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