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 L250
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_: