SERIES PUBLICATIONS OF THE SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION

Emphasis upon publication as a means of “diffusing knowledge” was expressed by the first Secretary of the Smithsonian. In his formal plan for the Institution, Joseph Henry outlined a program that included the following statement: “It is proposed to publish a series of reports, giving an account of the new discoveries in science, and of the changes made from year to year in all branches of knowledge.” This theme of basic research has been adhered to through the years by thousands of titles issued in series publications under the Smithsonian imprint, commencing with Smithsonian Contributions to Knowledge in 1848 and continuing with the following active series:

Smithsonian Contributions to Anthropology
Smithsonian Contributions to Astrophysics
Smithsonian Contributions to Botany
Smithsonian Contributions to the Earth Sciences
Smithsonian Contributions to the Marine Sciences
Smithsonian Contributions to Paleobiology
Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology
Smithsonian Folklife Studies
Smithsonian Studies in Air and Space
Smithsonian Studies in History and Technology

In these series, the Institution publishes small papers and full-scale monographs that report the research and collections of its various museums and bureaux or of professional colleagues in the world of science and scholarship. The publications are distributed by mailing lists to libraries, universities, and similar institutions throughout the world.

Papers or monographs submitted for series publication are received by the Smithsonian Institution Press, subject to its own review for format and style, only through departments of the various Smithsonian museums or bureaux, where the manuscripts are given substantive review. Press requirements for manuscript and art preparation are outlined on the inside back cover.

Robert McC. Adams
Secretary
Smithsonian Institution

SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY • NUMBER 49

Technology in Miniature

American Textile Patent Models
1819–1840

Barbara Suit Janssen

SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION PRESS

Washington, D.C.

1988

ABSTRACT

Janssen, Barbara Suit. Technology in Miniature: American Textile Patent Models 1819–1840. Smithsonian Studies in History and Technology, number 49, 147 pages, 87 numbered figures, 5 unnumbered portraits, 1 table, 1988.—To obtain a patent in the nineteenth century, an inventor had to submit a written specification, a drawing, and a model to the United States Patent Office. This catalog is concerned with the textile patent models in the collection of the Division of Textiles of the National Museum of American History, Smithsonian Institution. Forty early models and their accompanying drawings are discussed.

OFFICIAL PUBLICATION DATE is handstamped in a limited number of initial copies and is recorded in the Institution’s annual report, Smithsonian Year. COVER DESIGN: Patent 352: Doubling and Twisting Thread machine, issued August 15, 1837. Photo by Richard Strauss.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publicalion Data
Janssen, Barbara Suit
Technology in miniature.

(Smithsonian studies in history and technology ; no. 49)

Catalog of textile patent models in the collection of the Division of Textiles of the National Museum of American History, Smithsonian Institution.

Bibliography; p.

Supt. of Docs, no.: SI 1.28:49

1. Textile machinery—Patents—Catalogs. 2. Models (Patents)—United States—-Catalogs. 3. National Museum of American History (U.S.)—Catalogs. I. National Museum of American History (U.S.) II. Title. III. Series.

TS1109.J325   1988   677′.028   87–600374

Foreword

The U.S. Congress decided in 1908 that the Patent Office no longer needed to keep its huge collection of patent models and initiated a process of dispersal that has continued under different auspices to the present. For close to half a century, the Patent Office had required models, preferably not more than twelve inches square, with each patent application. In 1870, the new patent law dropped the model requirement, yet the commissioner of patents continued to request models for another ten years. But these little emblems of a mechanical age would soon be made redundant by the growth of invention in electricity and chemistry, inventions that were often impossible to “model.” Furthermore the Patent Office could barely contain the quarter million or so models it had collected over the years. The Smithsonian Institution, once in 1908 and again in 1926, accessioned a total of eight thousand of those it deemed the most important, that is, those that had a known impact or were the products of prominent inventors. The rest have been scattered to the winds. Some have found their way to museums; others, through auctions and sales, are now in private hands; many others have been lost, damaged, destroyed. For most curators of technology collections the fate of the patent models is nothing less than a national scandal. But why should anyone care? Why should we collect and study patent models?

In the nineteenth century such questions would never have been asked. The Patent Office displayed its models prominently, even grandly. Objects of veneration, examples of creativity, they spoke eloquently of national pride. They were never kept simply as a record of invention, nor just as a means for disclosing originality. The models were icons of American ingenuity, symbols of a smug, triumphant century. For many collectors today—museums included—the models retain such piously nationalist meanings. Throughout this century, however, our unquenchable capacity for novelty has reduced their import to the status of curios, quaint reminders of a bygone and simpler time. But just what scholarly questions do they help answer?

Historians—even those who work in museums—are not very good at posing questions about objects. We are more comfortable with words, with books, with manuscripts. Objects are more difficult to “read,” they do not reveal their meanings easily. More accurately, perhaps, objects reveal their surface meanings (form, style, even use) all too easily; but it is their latent or hidden meanings, the discovery of which constitutes the most creative form of twentieth-century inquiry, that remain obscure. So it is not surprising that historians of technology have yet to make significant research use of patent models. Yet the models continue to compel and provoke scholarly interest.

Patent models comprise an unrivaled visual and tactile record of ingenuity, of obsession, of achievement, of failure. They show us how things worked in ways that cannot be as easily nor as fully grasped through drawings and descriptions. These models embody particular visions of mechanical perfectability. They offer insight into the minds of inventors which, when combined with other sources, could provide a clue to the nonverbal thinking now believed to have been central to nineteenth-century invention. And they constitute an extraordinary record of change. Taken as a collection, the patent models are evidence of technological evolution: of change and mutation, of continuity and incremental change, like so many mollusks or sea urchins—not the conceptual model of unilinear progress popular during the nineteenth century. Each model stands at a particular moment in history, expressing both change and continuity, expressing a vocabulary of technical choice—form, motion, purpose—that is as much a social construction as it is the product of individual genius. Once established, technical forms like the power loom and the spinning frame can persist with a remarkable tenacity. Such forms both structure and confine change, and the formal properties of a technology are best studied in the machines and models themselves.

Catalogs like the following will assist further research on patent models. Barbara Suit Janssen has assembled detailed information on the forty earliest patent models in the Division of Textiles collection, while also providing a full listing of the Division’s patent-model holdings. With over 4000 models, the Division’s collection is probably the largest in the country devoted to a single industry. Those doing research on nineteenth-century textile technology will find this an indispensable resource and, I trust, a spur to developing research questions.

Gary Kulik, Chairman
Department of Social and Cultural History
National Museum of American History
Smithsonian Institution

Technology in Miniature
American Textile Patent Models
1819–1840

Barbara Suit Janssen

____________

Barbara Suit Janssen, Division of Textiles, National Museum of American History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 20560.

Introduction

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

The USNM collection of patent models at the National Museum of American History’s Division of Textiles numbers over 4000. This catalog presents a sampling of nineteenth-century technology by illustrating the earliest models in the Division’s collection. The 40 models included in this catalog may be viewed as a microcosm in which the inventions range from obscure and impractical to famous and innovative. They represent the period 1819–1840. This catalog begins the systematic documentation of the Division’s patent models. The group of forty was chosen for its manageable size (considering the amount of conversation, photography, and research required) within the given time and money constraints. The main focus of this catalog is descriptive; no extensive evaluation of the devices has been attempted. Further scholarship is necessary to determine the impact, or lack thereof, of these inventions on the technology or environment (social and/or economic) for which they were intended.

The issuance of a patent is no guarantee that an invention will ever be commercially marketed, and it is likely that the majority of this collection was never manufactured. There were many obstacles to prevent a patented idea from becoming a commercially successful product. Primary among these was that many of the patented inventions were either impractical, overly complex, or made obsolete by a better idea. Nevertheless, the fame and success of inventions like Eli Whitney’s cotton gin and Elias Howe’s sewing machine spurred Americans on to patent almost everything imaginable. This mania for patenting is illustrated, in the textile patent model collection, by its diversity and number of models. The USNM collection, which dates into the early twentieth century, includes commonplace items, such as clothespins (40 models) and baskets (50 models); complex machines, like looms (450 models) and sewing machines (750 models); and fabrics (135 design or construction patents represented). The abundance of patent models testifies to the enthusiasm of Americans to embrace a new idea, build a new machine, and mechanize America from the factory to the home (Table 1).

Fifty patent models in the Division of Textile’s collection were acquired in 1908 from the Patent Office. However, the main body of the Division’s patent models were chosen by Dr. Frederick Lewton, curator of the unit then called Crafts and Industries. This selection took place in 1926 after Congress had decided to dispense with the Patent Office’s museum of patent models. Dr. Lewton was one of two curators of the Smithsonian to select the most important patent models for the U.S. National Museum. He examined the 150,000 models and chose approximately 15,000 for the Smithsonian. Although he selected a broad range of models, his area of specialty was textile machinery and, in particular, sewing machines. Thus his selection of models relating to this area of invention was particularly thorough. The remaining models were sold to private individuals.

By the time the Smithsonian acquired its model collection, the models had endured two major fires at the Patent Office. One fire in 1836 destroyed all the models (7000) that had been submitted up to that date. A second fire in 1877 destroyed 87,000 models out of a collection of 200,000. Of those destroyed, 12,000 were models of inventions that were denied patents and thus not considered important. The 1836 fire was by far the more catastrophic since not only were all the models lost, but 9000 patent drawings and all the records of patent applications and grants were also destroyed. These records were irreplaceable, and Congress considered the loss so great that $100,000 was appropriated to restore the drawings and the most important models. The Patent Office conferred with inventors when and where possible to ensure an accurate reproduction of each invention. This restoration program continued until 1849, at which time several thousand drawings and models had been restored. The restored patents were given a series of numbers called the x-series; they had not been numbered previously.

TABLE 1.—Numbers of patents granted annually by the U.S. Patent Office from 1790 to 1840 (from P.J. Frederico, editor. Journal of the Patent Office Society, 18(July 1936):230–231).

There are six models from the x-series in this catalog that were restored by the Patent Office. Although Eli Whitney’s reconstructed model of the cotton gin is in the collection of the Division of Textiles, it was incorrectly reconstructed by the Patent Office and the restored drawings repeat the same mechanical defect. For these reasons, this model is not germane to this study and is not discussed in this catalog.

The other models, patents 162 to 1902, fall in the regular consecutive numbering system adopted in July 1836. They are the actual models that the inventor submitted along with drawings and written specifications.

Inventors placed great importance on their models and viewed a well-executed model as the key element in obtaining a patent. Therefore, many times the inventor would hire a professional modelmaker to turn a 2-dimensional paper drawing into a 3-dimensional miniature machine. The inventor could also turn to other skilled craftsmen, such as blacksmiths, watchmakers, or cabinetmakers to fabricate models. However, depending on the ability of the inventor, who was often a mechanic, the model would often be homemade.

How a model was constructed depended mostly on what the patented feature was. The inventor had a choice of showing the complete machine or only his patented device. For instance, Charles R. Harvey’s loom for weaving haircloth (490) is a complete miniature of a full-sized loom; whereas, the check and plaid loom (5193x) of Burt, Boyd, and Boyd shows the patented feature, the shuttle boxes, set in the bare framework of a loom. Other models could be the regular size of their commercial counterparts, such as James Baldwin’s loom shuttle (1485); or, in the case of sewing machines, a commercial machine was often submitted as the model with the inventor merely adding his patented feature. It was not essential that the model work; however, many of them did. An example of this is Hiram Wheeler’s spinning wheel (patent 710). In general, the models tended to adhere to requirements of the Patent Office that they not exceed a foot in any dimension.

