 218413, 230212, 246700
Willcox, C. H., and Borton, S., 472094
Willcox, C. H., and Carleton, C., 116521, 116523, 116783
Wilson, Allen B., 7776, 8296, 9041
Wiseman, Edmund, 228711
Witherspoon, S. A., 176211
Winter, William, 88936
Wollenberg, H., and Priesner, J., 206848
Wood, John, 185811
Wood, Richard G., 207928
Woodruff, George B., and Browning, George, 97014
Woodward, E., 247285
Woodward, F. G., 25782
Woodward, Erastus, and Keith, Thomas K., 316927
Wormald, William, and Dobson, Edmund, 169881
Young, E. S., and Dimond, G. H., 206992
General Index to Chapters 1-4
Adams and Dodge, 9
Aetna Sewing Machine Company, 40
American Buttonhole and Sewing Machine Company, 40
Archbold, Thomas, 13
Arrowsmith, George A., 11
Bachelder, John, 22, 30, 34, 41, 42
Baker, William E., 36 (_see_ Grover & Baker)
Bartholf, A., 24, 40
Bartlett Sewing Machine Company, 40
Bartram & Fanton Manufacturing Company, 40
Bean, Benjamin W., 13, 14, 15
Blees Sewing Machine Company, 40
Bliss, George, 24
Blodgett and Lerow, 24, 26, 30
Blodgett, Sherbrune C., 25
Bradshaw, John A., 21, 22, 26, 27
Brown, W. N., 50
Centennial Sewing Machine Company, 40
Chapman, Edward Walter, 7, 19
Chapman, William, 7
Clark, D. W., 47, 49
Clark, Edward, 33, 34, 35
Combination, Sewing-Machine, 23, 24, 38, 41-42, 47, 48
Conant, Jotham S., 22
Corliss, George H., 14, 15, 16
Dale, John D., 54
Davis, Ari, 19
Davis Sewing Machine Company, 40
Demorest, Madame, 53
Dodge, Rev. John Adam, 9
Domestic Sewing Machine Company, 40
Duncan, John, 6, 19
Elliptic Sewing Machine Company, 40
Ellithorp, S. B., 51
Ellithorp & Fox, 51
Empire Sewing Machine Company, 40
Fairy Sewing Machine, 53
Family Sewing Machine (Singer), 35
Finkle & Lyon Manufacturing Company, 40
Fisher, George, 19
Fisher, John, 15, 16
Florence Sewing Machine Company, 40
Folsom, J. G., 40
Gibbons, James, 15
Gibbs, James E. A., 45, 48
Goddard, Rice & Co., 25
Gold Medal Sewing Machine Company, 40, 53
Goodspeed & Wyman Sewing Machine Company, 40
Grasshopper, The, 35
Greenough, John J., 13, 14
Grover & Baker Sewing Machine Company, 24, 35, 37, 38, 40, 41
Grover, William O., 35, 38
Heberling, John, 54
Henderson, James, 6
Hendrick, Joseph, 49
Heyer, W. D., 52
Hook, Albert H., 50
Howe, Amasa B., 24
Howe, Elias, Jr., 11, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 28, 29, 33, 34, 41,
42, 138 (biographical sketch)
Howe Machine Company (Elias), 25
Howe Sewing Machine Company (Amasa, then B. P.), 24, 25, 40
Hunt, Walter, 10, 11, 19, 33, 138 (biographical sketch)
Jenny Lind (sewing machine), 30
Johnson, Joseph B., 22
Keystone Sewing Machine Company, 40
Kline, A. P., 27
Knowles, John, 9
Krems, Balthasar, 7, 19
Ladd & Webster Sewing Machine Company, 40
Leavitt Sewing Machine Company, 40
Lee, Edward, 27
Lee, E. & Co., 27, 28
Lerow, John A., 24, 25
Little Gem, 53
London Sewing Machine, 22
Lye, Henry, 9
McKay Sewing Machine Association, 40
Madersperger, Josef, 8, 9, 12, 13
Magnin, Jean Marie, 11, 22
Mason, The Honorable Charles, 13
Morey, Charles, 22
Morey & Johnson, 23, 34, 42
Newton, Edward, 13
Nichols and Bliss, 24
Palmer, Aaron, 52
Parham Sewing Machine Company, 40
Perry, James, 49
Phelps, Orson C., 25, 30, 31
Potter, Orlando B., 37, 38, 41
Remington Sewing Machine Company, 40
Robertson, T. J. W., 47
Rodgers, James, 15
Safford & Williams Makers, 22
Saint, Thomas, 4, 5, 19
Secor Sewing Machine Company, 40
Shaw & Clark Sewing Machine Co., 40, 54
Singer, Isaac Merritt, 23, 25, 30, 31, 33, 34, 35, 41, 142
(biographical sketch)
Singer, I. M. Company, 13, 32, 34, 40
Singer Manufacturing Co., 30, 40, 42
Singer's Perpendicular Action Sewing Machine, 30, 31
Stone, Thomas, 6
Thimonnier, Barthelemy, 11, 19, 137 (biographical sketch)
Thomas, William, 20
Thompson, C. F., 40
Turtleback Machine (Singer), 35
Union Buttonhole Machine Company, 40
Warren and Woodruff, 28
Weatherill, Jacob, 37
Weed Sewing Machine Company, 40
Weisenthal, Charles F., 4, 19
Wheeler & Wilson Manufacturing Company, 22, 29, 30, 40
Wheeler, Wilson and Company, 24, 28, 41
Wheeler, Nathaniel, 27, 28
Willcox and Gibbs Sewing Machine Company, 40, 46, 48
Willcox, Charles, 46, 48
Willcox, James, 46
Wilson, Allen Benjamin, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 141 (biographical sketch).
(_See_ Wheeler & Wilson.)
Wilson, Newton, 4
Wilson, (W. G.), Sewing Machine Company, 40
Woolridge, Keene, and Moore, 24
Zieber, George, 30, 33
Transcriber's Notes:
Table layouts have been changed to avoid very long line lengths.
Footnotes have been moved to Chapter ends. Minor punctuation errors have
been corrected without note. The following typographical errors have
been corrected/noted:
Footnote 9 "Praktisches Wissen von der Nähmaschine."--was "Praktisches
wissen von der Nähmaschine."
p. 11 "a loop in the other"--was "a loop in the the other"
p. 19 "chainstitch, Thimonnier used"--was "chainstitch, Thimmonier
used"
p. 76 "known to be in existence is"--was "known to be in eixstence is"
p. 80 "7501-12500, 1873;"--was "7501-12500, 8173;"
p. 119 "shaped like an open [?] into which"--A letter or symbol appears
to be missing in the original between open and into.
p. 119 "181161-220318"--overlaps range of previous entry.
p. 130 "June 30, 1874 |152,618"--was "Jan. 30, 1874 |152,618"
p. 138 "Villefranche-sur-Saône"--was "Ville-franche-sur-Saône"
p. 145 "Praktisches Wissen von der Nähmaschine."--was "Praktisches
wissin von der Nähmaschine."
p. 153 "O'Neil, John, 137618"--was "O'Niel, John, 137618"
*** End of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "The Invention of the Sewing Machine" ***
Copyright 2023 LibraryBlog. All rights reserved.