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. | | | | | |
|AEtna 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. | | | | | |
|AEtna 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.