After 1880, the Patent Office dropped the requirement for submitting a model, except in unusual circumstances. This action was taken primarily because the Patent Office had run out of space in which to store or display the models. It was also true that inventions were becoming more complex and less amenable to representation by models. Once the requirement for submission of a model was rescinded, the decline of a large number of professional modelmakers was assured.

COMPILING THE CATALOG

For the purpose of producing this catalog, several steps were undertaken. The first step was physically dealing with the models: selecting, locating, conserving, and photographing. The next step involved researching the inventor and invention. This step required accessing materials from a variety of sources. A logical starting point was the National Archives’ collection of patent drawings and files of patent applications. Currently, the patent drawings are stored in Washington, D.C., and the patent application files are stored in Suitland, Maryland. Since the location of these records may change, the National Archives suggests that researchers always check for current locations, and that specific references beyond that of acknowledging the National Archives not be made. Another resource for researching patent specifications for the years 1790–1906 is available on microfilm from Research Publications, Inc., New Haven, Connecticut, under the tide “United States Patents.”

The patent drawings that are included in this catalog are divided into two basic groups: the x-series and the utility series. The x-series are the drawings and models that were restored by the Patent Office after the 1836 fire. The utility series consists of the original drawings and models that are consecutively numbered patents beginning in July 1836 and continuing to the present. In both sets, the drawings not only illustrate the invention in detail, but sometimes offer a vignette of the period complete with people in the process of using the invention.

There are two guides available from the National Archives that can be used to identify particular x-series patent drawings: The “Name and Date List” records the x-series numbers consecutively and includes the inventor’s name and date of patent. The other guide, “Inventors of Restored Patents List,” arranges the inventors alphabetically with the x-series number following each name. However, neither list provides a name or description of the invention. Thus, if one wished to study drawings of a particular type of invention, these lists would not be helpful.

Two other publications are useful if one approaches patents from the subject matter standpoint. The first was compiled by Edmund Burke, List of Patents for Inventions and Designs Issued by the United States, from 1790 to 1847. This book classifies patents by subject (according to class) and includes a separate list of patentees. The second publication is an index and guide to the microfilm edition of Early Unnumbered United States Patents 1790–1836. This guide indexes the patents alphabetically by class, by subject, by patentee, and by date. Although both of these publications are helpful in leading one to patent information, neither includes the x-series of patent numbers.

In comparison to the situation of incomplete classification, the patent listings after 1836 are well indexed. Various publications are available that provide this information, the most useful of which are probably the numerous volumes of the Annual Report of the Commissioner of Patents and the Subject-Matter Index of Patents for Inventions Issued by the United States Patent Office from 1790 to 1873, Inclusive (three volumes). The Annual Reports, starting in 1841, contain a patent listing arranged by either subject (class), patentee’s name and/or patent number. The latter publication condenses the patent lists from 1790 to 1873 in an alphabetical form according to the subject of invention.

A shortcut to requesting copies of patent specifications from the Patent Office and a major timesaver can be provided by a library that has a microfilm series of the patent specifications. The National Museum of American History has such a set, which dates from 1790 to 1906. The post-1836 patent specifications are easy to locate by patent numbers. The pre-1836 patents can be located by using the guide Early Unnumbered United States Patents 1790–1836.

The patent application files in the National Archives are another source of information dealing with patents dating after the 1836 fire. Unfortunately, information for patents (1837–1840) in this catalog is, in general, disappointing. A patent application file typically contains a handwritten specification signed by the inventor and the official printed specification and drawing. The original specification usually varies from the final printed specification. If the patent examiner rejected certain claims by the inventor, the file often contains letters from the patentee’s attorney or the patentee explaining or amending the patent claim. The name of the patent examiner is usually written on the patent application jacket. For the patents discussed in this catalog, the examiner was either Charles M. Keller or Thomas P. Jones.

It is the prospect of finding unexpected information that leads one to investigate these files. For instance, interesting details include a petition by Erastus Bigelow to Henry Ellsworth, Patent Commissioner, concerning his loom patent (546):

...paid his Treasury fee and made application for a patent for the above invention somewhere about the first of November 1836 and his papers and model were destroyed by the conflagration of the Patent Office in December...he therefore prays that due notice will be taken on the reception of these his second set of papers and model and his patent be issued forthwith.

and Alden Sibley’s remarks as to the advantages (both economic and mechanical) of using his calico printing machine (patent 823).

One area in which there is room for more research is the study of local histories and genealogies found in the Library of Congress. They merit attention for the sketches about individuals and industries of various towns and cities in the United States. In summary, this catalog presents details of 40 early American textile inventions that were granted patents. These details generally include photographs of the models and drawings with a short narrative, as well as occasional photographs of inventors. The Appendices include basic information on additional models.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I wish to express my appreciation to various staff members of the Smithsonian Institution and others. I particularly would like to thank Rita Adrosko, Curator of the Division of Textiles, Gary Kulik, Chairman of the Department of Social and Cultural History, Douglas Evelyn, Deputy Director, and Kendall J. Dood, U.S. Patent Office, for their encouragement and advice. Joan Horn, Smithsonian Institution Press, furnished excellent editorial assistance, which helped create a more accurate and consistent catalog. Robert L. Klinger and Donald W. Holst provided expert craftsmanship in restoring the patent models. Much appreciated typing assistance was provided by Linda MacLaughlin, Alice McKinney, Mary Jane Young, and Margaret McComb. I am indebted to my husband, Theodore Jon Janssen, whose logic and computer expertise were matched by his understanding and patience, and without whom this catalog might not have been realized. Special thanks are in order to The Ruth and Vernon Taylor Foundation, which provided funding for the Patent Model Data Base Project upon which this catalog is based.

RESTORED PATENT 5193x: Check and Plaid Power Loom

Issued August 19, 1828

Enoch Burt, Oliver D. Boyd, and
Amos H. Boyd

Manchester, Hartford Co., Connecticut

In their patent, Burt and the Boyds claimed the shifting and alternating of shuttles without stopping the motion of the power loom. The number of shuttle boxes corresponded to the number of colors in the check or plaid to be woven. They also patented a stop motion which halted weaving by the action of a lever if the weft thread broke or the shuttle bobbin ran out of thread.

Scientific American credits “Rev. Enoch Burt, a man of splendid genius,” with having taken out the first patent (5193x) for a gingham loom in 1828.¹ Burt also patented a cloth shearing machine in 1807, a check power loom in 1837, a rag dusting machine in 1838, a stop motion in 1845, and fancy check power looms in 1851 and 1854.²

FIGURE 1.—Restored patent model 5193x. (S.I neg. 80–12387)

Further notice was given to Burt and the Boyds for their 1828 patent in Gilroy’s book, The Art of Weaving, published in 1844. In the book, he devoted two pages to describing the mechanics of their loom, but did not comment on the significance of their invention.³

FIGURE 2.—Restored patent drawing 5193x. (U.S. National Archives)

RESTORED PATENT 8191x: Cloth Shearing Machine

Issued May 13, 1834

Reuben Daniels

Woodstock, Windsor Co., Vermont

In this patent, Daniels claimed the hollow construction of the cylinder to which the twisted shearing blades were soldered. He also claimed a method of fabricating the ledger blade and the cylinder with the shearing blades, which resulted in their being suitably still enough to be sharpened by using emery and oil. He explains.

The method of grinding the ledger blade, and those on the revolving cylinder, is this: after making them as true as possible in any of the ordinary ways of grinding, they are to be pul into their places in the machine, with adjusting screws to bring the ledger blade against the cylinder; a rapid motion is then to be given to the latter, which motion must be continued until they are perfectly fitted into each other; emery, or other suitable substance, being used in the grinding.¹

FIGURE 3.—Restored patent model 8191x; note the shearing cylinder in front of the model. (S.I. neg. 82–2563)

The editor of the Journal of the Franklin Institute commented:

Whether the foregoing modes of procedure are perfectly new, or to what extent they are so, we leave to the experience of those in the habit of using, and keeping in order, the kind of shearing machine to which they refer.²

Evidently the sharpening procedure was neither new nor successful. In Daniels’ amended patent, reissued on August 22, 1834, he added a new sliding rest that saved the selvages from the wearing action of the blades and he reiterated the construction features; he did not include the technique of sharpening the blades.³

In 1831, Daniels, in partnership with others, formed a machine shop under the name of R. Daniels and Co. Power for the shop machinery was furnished by water from a canal. The firm was successful in manufacturing carding machines, spinners, shearing machines, pickers, and other similar machines. They employed some fifty men. In 1836, The Burlington Mill Company bought $24,000 worth of machinery from the firm. The R. Daniels and Co. partnership dissolved in 1842 due to unfavorable economic conditions. However, the shop continued under the management of others and kept producing Daniels’ patented machines.⁴

FIGURE 4.—Restored patent drawing 8191x. (U.S. National Archives)

RESTORED PATENT 8952½x: Wool Combing Machine

Issued July 7, 1835

Samuel Couillard, Jr.

Boston, Suffolk Co., Massachusetts

Couillard’s machine separated the different lengths of wool fibers and brought them together after separation. This was done by the use of a revolving tooth belt in combination with a card or tooth cylinder. These features comprised his patent claims.¹

In 1835, the year of Couillard’s invention, combing was commonly done by hand. His invention was thought to be responsible for introducing worsted manufacture in the United States. Michael H. Simpson of Boston made use of Couillard’s machine in 1835. In 1854 and 1857, Simpson patented improvements to Couillard’s comber, which increased its production by more than five-fold. This improved comber was widely used in the United States for preparing wool for carpets. John Hayes declared it was the best combing machine for the type of wool called “carpet-wools.”²

FIGURE 5.—Restored patent model 8952 1/2x. (S.I. neg. 81–4415)

Couillard’s patent of July 7, 1835 was reissued several times: June 16, 1836 and on July 6, 1839 (as No. 9). From the issuance of the first patent forward, the New England Worsted Company is listed as the assignee. It can be assumed that this company was using his machine and probably employed Couillard while he was developing the inventions.³

FIGURE 6.—Restored patent drawing 8952 ½x. (U.S. National Archives)

RESTORED PATENT 9098x: Wool and Flax Combing Machine

Issued September 18, 1835

William W. Calvert

Lowell, Middlesex Co., Massachusetts

William W. Calvert, a machinist, accomplished the separation of short and long fibers by the combination of a bristle or wire brush, which brushed the wool into teeth set on a cylinder, and the prong of a “universal swiper,” which caught the long fibers and drew them out to be carried on a friction belt into a drawing can. The long fibers were then in the form of continuous roping and were ready for spinning.

It was noted with approval in the Journal of the Franklin Institute, 1836:

We think that much ingenuity and skill are manifested in the mode adopted for carrying out the conceptions of the patentee, but we are unable to offer any opinion of the probable success of the plan, as it is, in the present instance especially, a question of experience.¹

In an account of the Patent Office fire of 1836, Calvert is mentioned as one of six American inventors (including Thorp and Couillard), whose patents pertained

to the spinning of cotton and wool and the manufacture of fabrics [which] reduced so much the expense of manufacture, that the British manufacturers were reluctantly obliged, at the expense of no little national pride, to lay aside their own machinery and adopt our improvements, to prevent our underselling them even in their own home market.²

FIGURE 7.—Restored patent drawing 9098x. (U.S. National Archives)

George W. Lyman of Boston, Massachusetts, was the assignee.

