Chapter II: Part 2

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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_

+-------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | 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_

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]

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.

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."