FIGURE 8.—Restored patent model 9098x. (S.I. neg. 81–4413)

RESTORED PATENT 9743x: Reeling,
Spinning, and Twisting Silk Machine

Issued June 20, 1836

Adam Brooks

Scituate, Plymouth Co., Massachusetts

Brooks’ machine was an improvement on an earlier patent of June 29, 1833 (7619x) for which the American Institute awarded him a gold medal at their tenth Annual Fair.¹ He was also awarded a diploma for his improvements at their twelfth Annual Fair in 1839.²

The machine drew silk from cocoons that were lying in a pan of hot water. The heat of the water caused the threads of the cocoons to unwind. Once the threads of the cocoons were loose, they were drawn through guiding wires, between rollers, over spindles, through rings, and then fastened to spools. Following this, the silk was reeled, spun, and twisted into sewing thread. John Thorp’s patented ring spinner of 1828 (5280x) had replaced the flyers.³ Note that the stylized drawing (Figure 11) shows flyers, whereas the model (Figure 10) and the patent drawing (not illustrated) show Thorp’s ring spinner.

Two members of the Committee on Science and the Arts of the Franklin Institute examined Brooks’ patent. They found it “merely a combination in a compact and convenient form of several contrivances already known and in use.”⁴ However, after they watched it work and examined the sewing thread that it produced, they were favorably impressed. Their opinion was that

its simplicity of form and efficiency of action adapt it in an especial manner for use in small establishments and families: enabling them by a moderate expenditure and with a degree of skill easily acquired to convert their raw material into a form suitable for domestic use or convenient for carriage to a market.⁵

The Journal of the American Institute also reported on Brooks’ patent.

... It is not only a most ingenious invention, but, in their judgment, cannot fail of becoming eminently useful. It seems to solve the problem, which has induced great doubt, whether the culture of silk in the United States would be profitably prosecuted, from the difficulty of good reeling of silk from cocoons, without very considerable manual instruction. The committee is satisfied, that an ingenious female can almost immediately leam to reel on Mr. Brooks’ machine, in a perfect manner.⁶

Silver medals were awarded to three women who used Brooks’ patented machine. At the eighth Annual Fair of the American Institute, Harriet and Charlotte Stark, of Dunbarton, New Hampshire, won a medal for silk sewing thread.⁷ Brooks’ wife was awarded a medal at the twelfth Annual Fair for a pair of silk stockings and a printed silk handkerchief made “from a piece 40 yards, grown, spun and wove by herself.”⁸

FIGURE 9.—Harriet and Charlotte Stark proud of their prize winning skein of silk twist, which they had produced on Brooks’ machine, displayed the silk skein and silver medal framed together. (S.I. neg. 80–20146)

FIGURE 10.—Restored patent model 9743x. (S.I. neg. 80–16792)

FIGURE 11.—This illustration of Brooks’ patent accompanied an article in the American Institute Journal, 1838, which described how the machine worked.

PATENT 162: Loom Shuttle-Tongue

Issued April 17, 1837

Comfort B. Thorp

Smithfield, Providence Co., Rhode Island

Comfort Thorp was the younger brother of John Thorp, an important textile machinery inventor. Comfort worked for Thomas and William Fletcher in their mill near North Providence.¹ His patent improved the method of securing and holding the cop on the common power loom shuttle, preventing slips that would waste yarn and cause imperfections in the cloth. The patent model submitted by Thorp contained two types of tongues. One used a common round tongue with wire spiraled around it. The other consisted of a tongue with ridges or notches similar to the teeth of a saw blade.

FIGURE 12.—Patent model 162. The two loom shuttle-tongues were exhibited in a box, probably to keep them from being lost at the Patent Office. (S.I. neg. 80–12384)

FIGURE 13.—Patent drawing 162. (U.S. National Archives)

PATENT 291: Self-adjusting Loom Temple

Issued July 22, 1837

Samuel P. Mason

Newport, Newport Co., Rhode Island

Temples are attachments on looms designed to keep the cloth at a uniform width during weaving. Self-acting temples required no adjustment as the cloth was woven, i.e., they automatically adjusted their position. The greater speed obtained with power-weaving made the use of self-acting temples a necessity.¹

The basic construction of Mason’s temples was similar to other temples of the period. The patented feature of his temple concerned the arrangement of the parts by which the jaws or forceps were forced open and released their hold on the cloth.²

Mason patented other useful textile machinery. Perhaps the most notable were a speeder for roving cotton in 1830 and a cotton whipper in 1834, which James Montgomery, in 1840, considered the best, cheapest, and simplest whipper that he had seen in factory use over a span of thirty years. There is no evidence that Samuel Mason was related to William Mason, who also invented a speeder for roving cotton in 1838 (see patent 724).³

FIGURE 14.—Patent model 291. (S.I neg. 80–15214)

FIGURE 15.—Patent drawing 291. (U.S. National Archives)

PATENT 350: Cloth Napping Machine

Issued August 8, 1837

Benjamin Swasey

Mount Vernon, Kennebec Co., Maine

Swasey’s patent concerned the setting of teazles in the wires of the large napping cylinder. He also claimed certain springs and levers that shifted the cloth rollers in and out of gear. This shifting of the cloth rollers caused the cloth to come in contact with the teazles as the cloth was wound forward and then disengaged the cloth from the teazles as the cloth rewound. In this way, the cloth could roll from one cylinder to another as long as necessary to ensure a well-napped surface. An additional benefit was that the shifting of gears was accomplished without the “aid of a person to match and unmatch the gear work.”¹ Tension on the cloth was kept even by friction bands on the ends of the cloth rollers together with hanging weights.

FIGURE 16.—Patent drawing 350. (U.S. National Archives)

FIGURE 17.—Patent model 350. (S.I neg. 81–13338)

PATENT 352: Doubling and Twisting Thread Machine

Issued August 15, 1837

John Golding

Dedham, Norfolk Co., Massachusetts

Golding specified that the frame of the doubling and twisting machine was to be constructed like any of the “modem” frames with gears and an eccentric or heart motion to guide the thread on the spool. His patent claim concerned the arrangement of the machinery that prevented wasting the thread if it broke. This was accomplished by stopping the spindle and throwing up the feeding-down roller.

FIGURE 18.—Patent model 352. (S.I neg. 80–15215)

FIGURE 19.—Patent drawing 352. (U.S. National Archives)

PATENT 490: Hair Cloth Loom

Issued November 25, 1837

Charles R. Harvey

Poughkeepsie, Dutchess Co., New York

Weaving with horsehair was difficult and slow because the weaver had to select an individual horsehair for each weft and insert it into the warp. Harvey’s loom was a step toward mechanizing this process. However, he only dealt with changing from a hand loom to a power loom, not with the problem of weaving with horsehair. Even in his patent specification, he mentioned that the “hook” (a simple wooden rod with a hook at one end by which the horsehair was drawn in to be woven) is “made in the usual way.” Harvey detailed his improvements as the application of power to both the movement of the hook and the operation of the loom overall.

At the tenth Annual Fair of the American Institute, in 1837, Harvey was awarded a gold medal for his “hair seating loom.” The Journal of the American Institute, published in 1838, remarked that “this is the first application of power to weaving hair cloth; and conceming the extent of the article (hair cloth) now used for furniture, we think the loom is entitled to the highest consideration.”¹

FIGURE 20.—Patent drawing 490. (U.S. National Archives)

FIGURE 21.—Patent model 490. (S.I neg. 80–16793)

PATENT 491: Fancy Power Loom

Issued November 25, 1837

William Crompton

Taunton, Bristol Co., Massachusetts

Before William Crompton’s patent was adopted, the harnesses of power looms were controlled by cams. This arrangement limited the number of harnesses that could be utilized, which in turn limited the complexity of patterns that could be woven. In order to vary the pattern the cams had to be laboriously changed. Crompton’s invention solved both of these problems. In his patent, an endless pattern chain was used, upon which rollers or pins could be variously placed to engage the harness levers (as had the cams) but which allowed any number of harnesses to be used and eaily permitted the changing of patterns. Thus more elaborate designs could be easily woven on power looms.¹

William Crompton, an Englishman,² had only been in the United States a year, when he designed this loom. He was employed by Crocker and Richmond, a textile mill in Taunton, Massachusetts, which failed that same year. Crompton went back to England where he entered into the cotton manufacture with John Rostran, in whose name he took out a British patent for his loom. Later in 1839 Crompton returned to the United States to promote his looms. He met with success when the Middlesex Mills in Lowell, Massachusetts, invited him to alter his fancy cotton loom for the weaving of woolen fabrics. This he accomplished in 1840 and it was considered an important landmark for the woolen industry.³ Hayes quotes the Committee on Patents of the United States House of Representatives, 1878, that “upon the Crompton loom or looms based upon it, are woven every yard of fancy cloth in the world.”⁴

In 1849, Crompton became incapacitated for work, but his son, George, carried on the business. After 1859, the Crompton Loom Work became one of the two largest fancy loom manufacturers in the United States.⁵

FIGURE 22.—Patent model 491. (S.I neg. 81–5253)

FIGURE 23.—Patent drawing 491. (U.S. National Archives)

PATENT 544: Loom Heddles and Harness

Issued December 29, 1837

Benjamin Hartford and William B. Tilton

Enfield, Grafton Co., New Hampshire

Hartford and Tilton improved upon the construction of heddles by using strips of rolled flat metal with an eye punched through the middle of each strip to allow for the passage of warp yams. Heddles were commonly constructed of cord. The replacement of metal for cord produced a more durable heddle. These one-piece metallic strips and the construction of the heddle frame were the basis of their patent. The heddles slid on two rods and were attached to clasps that could be adjusted permitting the heddles to correspond to the part of the reed that was in operation.

The editor of the Journalof the Franklin Institute noted that “instead of the cord usually employed in making the harness, it is to be composed of strips of metal....”¹

FIGURE 24.—Patent drawing 544. (U.S. National Archives)

FIGURE 25.—Patent model 544. (S.I neg. 82–2564)

PATENT 546: Loom for Weaving Knotted Counterpanes

Issued January 6, 1838

Erastus B. Bigelow

West Boylston, Worcester Co., Massachusetts

Erastus B. Bigelow¹ primarily claimed the mechanism that raised the knots which formed the figures or patterns on the counterpane. His patent specification was lengthy, consisting of five pages of drawings and nine pages of written specifications.

The editor of the Journal of the Franklin Institute remarked in an article that

the goods produced in this loom are of a quality very superior to such as are produced in the hand loom; at all events we have not met with any thing of the kind in the shops that will compare with them for texture, and for beauty and regularity of pattern. We speak advisedly on this point, having two of them in use, that have been examined by persons who are good judges in such matters. Of their durability there cannot be any doubt, and the friends of domestic industry will be glad to learn that the manufacture is so much facilitated by the invention of Mr. Bigelow as to cause them to be afforded at a price considerably below that at which those of an inferior quality can be imported, and yet to give a satisfactory remuneration to the manufacturer . . . .

We anticipate that at a very early day, American counterpanes will become as general as berths on board steamboats, and as beds at hotels. The articles ate for sale in all our large cities, and as soon as there is a sufficient supply, will make their way into every part of the Union.²

FIGURE 26.—Patent drawing 546. (U.S. National Archives)

Bigelow was a prolific inventor, including the patenting of at least 33 looms. In 1842 he revolutionized carpet manufacture by a series of inventions that made the carpet loom automatic. The automatic features enabled the manufacturers to replace male weavers with less costly female weavers or boys. His inventions for the power weaving of Ingrain, Brussels, Jacquard, and Wilton carpets were quite successful. Before the middle of the nineteenth century, the importance of these inventions was recognized, not only in the United States but also in Europe.³

The 1950 issue of The Bigelow Magazine, published by the Bigelow-Sanford Carpet Company for their 125th anniversary, included an article on Bigelow in which he was headlined as the “Father of the modem carpet industry.”⁴

FIGURE 27.—Patent model 546. (S.I neg. 81–4414)

PATENT 595: Power Loom

Issued February 6, 1838

Elijah Fairman

Stafford, Tolland Co., Connecticut

Fairman’s improvements, consisting of an additional cam and set of treadles, were additions to power looms in common use. His improvements allowed the harnesses to operate more smoothly and the warp to open, through which the shuttle passed more easily. The end result was that the loom was better suited to weaving either light or heavy fabrics.

Six pages and three illustrations in Gilroy’s book, The Art of Weaving, are spent in describing Fairman’s patent. Gilroy commented that Fairman’s loom would probably work fine for simple weaves, but for fancy patterned work, one requiring 10–100 heddle frame, it would be totally impractical.¹

FIGURE 28.—This illustration of Fairman’s loom accompanied an article in Scientific American, 1845, which described his improvement to the satinet loom. (S.T. neg. 82–2780)

Scientific American published an excerpt from Gilroy’s remarks on Fairman’s loom and included one engraving. At the end of the article there was advertized for sale an “invaluable work entitled The Art of Weaving, by Gilroy, which included a series of descriptions, with illustrations, of many different inventions.”²

FIGURE 29.—Patent model 595. (S.I. neg. 80–20144)

PATENT 596: Cordage Machine

Issued February 7, 1838

Moses Day

Roxbury, Norfolk Co., Massachusetts

This patent was an improvement on Day’s earlier patent (9692x) of June 2,1836, which was destroyed in the 1836 fire and reconstructed by the Patent Office for the Columbian Exposition of 1893. The difference between the two patents is the addition of a gauge-plate to the end of the machine by which it became a strandmaker. In Figure 32, the perforated gauge-plate on the end of the twisting machine is in the shape of a circle with ears. The toothed bench with flax laying on it in the restored drawing of patent 9692x was replaced in patent drawing 596 with a bobbin frame, which fed the cordage machine with the desired number of strands to be twisted into cord. Day stated that his method of making cordage had two advantages over those in common use. First, the twist given to the strand was uniform throughout its length. Second, as the cord was made, it was wound on a bobbin, thereby eliminating the need for long rope walks and large buildings. Thus, the whole process could be done in a room that was only slightly larger than the cordage machine and the bobbin frame.

FIGURE 30.—Restored patent drawing 9692x. (U.S. National Archives)

FIGURE 31.—Patent drawing 596. (U.S. National Archives)

FIGURE 32.—Patent model 596. (S.I neg. 81–5252)

FIGURE 33.—Restored patent model 9692x. (S.I neg. 82–3601)

PATENT 710: Domestic Spinning Wheel

Issued April 25, 1838

Hiram F. Wheeler

Springville, Susquehanna Co., Pennsylvania

Hiram Wheeler’s domestic wheel was intended to spin wool and tow. He titled his invention “inclined spinner,” referring to the fact that the operator would sit at the machine as opposed to standing and walking when using the typical wool wheel. When the treadle was forced down with the foot, a cord ran out the carriage and the spinning wheel head. A weight brought them back toward the spinner. This movement of the carriage was equivalent to the spinner walking forward to the spindle tip for the draw out and then back to the wheel. Wheeler specifically claimed as his invention this sliding action of the wheel head.

The editor of the 1839 Journal of the Franklin Institute remarked of the wheel that “there is little probability that our readers will ever see [the wheel], unless it be in the form of a model, at the Patent Office.”¹ This prediction seems to have been valid, because there are no other known existing spinning wheels bearing his patent.

FIGURE 34.—Patent drawing 710. (U.S. National Archives)

FIGURE 35.—Patent model 710. (S.I. neg. 80–20145)

PATENT 724: Speeder for Roving Cotton

Issued May 4, 1838

William Mason

Taunton, Bristol Co., Massachusetts

In 1837, William Mason,¹ who was employed by Crocker and Richmond, developed a speeder to replace the Taunton speeder that had been invented by George Danforth in 1824.

Mason’s patent consisted of two parts: the mode of withdrawing the spindle for the doffing and the centrifugal levers. The editor of the Journal of the Franklin Institute stated of the first part that the mode was “ingenious, and manifestly good.” Of the second part he explained that “by their weight, at their outer ends, these levers expand by the centrifugal force, with a power proportioned to their velocity, causing their inner ends to press upon the spools, and laying the yard hard and compact upon them; and consequently, admitting of a very high degree of speed.”²

Although Mason was successful in improving the speeder (for which he was awarded patent 724) it was difficult to thread and to remove the bobbins. In addition, the speeder created coarse rovings at a time in the late 1830s when finer materials were becoming popular. The speeder later proved inferior to an improved English fly frame and disappeared from use in the 1840s and 1850s.³

FIGURE 36.—Patent drawing 724; the centrifugal levers are depicted “Fig. 5.” (U.S National Archives)

Earlier in his career, Mason had devised a loom for weaving diaper cloth and another loom for weaving damask tablecloths. In 1833, he succeeded in perfecting John Thorp’s ring frame (patent 5280x; see Figure 63) to the point where it was later used extensively in the textile industry. He also invented a self-acting mule for spinning cotton (patent 1801, issued October 8, 1840), which for that period was a successful alternative to the contemporary ring spinning machine.⁴

In 1842, Mason, with the financial backing of James Kellog Mills, a Boston merchant, established a machine shop called William Mason and Company. Business prospered and in 1845 new buildings were constructed. At that time, Mason’s Taunton shop was considered the largest machine shop in the United States. The shop was particularly successful in manufacturing cotton machinery, as well as machine tools, cupola furnaces, blowers, rifles, Campbell printing presses, gears, and shafts. Mason found new fame in 1852 when he began building locomotives, the first of which was finished in 1853. His locomotives found wide acceptance for their beauty of design and technical excellence.⁵ Mason was a pioneer inventor and manufacturer whose ideas, manufacturing methods, and products had a profound influence on American technology.

FIGURE 37.—Patent model 724. (S.I neg. 82–2562)

PATENT 758: Take-up and Let-off for Power Looms

Issued May 30, 1838

Stephen Kimball

Putney, Windham Co., Vermont

Kimball’s patent refers to the application of friction to the yam beam of a power loom. This was accomplished by using a belt, made of steel or iron, which formed nearly a circle around the warp beam. Friction was created by adjusting a screw that caused the circular belt to contract or expand and, in turn, to increase or decrease the drag on the beam. An elliptical spring eased the movement of the beam within the belt and helped maintain the evenness of the cloth.

FIGURE 38.—Patent model 758. (S.I neg. 80–15212)

FIGURE 39.—Patent drawing 758. (U.S. National Archives)

PATENT 781: Spindle and Flyer

Issued June 12, 1838

Richard E. Yerkes

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

According to his patent specification, Yerkes patented “the revolving arrangement and combination of the sliding shaft, with the broach, or with the spool, for the purpose of removing and renewing the latter The action of the sliding shaft enabled the operator to remove and change the spool when the spring was pressed down. In addition, he patented the ring in combination with the flyers that distributed the yam on the spool. Yerkes intended his improvements to be used on machines for spinning cotton and other fibers.

FIGURE 40.—Patent model 781. (S.I neg. 81–9859)

FIGURE 41.—Patent drawing 781. (U.S. National Archives)

PATENT 823: Calico Printing Machine

Issued July 9, 1838

Alden Sibley

Pawtucket, Bristol Co., Massachusetts

Sibley’s improvement concerned the arrangement of the color box, which held the coloring matter used in printing; the furnishing roll, which supplied the coloring matter to the printing roll; and the doctor, which acted as a scraper to remove any superfluous color from the cylinder. Sibley stated that the advantage of his machine was

being able to work as heavy an Engraving, last as first, or second, and by which means you can place the Light, delicate colors, first and Black or Chocolate last or as you please.¹

His patent model shows only one engraved copper roller, although the machine was designed to do 3- or 4-color work with multiple rollers.

FIGURE 42.—Patent drawing 823. (U.S. National Archives)

Sibley recommended using flour instead of gum to thicken the coloring matter. He calculated that to print 175 pieces it was necessary to use 42 pounds of gum sengal, at 22 cents a pound, which added up to $9.24; whereas, 42 pounds of flour cost only 5 cents a pound, for a sum of $2.10. That totaled up to a savings of $7.14 if the flour was used.² Whether or not the use of flour was ever adopted is not known.

By 1836, textile mills in the United States had printed 120 million yards of calicoes. Calico printing was popular among manufacturers largely due to the fact that the printing only added a step to the finishing process and did not affect or complicate the weaving process.³

FIGURE 43.—Patent model 823. (S.I neg. 81–13337)

PATENT 863: Hand Card

Issued August 1, 1838

George Faber

Canton, Stark Co., Ohio

Faber’s patent related to the construction of the common hand card used for carding cotton or wool prior to the spinning process. He specifically patented using wood veneer, instead of leather, for the foundation that contained the card’s wire teeth. The wood was cut from art to art of an inch in thickness, 4 inches in width, and 4 to 8 inches in length. The wood was then steeped in water to soften it so that when placed in a card machine, it could be pricked and the teeth inserted. The veneer was nailed to another piece of wood and a handle inserted to form the hand card.

Although Faber did not claim credit for inventing the card machine, in his patent specification he did mention that he had made improvements on it.

FIGURE 44.—Patent model 863. (S.I neg. 80–12386)

FIGURE 45.—Patent drawing 863. (U.S. National Archives)

PATENT 977: Spinning, Doubling, and Twisting Silk Machine

Issued October 10, 1838

Harrison Holland

Northampton, Hampshire Co., Massachusetts

The central part of Holland’s patent concerned the stop motion mechanism on a silk threadmaking machine. If a thread broke, a small rod, connected to each of the threads by bent wires, would drop. A lever, to which the rod was attached, would come in contact with the drum and then stop the machine by throwing it out of gear. Also included in the patent was a method to change the twist of the silk thread by using a short cylinder.

FIGURE 46.—Patent drawing 977. (U.S. National Archives)

FIGURE 47.—Patent model 977. (S.I. neg. 80–15210)

PATENT 987: Loom Temple

Issued October 19, 1838

Emory A. Angell

Killingly, Windham Co., Connecticut

In his patent specification, Angell stated that “this temple is of the kind which holds the selvage of the cloth between jaws, which are opened by the beat of the lathe, and is in many respects similar to such as have been long in use.” He claimed as his invention, the way in which the upper and lower jaws were connected by pins to form the hinge-joints.

On the original wrapper containing the patent application papers is a faint handwritten note, “see Saml P. Mason’s Temple July 1837.”¹ In the process of checking Angell’s patent, Charles M. Keller, the patent examiner, probably wrote that notation but found no conflict with Mason’s patent 291 and thus granted Angell his patent.

FIGURE 48.—Patent drawing 987. (U.S. National Archives)

FIGURE 49.—Patent model 987. (S.I neg. 80–15213)

PATENT 1015 and RESTORED PATENT 3082x: Cloth Shearing Machines

Issued November 25, 1838, and March 2, 1819

Seth Parsons

Hoosick Falls, Rensselaer Co., New York

Seth Parson’s patent 1015¹ was an improvement on his earlier patent 3082x. The later patent resembled the earlier one but differed from it by its ability “to shear broad and narrow cloths, the machine operating upon [the cloth] in its passage back and forth both ways without changing it from end to end, thereby saving much time . . . .”² Also claimed was the motion of a brush that would brush the nap in either direction and a few other minor construction details.

FIGURE 50.—Patent model 1015. (S.I neg. 82–3603)

FIGURE 51.—Patent drawing 1015 (side view). (U.S. National Archives)

Parsons’ patent 3082x had claimed to be an improvement on Samuel Dorr’s 1794 patented shearing machine (not illustrated), which was called the “wheel of knives.” The “wheel of knives” refers to the shearing cylinder, which was wrapped with blades in a spiral pattern. Parsons said of his improvement that it could be “composed of frame of suitable size, about 3 feet 7 inches long; 2 feet 4 inches wide and 4 feet high. Instead of knives on a large circle it should be a small one, about 2-1/2 inches in diameter ,. . .”³ Figure 54 shows Parson’s improvement of using conical-shaped spreaders and a cylindrical roller with wire teeth to stretch and advance the cloth.

In the 1820 Manufacturers Census, there is a reference to Parsons’ first shearing machine being used by a woolen manufacturer, Shearwood and Goreham from Rensselaer County, New York.⁴ This earlier machine is also mentioned in an account of the Patent Office fire of 1836 as being one of several models of valuable improvements in shearing and napping cloth.⁵ At the twelfth Exhibition of American Manufacturers, in 1842, Parsons and an associate, Wilder (full name not known), were awarded certificates of Honorable Mention for their improved cloth shearing machines.⁶

FIGURE 52.—“Fig. 1” of restored patent drawing 3082x. (U.S. National Archives)

FIGURE 53 (right).—Restored patent model 3082x. (S.I. neg. 81–4416)

FIGURE 54 (below).—“Fig. 4” of restored patent drawing 3082x, side views and spreaders. (U.S. National Archives)

PATENT 1028: Carpet

Issued December 10, 1838

John Humphries

New York, New York Co., New York

Humphries’ innovation was the addition of a supplementary layer to the bottom of a carpet to provide an extra cushion and to strengthen the overall structure. The added stuffer weft (Figure 56) is a stout, loosely twisted cord, woven into the underside of the carpet and interlaced with the ground warp. These samples of carpeting are important because they are the earliest known examples of patented carpeting in the United States.

Whether this patent was utilized is unknown but there is evidence of Humphries’ being involved in the manufacture of carpeting. The Journal of the Franklin Institute lists premiums awarded at their eighth exhibition in 1833. John Humphries was presented a premium for four pieces of Brussels carpeting. The judges noted that “these goods are of excellent quality and style, and satisfactory assurances have been received that they are exclusively of American workmanship throughout all the processes, from the raw material to the finished product of the loom.”¹

FIGURE 55.—Patent drawing 1028. (U.S. National Archives)

FIGURE 56.—Patent model 1028, carpet. These three pieces of carpeting were submitted as Humphries’ patent. Only the Wilton carpet on the right has the added cord. The carpet on the left is a piece of Brussels and the piece in the middle is the underside of a Wilton carpet. (S.I. neg. 81–9858)

PATENT 1043: Spindle and Flyer

Issued December 28, 1838

John Howarth and Nathan F. Jones

Andover, Essex Co., Massachusetts

Howarth’s and Jones’ patent covered certain improvements on flyers and spindles attached to machinery (such as throstles or spinning frames) where a twisting apparatus was needed. The improvements were useful for roving and spinning cotton or other fibers.

They experienced some delay in obtaining a patent and hired R.H. Eddy of Boston, a patent attorney, to represent them. Their original claims were abridged and condensed. In the last letter (December 1, 1836) from Eddy to Commissioner of Patents Henry Ellsworth, Eddy returned the amended specification without any other essential changes in it and said: “...leaving it to your discretion to reject or admit the claim .... But I supposed that the arrangement and combination of these different parts with each other might show sufficient novelty to constitute and claim to a patent.”¹ Presumably with Eddy’s help, Howarth and Jones were able to receive their patent in 1838.

FIGURE 57.—Patent drawing 1043. (U.S. National Archives)

FIGURE 58.—Patent model 1043. (S.I. neg. 81–13336)

PATENT 1051: Loom Harness

Issued December 31, 1838

John Thorp and William G. Angell

Providence, Providence Co., Rhode Island

Thorp’s and Angell’s “extra-eyed flat knot” harness consisted of one or more rows of eyes for every heddle, so that rather than using the same row of eyes each time when weaving, warp yams could be shifted into another row of eyes. By this addition, wear on the eyes was reduced substantially. The knots that made the eyes were also flattened so that the warp yams could pass through more easily. These changes were alleged to make the harness more durable than the single-eyed harness. Also patented was the way in which the heddles were fastened to the back-band of the harness.

John Thorp (1784–1848)¹ gained distinction for his invention of ring spinning, which established the basis of modern spinning. His two patents of 1828 (5280x and 5322x) and his patent of 1844 (3766) were the basic patents for continuous spinning and twisting. Unfortunately, although brilliant in theory, Thorp’s invention, which had the potential for high speeds at less power, had mechanical problems. These problems precluded the commercial use of his patents and in fact prejudiced many against his concept of ring spinning. It was not until the 1840s, when others, such as William Mason, had added improvements, that the ring frame started to become commercially accepted.²

Thorp spent most of his life in or near Providence, Rhode Island, which was the center for cotton spinning in the United States. He was associated with Thomas and William Fletcher, North Providence Braid manufacturers, but eventually established a separate business as a machinist and later as a machine builder.³

Besides his various spinning patents, Thorp also patented a hand and water loom, 1812; a power loom, 1816; two braiding machines, 1821 and 1826; a netting machine, 1828; and a narrow fabric loom, 1829.⁴

As was typical of many inventors, Thorp was unable to financially capitalize from his inventions. There were several reasons for this; first was his failure to simplify the ring frame, and second his failure to protect his patent rights in court. Finally, he lacked the business acumen and capital to manufacture and sell his own machinery, which would have freed him from reliance on others to produce and market his inventions.⁵

William Gorham Angell (1811–1870) worked in the carpentry trade of his father until about 1831. He then entered into partnership with his uncle, John Gorham, manufacturing loom-reeds. It is presumed that they used a machine for making loom-reeds that Angell had invented previously. After 1838 Angell became involved with the manufacture of screws and was the President of the American Screw Company for many years.⁶

FIGURE 59.—Patent model 1051. (S.I neg. 80–16794)

FIGURE 60.—Patent drawing 1051 shows the heddles in the process of being constructed on a hamess bench. (U.S. National Archives)

FIGURE 61.—Patent model 3766. (S.I neg. 80–15211)

FIGURE 62.—Patent drawing 3766. (U.S. National Archives)

FIGURE 63.—Restored patent drawing 5280x. (U.S. National Archives)

PATENT 1080: Loom Temple

Issued February 13, 1839

Kendall Gibbs

South Berwick, York Co., Maine

As with the Mason and Angell temples (patents 291 and 987), Gibbs’ temple was noted as being “a very near resemblance to some temples which have been previously in use ....”¹ His patent primarily covered the action of the jaws, as controlled by a joint for one operation and a spring for another.

FIGURE 64.—Patent drawing 1080. (U.S. National Archives)

Gibbs assigned his patent to Jonathan Dennis, Jr. (of Portsmouth, R.I.), who in turn paid the required thirty dollar patent fee in exchange for the patent rights.² [Note that Figure 69 wrongly cites assignee as “Joseph.”]

Although nothing is known about Gibbs, further information concerning Dennis relates to his other inventions. On December 28, 1838, he received two patents, 1040 and 1041, both for machines designed to wind silk. At the tenth Exhibition of Domestic Manufacturers, held by the Franklin Institute in 1838, he was awarded an honorable mention for his silk spinning and specimen of silk.³ On June 21, 1838, patent 799 was awarded to Dennis for a circular trough used in protecting trees from the canker worm. The editor of the Franklin Institute, Thomas P. Jones, who was also the superintendent of the Patent Office, commented on this patent; “... we will undertake to prophecy ... the trees furnished with his protectors will still be few and far between ....”⁴

FIGURE 65.—Patent model 1080. (S.I neg. 80–16791)

PATENT 1228: Cordage Machine

Issued July 9, 1839

Alfred Hathaway

Boston, Suffolk Co., Massachusetts

Hathaway claimed that his patent would do away with long buildings, called rope walks, which were then necessary to house the machinery used in the manufacture of rope. His intent was to replace them with much smaller buildings. He admitted that this particular invention was not original and that smaller more efficient machines had been the subject of previous inventions. He thought, however, that all of the currently patented cordage machines had some fault in construction or operation. In his machine for twisting and laying strands into cordage of various sizes, therefore, he felt that the six parts claimed in his patent specification corrected these defects. Other than these improvements, Hathaway’s patent resembled other machines of the period.¹

FIGURE 66.—Patent model 1228. (S.I neg. 81–5250)

FIGURE 67.—Patent drawing 1228. (U.S. National Archives)

PATENT 1367: Reeling, Spinning, and
Twisting Silk Machine

Issued October 12, 1839

Jacob Pratt

Sherborn, Middlesex Co., Massachusetts

Pratt is an example of an inventor who thought he had a more complicated original invention than he actually had. In his patent application file, his specification makes four claims. Out of those four, only one was approved by Charles M. Keller, the patent examiner, and that claim was for using a trough of zinc.¹ The trough held spools of silk fibers prior to spinning and was filled with warm water which kept the fibers from sticking together.

The Journal of the Franklin Institute, 1840, commented: “Its construction is, in general, similar to such as is well known, and is not claimed as new .... No particular reason is given for making the troughs of zinc, and we suppose that copper would do equally well; but from the special mention of this metal we were led to look for some ground of preference to it.”²

FIGURE 68.—Patent drawing 1367. (U.S. National Archives)

FIGURE 69.—Patent model 1367. (S.I. neg. 81–5254)

PATENT 1421: Knitting Machine

Issued December 5, 1839

Richard Walker

Portsmouth, Rockingham Co., New Hampshire

Walker’s knitting machine, which he called a “rotary power stocking loom,” knitted by a rotary motion and the action of a cam-shaft. The stocking loom could be operated as a single domestic machine turned by a crank or operated by belts and pulleys as would have been used in a factory. Walker claimed his arrangement made the knitting machine self-acting. He replaced the jacks, which were used in English machines, with a carriage and roller which produced more equal pressure on the yam and therefore enabled the knitting of a harder twisted yarn.

The 1841 Journal of the Franklin Institute remarked: “Those who have ever seen a stocking frame must be aware of its great complexity .... In the present instance an attempt is made, and we think not without success, to give the machine greater simplicity without sacrificing any of its good qualities.”¹

FIGURE 70.—Patent model 1421. (S.I neg. 82–3602)

An article in the Daily News Record (New York), marking the centenary of power knitting, credited Richard Walker as patenting the first power drive rotary knitting machine in America.²

Walker owned a factory in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, which in 1839, was the largest knitting factory in the United States. He employed 220 workers and manufactured 3000 pairs of woolen stockings per week. He used his patented knitting machines in the factory.³

FIGURE 71.—Patent drawing 1421. (U.S. National Archives)

PATENT 1485: Loom Shuttle

Issued January 31, 1840

James Baldwin

Nashua, Hillsboro Co., New Hampshire

Baldwin’s patent consisted of a steel spring and catch made in one piece that fits inside the wooden bobbin. In his patent specification he claimed this avoided the expense of separate catches and springs that were in the common shuttle as then in use. The arrangement and construction of the spring and catch were such that pushing the bobbin down on the spindle and into the mouth of the shuttle secured the bobbin on the catch. By pulling up on the bobbin, the head of the spindle pushed down on the spring, which in turn disengaged the catch and released the bobbin. These improvements made it easier for the bobbin changer to replenish the shuttle with thread.

An earlier notice of Baldwin’s loom shuttle appears in the Journal of the American Institute. In 1838, at the eleventh Annual Fair of the American Institute, James and E. Baldwin were awarded a diploma for an improved loom shuttle.¹ On May 3, 1859, James Baldwin was successful in having his shuttle awarded reissue patent 710.

FIGURE 72.—“Fig. 3” of patent drawing 1485. (U.S. National Archives)

FIGURE 73.—Patent model 1485. (S.I neg. 80–20143)

PATENT 1498: Loom Heddles

Issued February 26, 1840

John Thorp and William G. Angell

Providence, Providence Co., Rhode Island

These heddles were presented to the Patent Office in a round wooden frame, including examples of both wire and twine heddles. In the patent specification, Thorp and Angell described the dimensions of heddles for use in weaving cotton cloth on a common power loom. These dimensions could be changed, however, so that any kind of weaving could be done. A chain of the heddles was formed by taking two pieces of wire or twine and tying them with a common square knot, “which will unite them in the same way and manner that a lady ties her apron strings or a child his shoestrings.”¹ The placement of the knots resulted in the formation of the eyes of the heddles.

Thorp and Angell did not include a patent drawing with the specification. The 1841 Journal of the Franklin Institute remarked of this omission: “We must suppose ... that the description, although to us somewhat obscure, would be clear to a professional weaver.”²

FIGURE 74.—Framed individual heddles. patent model 1498. (S.I neg. 80–12385)

PATENT 1563: Metallic Loom Heddles

Issued April 24, 1840

Charles Strong

Hartford, Windsor Co., Vermont

The heddles are shown in the harness frame. Strong patented two improvements on the metallic heddle. One was the method of constructing the heddle eye, which consisted of soldering two pieces of thin tinned iron together with the metal strips bent to form the semicircular hole. The second improvement involved the arrangement of the heddles in two rows instead of one, which enabled higher slayed cloth to be woven.

FIGURE 75.—Patent drawing 1563. (U.S. National Archives)

FIGURE 76.—Patent model 1563. (S.I neg. 81–9860)

PATENT 1575: Wool and Cotton Picking Machine

Issued April 30, 1840

George C. Kellogg and Phineas Gillet

New Hartford, Litchfield, Co., Connecticut

According to the patentees, picking was improved because small matted fibers would not escape the opening and separation process. This improved feeding of the wool or other fibers was due to a combination of the feeder, shell, and picker cylinder. “Fig. 2” in the patent drawing (Figure 78) illustrates this combination. The fibers to be picked were first spread on the creeper cloth (A), then moved on to the concave shell (J) at which time the teeth of the feeder (I) engaged the fibers and brought them into contact (K) with the teeth (F) of the picker cylinder (E). (G) is a short bolt with a nut at one end.

Also patented was the method of holding the teeth in the picker cylinder, which enabled the teeth to be easily removed, sharpened, and set back in by the picker tender or a “small lad.”¹ “Fig. 3” shows how the teeth were set by using a short bolt with a nut on one end. The patentees also specified that the picker teeth were made of cast steel, the shell of cast iron, and the spur wheel of the feeder of cast and wrought iron.

It is likely that Kellogg and Gillet produced these pickers, since in their patent specification they state: “We build them in all the variety of forms and sizes to suit the order, or magnitude of the work required, and our improvements are applicable to old and new pickers of every form.”² This type of information was not usually included in patent specifications.

FIGURE 77.—Patent model 1575. (S.I neg. 81–5255)

FIGURE 78.—Patent drawing 1575. (U.S. National Archives)

PATENT 1782: Rag Dressing Machine

Issued September 10, 1840

Emery Smith

North Sudbury, Middlesex Co., Massachusetts

Smith’s machine prepared cotton waste prior to its being cut up and dusted and then processed into paper. Although the end product is paper, this model is included because it is in Burke’s list of patents from Class III (see Appendix A). The cotton waste, usually thread obtained from factories, was generally twisted and knotted together and contained foreign matter that had to be removed before it could be further processed. This process was normally performed by hand. Smith claimed that his machine replaced 30 workers and thereby effected a great savings.

FIGURE 79.—Patent model 1782. (S.I neg. 81–9857)

The patented action of the machine consisted of a cylinder with rows of forked teeth in combination with a row of pointed wires fixed to the inside wall of the box. The teeth and wires were so arranged that when the cylinder revolved they did not meet. The cotton was beaten by the turning of the cylinder, which caused the teeth to work the cotton against the wires, thus forcing the extraneous materials to separate and fall through a wire mesh to the bottom of the machine for subsequent removal. The cotton or rags were then considered “dressed” and ready for the next step in the papermaking process.

FIGURE 80.—Patent drawing 1782. (U.S. National Archives)

PATENT 1834: Knitting Machine

Issued October 22, 1840

Benjamin Hutchinson, Jr.

Springfield, Hampden Co., Massachusetts

Hutchinson’s improvement was for knitting stockings with a closed seam. This he had accomplished by adding an endless chain of needles. The continuous chain is pictured in the patent drawing (“Fig. 3” of Figure 81) but is missing from the patent model. One of the knitting needles from the chain sits in front of the model (Figure 82).

FIGURE 81.—Patent drawing 1834. (U.S. National Archives)

FIGURE 82.—Patent model 1834. (S.I neg. 82–2566)

PATENT 1838: Rotary Loom Temple

Issued October 28, 1840

George Draper

Palmer, Hampden Co., Massachusetts

George Draper’s temple further improved those of his father, Ira Draper, patented in 1816 and 1829 (patent 5419x). Ira patented the first self-acting rotary temple. George’s improvement added a second row of teeth on the wheel of the temple. Previously, only a single row was utilized, which tended to leave a track of holes in the cloth as it was woven. The double row of teeth solved this problem of the fabric being marked in a single track. By having a double bearing on the selvage of the cloth, each row pulled on different threads and relieved the strain on a single warp yam. It is evident from the patent drawings that the only difference between the two temples is in the extra row of teeth on George’s temple wheel.

From 1816 on, the rotary temple was widely accepted and successful. In fact, Ira’s invention doubled the number of looms that a weaver could handle.¹ The Draper family continued to improve their temples and bought the rights to other temple patents. Eventually they developed the Draper Company into the largest temple manufacturer in the world.²

FIGURE 83.—Patent model 1838. loom temples of which four are pictured. (S.I neg. 81–5251)

FIGURE 84.—Patent drawing 1838. (U.S. National Archives)

FIGURE 85.—Restored patent drawing 5419x. (U.S. National Archives)

PATENT 1902: Cloth-stretching Machine

Issued December 14, 1840

John Tillou

New Haven, New Haven Co., Connecticut

Tillou’s machine was designed to remove mill wrinkles from cloth by stretching it in two directions. The cloth was stretched widthwise by transverse rubbers and was stretched lengthwise with rolling oblique cylinders. The rubbers are missing from the model, but are clearly seen in “Fig. 1(EE)” of the patent drawing (Figure 87).

In his patent specification, 1902, Tillou noted that this model is one-fourth of the size of the machine intended for stretching narrow cloth. The size of the machine would vary if used for stretching cassimere, satinet, or broadcloth.¹

FIGURE 86.—Patent model 1902. (S.I neg. 81–9861)

FIGURE 87.—Patent drawing 1902. (U.S. National Archives)

Appendix A
Complete List of Patents from Class III, 1790–1847

This appendix, “Manufacturers of fibrous and textile substances, including machines for preparing fibres of wool cotton, silk, fur, paper, & c.” is excerpted from Edmund Burke’s book, List of Patents for Inventions and Designs, Issued by the United States, from 1790 to 1847. Burke’s edition is useful because the patents are first organized by class and then alphabetically within the class by subject matter, unlike other listings which are organized chronologically or by the patentee’s name. In the case of the three-volume set Subject-Matter Index of Patents for Inventions Issued by the United States Patent Office from 1790–1873, Inclusive, the patents are listed alphabetically according to the subject of invention. The textile related patents are not grouped together as a class, but as individual subjects, for instance, following the listing of looms are loops, lotteries and lounges, which makes it difficult to know the scope of the entire set. In addition, the terminology is inconsistent and does not allow for easily locating individual inventions or inventions of a similar nature.

The starred patents indicate the models illustrated in the catalog. Note that there are inconsistencies between this list and other patent documents with respect to the spelling of the inventor’s name, the title of the invention, and the inventor’s residence. In patents where an assignee is listed, the residence is that of the assignee.

LIST OF PATENTS.

CLASS III—MANUFACTURES of Fibrous and Textile substances, including Machines for preparing Fibres of Wool, Cotton, Silk, Fur, Paper &c.

Appendix B
Chronological List of Textile Patent Models
in the Smithsonian Collections, 1819–1910

There are more than four thousand patent models in the collection of the National Museum of American History’s Division of Textiles. Most of these models were selected by Dr. Frederick Lewton in 1926 when the Patent Office disposed of its collection. Prior to 1880, a model, along with the inventor’s written specification and drawing, was required to obtain a patent. Even after the model requirement was dropped in 1880, inventors continued to submit models.

The Patent Office fire of 1836 destroyed all of the models that had accumulated up to that time. Shortly thereafter, the Patent Office undertook a restoration program to replace the most important drawings and models. This restoration program continued until 1849, during which time several thousand drawings and models were restored.

The listing does not include sewing machine patent models and attachments (approximately 1600). For a complete history of sewing machines and a guide to the Division of Textile’s collection, Grace Cooper’s book, The Sewing Machine: Its Invention and Development, is suggested as a reference.

This listing is part of a special computerization project, carried out by the author, to compile a database on the estimated 10,000 models in the National Museum of American History. The textile patent model list spans the years 1819 through 1910.

The following information is given for each patent: patent number, inventor, type of invention, and year of patent issuance. Other items not shown here but included in the database are names of additional inventors, month and day of patent, city and state residence of inventor, assignee, Smithsonian division in which model is kept, Smithsonian catalog number and photographic negative number (if available). The database computer project is ongoing and will continue to evolve as new information becomes available. As is generally true of computerized databases, it is possible to select and sort records by any of the information categories listed above. Should researchers be interested in further information concerning the patent model collection of the Smithsonian National Museum of American History, they should contact the author. The Division of Textiles is interested in learning more about our patent models and would welcome additional information.

Glossary

ASSIGNEE. A person or organization to whom patent rights are transferred to by the inventor. This often happens when an inventor is working for a company that requires him to apply for the patent and then transfer his patent rights to his employer.

CALICO. A general term used for plain cotton cloth of a coarse quality, e.g., coarser than muslin. It was not until the end of the 18th century that calico came to mean the lowest quality of printed cloth.

CARD. A rectangular wooden implement covered with wire teeth used in pairs to card fibers by hand (see CARDING).

CARDING. An operation, prior to spinning, in which fibers (usually wool) are disentangled by the brushing action of two closely spaced “toothed” surfaces, which loosely align the fibers into a roll (see SLIVER).

COMBING. The process of straightening and making parallel fibers of equal lengths in preparation for spinning into yarn. Any impurities and short fibers are removed by combs, in combination with brushes and rollers.

COP. A tapered cylinder of yarn used to fill the loom shuttle.

COTTON WHIPPER. A machine that cleans cotton by beating or whipping the uncleaned cotton with rotating spikes causing foreign matter to fall out and clumps of cotton to separate.

DOCTOR. Blade on a printing machine that removes surplus ink or coloring matter from the printing cylinder.

FANCY POWER LOOM. A loom that operates by mechanical means rather than by hand power and produces cloth with an overall woven pattern.

FLYER. An inverted U-shaped metal guide, the center of which is attached to the tip of the spindle, typically on a spinning machine. The yarn is twisted by the rotation of the arm (guide) around the bobbin.

GINGHAM. A plain-woven cotton cloth consisting of two or more colors that form simple checks, plaids, or stripes.

HAIR CLOTH. Cloth constructed of a weft of hair from the mane or tail of a horse and a warp of cotton or linen. The fabric was once popular for upholstering furniture.

HARNESS. The part of a loom consisting of the frame and heddles by which the shedding motion is accomplished (see SHEDDING).

HEDDLE. A cord, wire, or thin flat steel strip with an eye near the center, through which a warp end is drawn. Heddles make up the harnesses that control the shedding action of the loom.

JACKS. An intermediate level on a straight knitting machine that transmits motion to the sinkers.

KNOTTED COUNTERPANE. A bed cover woven of cotton with a raised decorative pattern.

LET OFF. A mechanism for controlling the motion of a loom that releases warp yarns from the warp beam during weaving (see TAKE-UP).

NAPPING. A finishing process used in raising a fibrous surface or nap from the basic structure of the fabric, usually woolen. This process is also called teazling or gigging.

PICKER. A machine used in fiber preparation to remove foreign matter and break apart the matted cotton or wool.

ROVING. A long, loose, and continuous strand consisting of wool or cotton fibers that have a slight twist. Also the process of preparing the fibers for spinning into yarn.

SATINET. A woven cloth made with a cotton warp and a woolen filling.

SHEARING MACHINE. A machine, used in cloth finishing, that cuts uneven thread from the face of the cloth in order to achieve a uniform height.

SHED. In weaving, the opening between the warp threads through which the shuttle passes and inserts the filling.

SHEDDING. The operation of producing a shed.

SHUTTLE. A device that carries the filling yarn through the shed in the process of weaving. There are different types of shuttles. A typical shuttle is a hollow wooden boat-shaped device that contains a bobbin wound with filling yarn.

SHUTTLE-TONGUE. A slender metal rod in the center cavity of the shuttle upon which the filling yarn is wound.

SLAY or SLEY. The number of warp ends per inch in cloth. Its meaning has been extended to include “high sley” denoting a cloth with a large number of warp threads per inch.

SLUBBING. The relatively thick, slightly twisted strands of fibers ready for spinning.

SLIVER. Continuous, loosely assembled fibers, in rope form, which lack twist. The process of carding produces fibers in this condition.

SPEEDER. A machine used in cotton yarn spinning that inserts a slight twist in the sliver and winds it on the bobbin. At this stage, the SLIVER is called ROVING.

SPINDLE. A slender, tapered metal rod that rotates, upon which are fitted spools, bobbins, etc., used in such processes as spinning, spooling, or quilling. Spindles can also be used to produce twist in yarn.

STOP MOTION MECHANISM. A device utilized on textile machines to halt them automatically if the material being processed (i.e., thread, roving, etc.) is broken or depleted.

STUFFER THREAD. Additional yarns used to increase the weight, firmness, or thickness of a fabric. The yarn can be used either as warp or weft.

TAKE-UP. A mechanism that controls the rate at which cloth is wound forward during weaving.

TEAZLING. See Napping.

TEMPLES. Devices on each side of a loom frame designed to keep the cloth at a uniform width during weaving.

THROSTLE. A type of spinning or twisting frame developed in 1790 based on Richard Arkwright’s waterframe of 1769. Arkwright (1732–1792), an Englishman, invented cotton spinning machinery using a continuous spinning method operated by water power.

TOW. Short coarse flax or hemp fibers that are separated from longer, finer fibers during hackling (a combing process). It is mostly used for spinning into low grade yarn or twine.

WARP. Yarns running lengthwise in a woven fabric, parallel to the selvage and interwoven with the WEFT.

WEFT The yarns of a woven fabric running from selvage to selvage at right angles to the warp. Also called “filling” or “woof.”

References Consulted

Bumham, Dorothy K. Warp and Weft. Toronto: Royal Ontario Museum, 1980.

Cole, George S. Cole’s Encyclopedia of Dry Goods. New York: Root Newspaper Association, 1900.

Famfield, Carolyn A., editor. Textile Terms and Definitions. 7th edition. Manchester: The Textile Institute, 1975.

Higgins, Alfred, and Rudolph L. LaVault. A Comprehensive Dictionary of Textile Terms. Fall River: Dover Press, 1948.

Jeremy, David J. Transatlantic Industrial Revolution: The Diffusion of Textile Technologies between Britain and America, 1790–1830s. North Andover: Merrimack Valley Textile Museum and Cambridge: The M.I.T. Press, 1981.

Wingate, Isabel B. Fairchild’s Dictionary of Textiles. 6th edition. New York: Fairchild Publication, 1979.

Selected Bibliography

This bibliography is a combination of two subject areas, textile technology and information on patents. It is not intended to be all encompassing of the fields but rather a compilation of the literature relating to the period that is the subject of this catalog.

Of the materials listed in the bibliography, some were more helpful than others depending on their scope, content, and readability. To those unfamiliar with the patent literature, an advantageous beginning would be to read the section on patents and the National Archives in Eugene Ferguson’s Bibliography of the History of Technology. Secondly, Nathan Reingold’s article “U.S. Patent Office Records as Sources for the History of Invention and Technological Property” is valuable for his concise overview of the patent records in the National Archives.

Of all the journals researched, the Journal of the Franklin Institute proved to be the most useful in providing technical information for this catalog. The early volumes are particularly important for their pre-1836 patent information; for certain patents, they are the only source of information. The four volumes of the Journal of the American Institute also contain useful technical information, and the reports of the fairs of the American Institute relate interesting details about different machines and inventors. Scientific American, although in general an important journal for technical information, is of limited value because it did not begin publication until 1845.

Other recommended publications include the Rays’ book entitled The Art of Invention: Patent Models and Their Makers, for its exquisite color photographs of patent models, and the Hagley Museum’s catalog entitled Little Machines: Patent Models in the Nineteenth Century, written by Ferguson and Baer. The latter publication is suggested for its readable synopsis of the patent system and a selection of patent models in the museum. The Cooper-Hewitt Museum’s catalog, American Enterprise: Nineteenth-Century Patent Models, is excellent for both its photographs and essays.

Bishop, J. Leander. A History of American Manufactures from 1608 to 1860. Third edition, 3 volumes. Philadelphia: Edward Young & Co., 1868.

Burke, Edmund, compiler. List of Patents for Inventions and Designs Issued by the United States, from 1790 to 1847. Washington, D.C.: J. & G.S. Gideon, 1847.

Calvert, Monte A. “The Technology of the Woolen Cloth Finishing Industries from Ancient Times to the Present, with Special Emphasis on American Developments 1790–1840, and the Processes of Fulling, Napping and Shearing.” Merrimack Valley Textile Museum Research Report, 1963, 89 pages.

Clark, Charles H. “John Thorp—Inventor of Ring Spinning.” Transactions of the National Association of Cotton Manufactures, 124/125(1928):72–95.

Cole, Arthur H. The American Wool Manufacture. 2 volumes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1926. [Reprint New York and Evanston: Harper and Row, 1969.]

Cooper, Grace Rogers. The Sewing Machine: Its Invention and Development. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1976.

Cooper-Hewitt Museum. American Enterprise: Nineteenth-Century Patent Models. New York: Smithsonian Institution, 1984.

Dictionary of American Biography, volumes 1-20 (1928–1936). New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.

Dood, Kendall J. “Patent Models and the Patent Law: 1790–1880 (Part I).” Journal of the Patent Office Society, volume 65 (April 1983), pages 187–216.

———. “Patent Models and the Patent Law: 1790–1880 (Part II).” Journal of the Patent Office Society, volume 65 (May 1983), pages 234–274.

Early Unnumbered United States Patents 1790–1836. Woodbridge, Virginia: Research Publications, Inc., 1980.

Ferguson, Eugene S. “Patents.” In Bibliography of the History of Technology, pages 102–109. London: The Society for the History of Technology, and Cambridge: M.I.T Press, 1968.

Ferguson, Eugene S., and Christopher Baer, Little Machines: Patent Models in the Nineteenth Century. Greenville: The Hagley Museum, 1979.

Frederico, P.J., editor. “Outline of the History of the United States Patent Office.” Journal of the Patent Office Society, volume 18 (July 1936), pages 5-251.

Gilroy, Clinton G. The Art of Weaving, by Hand and by Power. New York: George D. Baldwin, 1844.

Hayes. John L. American Textile Machinery. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Cambridge University Press, 1879.

Hitz, Elizabeth. “Technical and Business Revolution: American Woolens to 1832”. Doctoral dissertation. New York University, 1978.

Hogan, Donald W. “Unwanted Treasures of the Patent Office.” American Heritage, volume 9, number 2 (February 1958), pages 16–19,101–103.

Jeremy, David J. “Innovation in American Textile Technology during the Early 19th Century.” Technology and Culture, volume 14 (January 1973), pages 40–76.

———. Transatlantic Industrial Revolution: The Diffusion of Textile Technologies between Britain and America, 1790–1830s. North Andover, Massachusetts: Merrimack Valley Textile Museum, and Cambridge: The M.I.T. Press, 1981.

———. “Invention in American Textile Technology during the Early Nineteenth Century, 1790–1830.” In Working Papers from the Regional Economic History Research Center, volume 5, number 4 (1982), pages 1-45.

Journal of the American Institute, volumes 1–4 (1836–1840). [No volume was published in 1839.]

Journal of the Franklin Institute, whole volumes 1-34 (1826–1842). [Whole volume numbers 5-30 (1828–1840) have dual numbering as new series volumes 1-26; whole volume numbers 31 through 34 (1841–1842) have dual numbering as third series volumes 1-4. The series volume numbers are cited herein.]

Lozier, John William. “Taunton and Mason: Cotton Machinery and

Locomotive Manufacture in Taunton, Massachusetts, 1811–1861.” Doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University, Columbus, 1978.

MacMurry, R.R. “Technological Change in the American Cotton Spinning Industry, 1790–1836.” Doctoral dissertation. University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, 1970.

McMahon, Adrian M., and Stephanie A. Morris. Technology in Industrial America, The Committee on Science and the Arts of the Franklin Institute, 1824–1900. Wilmington: Scholarly Resources, Inc., and Phildelphia: The Franklin Institute, 1977.

Montgomery, James. A Practical Detail of the Cotton Manufacture of the United States of America.... Reprinted edition. New York and London: Johnson Reprint Co., 1968. [Original edition 1840, Glascow: John Niven.]

Navin, Thomas R. The Whitin Machine Works Since 1831. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1950.

Odell, Rice. “Patent Models Recall Creativity of Early America.” Smithsonian, volume 4, number 1 (April 1973), pages 58–65.

Paulauskas, James A., compiler. Additional Improvement Patents, 1837–1861. [Special list number 39 of The National Archives and Records Service.] Washington, D.C.: General Services Administration, 1977.

Post, Robert C. Physics, Patents and Politics. New York: Science History Publications, 1976.

Ray, William and Marlys. The Art of Invention: Patent Models and Their Makers. Princeton: Pyne Press, 1974.

Reingold, Nathan. “U.S. Patent Office Records as Sources for the History of Invention and Technological Property.” Technology and Culture, volume 1 (spring 1960), pages 156–167.

Riznik, Barnes. “New England Wool-Carding and Finishing Mills, 1790–1840.” Old Sturbridge Village Research Report. Sturbridge, Massachusetts: Old Sturbridge Village, 1964.

Scientific American, volumes 1-5 (1845–1850).

Skinner, I.L., editor. The American Journal of Improvements in the Useful Arts, and Mirror of the Patent Office in the United Stales, volume 1, number 1 (January, February and March, 1828). Washington, D.C.: William Greer.

Subject Matter Index of Patents for Inventions Issued by the United States Patent Office from 1790–1873, Inclusive. 3 volumes compiled and published under M.D. Leggett Washington, D.C.: U.S. Patent Office, 1874.

U.S. Patent Office. An Account of the Destruction by Fire of the North and West Halls of the Model Room in the United Stales Patent Office Building on the 24th of September 1877 together with a History of the Patent Office from 1790–1877. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Patent Office, 1877.

United Slates Patents. Microfilm, 1790–1906. New Haven: Research Publications, Inc.

Welsh, Peter C. “United States Patents 1790 to 1870: New Uses for Old Ideas.” United Slates National Museum Bulletin, 241, paper 48 (1965), pages 109–152.

REQUIREMENTS FOR SMITHSONIAN SERIES PUBLICATION

Manuscripts intended for series publication receive substantive review (conducted by their originating Smithsonian museums or offices) and are submitted to the Smithsonian Institution Press with Form SI-36, which must show the approval of the appropriate authority designated by the sponsoring organizational unit. Requests for special treatment—use of color, foldouts, case-bound covers, etc.—require, on the same form, the added approval of the sponsoring authority.

Review of manuscripts and art by the Press for requirements of series format and style, completeness and clarity of copy, and arrangement of all material, as outlined below, will govern, within the judgment of the Press, acceptance or rejection of manuscripts and art.

Copy must be prepared on typewriter or word processor, double-spaced, on one side of standard white bond paper (not erasable), with 1¼″ margins, submitted as ribbon copy (not carbon or xerox), in loose sheets (not stapled or bound), and accompanied by original art. Minimum acceptable length is 30 pages.

Front matter (preceding the text) should include: title page with only title and author and no other information, abstract page with author, title, series, etc., following the established format; table of contents with indents reflecting the hierarchy of heads in the paper; also, foreword and/or preface, if appropriate.

First page of text should carry the title and author at the top of the page; second page should have only the author’s name and professional mailing address, to be used as an unnumbered footnote on the first page of printed text.

Center heads of whatever level should be typed with initial caps of major words, with extra space above and below the head, but no other preparation (such as all caps or underline, except for the underline necessary for generic and specific epithets). Run-in paragraph heads should use period/dashes or colons as necessary.

Tabulations within text (lists of data, often in parallel columns) can be typed on the text page where they occur, but they should not contain rules or numbered table captions.

Formal tables (numbered, with captions, boxheads, stubs, rules) should be submitted as carefully typed, double-spaced copy separate from the text; they will be typeset unless otherwise requested. If camera-copy use is anticipated, do not draw rules on manuscript copy.

Taxonomic keys in natural history papers should use the aligned-couplet form for zoology and may use the multi-level indent form for botany. If cross referencing is required between key and text, do not include page references within the key, but number the keyed-out taxa, using the same numbers with their corresponding heads in the text.

Synonymy in zoology must use the short form (taxon, author, year:page), with full reference at the end of the paper under “Literature Cited.” For botany, the long form (taxon, author, abbreviated journal or book title, volume, page, year, with no reference in “Literature Cited”) Is optional.

Text-reference system (author, year:page used within the text, with full citation in “Literature Cited” at the end of the text) must be used in place of bibliographic footnotes in all Contributions Series and is strongly recommended in the Studies Series: “(Jones, 1910:122)” or “. . . Jones (1910:122).” If bibliographic footnotes are required, use the short form (author, brief title, page) with the full citation in the bibliography.

Footnotes, when few in number, whether annotative or bibliographic, should be typed on separate sheets and inserted immediately after the text pages on which the references occur. Extensive notes must be gathered together and placed at the end of the text in a notes section.

Bibliography, depending upon use, Is termed “Literature Cited,” “References,” or “Bibliography.” Spell out titles of books, articles, journals, and monographic series. For book and article titles use sentence-style capitalization according to the rules of the language employed (exception: capitalize all major words in English). For journal and series titles, capitalize the initial word and all subsequent words except articles, conjunctions, and prepositions. Transliterate languages that use a non-Roman alphabet according to the Library of Congress system. Underline (for italics) titles of journals and series and titles of books that are not part of a series. Use the parentheses/colon system for volume (number): pagination: “10(2):5–9.” For alignment and arrangement of elements, follow the format of recent publications in the series for which the manuscript is intended. Guidelines for preparing bibliography may be secured from Series Section, SI Press.

Legends for illustrations must be submitted at the end of the manuscript, with as many legends typed, double-spaced, to a page as convenient.

Illustrations must be submitted as original art (not copies) accompanying, but separate from, the manuscript. Guidelines for preparing art may be secured from Series Section, SI Press. All types of illustrations (photographs, line drawings, maps, etc.) may be intermixed throughout the printed text. They should be termed Figures and should be numbered consecutively as they will appear in the monograph. If several illustrations are treated as components of a single composite figure, they should be designated by lowercase italic letters on the illustration; also, in the legend and in text references the italic letters (underlined in copy) should be used: “Figure 9b.” Illustrations that are intended to follow the printed text may be termed Plates, and any components should be similarly lettered and referenced: “Plate 9b.” Keys to any symbols within an illustration should appear on the art rather than in the legend.

Some points of style: Do not use periods after such abbreviations as “mm, ft, USNM, NNE.” Spell out numbers “one” through “nine” in expository text, but use digits in all other cases if possible. Use of the metric system of measurement is preferable; where use of the English system is unavoidable, supply metric equivalents in parentheses. Use the decimal system for precise measurements and relationships, common fractions for approximations. Use day/month/year sequence for dates: “9 April 1976.” For months in tabular listings or data sections, use three-letter abbreviations with no periods: “Jan, Mar, Jun,” etc. Omit space between initials of a personal name: “J.B. Jones.”

Arrange and paginate sequentially every sheet of manuscript in the following order: (1) title page, (2) abstract, (3) contents, (4) foreword and/or preface, (5) text, (6) appendixes, (7) notes section, (8) glossary, (9) bibliography, (10) legends, (11) tables. Index copy may be submitted at page proof stage, but plans for an index should be indicated when manuscript is submitted.

¹Scientific American, 4(1849): 165.

²bid., 3(1848):149.

³Gilroy, The Art of Weaving, pages 402–403.

¹Journal of the Franklin Institute, new series, 14(1834):394.

²bid., new series, 15(1835):202.

³Henry S. Dana, History of Woodstock, Vermont (Boston and New York: Mifflin Co., 1889), pages 314–315.

⁴Calvert, “The Technology of the Woolen Cloth Finishing Industries,” pages 57–59.

¹Journal of the Franklin Institute, new series, 17(1836):121.

²Hayes, American Textile Machinery, page 54.

³Subject-Matter Index of Patents, 3:1857.

¹Journal of the Franklin Institute, new series, 17(1836):261.

²U.S. Patent Office, An Account of the Destruction by Fire, pages 15–16.

¹Journal of the American Institute, 3(1838):33.

²Ibid., 4(1840):671.

³A. Michal McMahon, editor, Records of the Committee on Science and the Arts of the Franklin Institute (Wilmington: Scholarly Resources, Inc., and The Franklin Institute, 1977), microfilm, reel 2, file number 163.

⁴Ibid.

⁵Ibid.

⁶Journal of the American Institute, 2(1837):344–345.

⁷Ibid., 1(1836):78.

⁸Ibid., 4(1840):672.

¹Clark, “John Thorp,” 124/125(1928):89.

¹Alfred Barlow, The History and Principles of Weaving by Hand and by Power, 2nd edition (London: Sampson Low, Marston, Searle, and Rivington, 1879), pages 88, 305–306.

²Journal of the Franklin Institute, new series, 21(1838):272.

³Lozier, “Taunton and Mason,” pages 98, 100, 118, 232. Montgomery, A Practical Detail of the Cotton Manufacture, pages 26–28.

¹National Archives Record Group 241: Patent Application Files, patent 350.

¹Journal of the American Institute, 3(1838):138.

¹Cole, The American Wool Manufacture, 1:306–309. Dictionary of American Biography 4(1930):561–562.

²Photograph of William Crompton supplied courtesy of Crompton and Knowles Loom Works.

³Rita Adrosko, “The Cromptons.” (In Peter C. Marzio, editor, A Nation of Nations, pages 203–207. New York: Harper and Row, 1976), pages 203–204.

⁴Hayes, American Textile Machinery, pages 50–51.

⁵Lozier, “Taunton and Mason,” pages 172–177.

¹Journal of the Franklin Institute, new series, 22(1838):244.

¹The detail of Christian Schussele’s painting. Men of Progress: American Inventors, shows Bigelow (standing) with one of his loom drawings attached to the wall behind him. (National Portrait Gallery, S.I.)

²Journal of the Franklin Institute, new series, 26(1840): 173–174.

³Hayes, American Textile Machinery, pages 51–52.

⁴Jay Bradley, editor, “Erastus Bigelow,” The Bigelow Magazine, 2(5)(September-October 1950):6–9, 38–39.

¹Gilroy, The Art of Weaving, pages 374–379.

²Scientific American, 1(1846):111.

¹Journal of the Franklin Institute, new series, 23(1839):184.

¹The engraving of William Mason (above) is from the 1883 issue of American Journal of Fabrics (S.I. neg. 81–873).

²Jones, Journal of the Franklin institute, new series, 23(1839):232.

³Lozier, “Taunton and Mason,” pages 169–171.

⁴Dictionary of American Biography, 12(1933):377–378 Navin, The Whitin Machine Works Since 1831, pages 34–35.

⁵Dictionary, loc. cit. Bishop, American Manufacturers, 3(1868):319–323. Lozier, “Taunton and Mason,” pages 282–287.

¹National Archives Record Group 241: Patent Application Files, patent 823.

²bid.

³Bishop, American Manufacturers, 2(1868):404.

¹National Archives Record Group 241: Patent Application Files, patent 987.

¹Portrait of Parsons is from the label on his patent model 1015 (S.I. neg. 82–2568). See also Figure 50 below.

²National Archives Record Group 241: Patent Application Files, patent 1015.

³Ibid., patent 3082x, page 1.

⁴Hitz, “Technical and Business Revolution,” page 280.

⁵U.S. Patent Office, Destruction by Fire, pages 15–16.

⁶Journal of the Franklin Institute, third series, 4(1842):342.

¹The Journal of the Franklin Institute, new series, 12(1833):387.

¹National Archives Record Group 241: Patent Application Files, patent 1043.

¹The above daguerreotype (ca. 1843–1845, from the April/June 1928 issue of Textile World) is believed to be of John Thorp (S.I. neg. 80–15689).

²Clark, “John Thorp,” 124/125(1928):72, 79–80. Lozier, “Taunton and Mason,” pages 207–228. Navin, Whitin Machine Works, pages 34–35.

³Clark, “John Thorp,” pages 85, 89.

⁴Ibid., page 77. Lozier, “Taunton and Mason,” page 77.

⁵Ibid., page 228. Clark, op.cit., pages 90–92.

⁶ The Bibliographical Cyclopedia of Representative Men of Rhode Island (Providence: National Bibliographical Publishing Co., 1881), page 374.

¹Journal of the Franklin Institute, new series, 25(1840):108.

²National Archives Record Group 241: Patent Application Files, patent 1080.

³Journal of the Franklin Institute, new series, 23(1839):302.

⁴Ibid., page 396.

¹Journal of the Franklin Institute, new series, 26(1840):108.

¹National Archives Record Group 241: Patent Application Files, patent 1367.

²The Journal of the Franklin Institute, new series, 26(1840):388.

¹Journal of the Franklin Institute, third series, 1(1841):98.

²“Centenary of Power Knitting in America Marks Vast Changes in World’s Industry,” Daily News Record (New York), April 8, 1931, page 17.

³Ira J. Haskell, Hosiery thru the Years (Lynn, Massachusetts: Carole Mailing Service, 1956), page 48.

¹Journal of the American Institute, 4(1840):37.

¹National Archives Record Group 241: Patent Application Files, patent 1498, page 1.

²Journal of the Franklin Institute, third series, 1(1841):275.

¹National Archives Record Group 241: Patent Application Files, patent 1575, page 1.

²bid.

¹Waldemar Kaempffert, editor, A Popular History of American Invention (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1924), page 241.

²Dictionary of American Biography, 5(1930):437.

¹National Archives Record Group 241: Patent Application Files, patent 1902, page 2.