Appendixes
I. Notes on the Development and Commercial Use of the Sewing Machine
Introduction
While researching the history of the invention and the development of the sewing machine, many items of related interest concerning the machine’s economic value came to light. The manufacture of the machines was in itself a boost to the economy of the emerging “industrial United States,” as was the production of attachments for specialized stitching and the need for new types of needles and thread. Moreover, the machine’s ability to speed up production permitted it to permeate the entire field of products manufactured by any type of stitching, from umbrellas to tents. Since this aspect of the story was not completed for this study, no attempt will be made to include any definitive statements on the economic importance of the sewing machine at home or abroad. This related information is of sufficient interest, however, to warrant inclusion in this first Appendix. Perhaps these notes will suggest areas of future research for students of American technology.
Ready-Made Clothing
Whether of the expensive or the inexpensive type, the sewing machine was much more than a popular household appliance. Its introduction had far-reaching effects on many different types of manufacturing establishments as well as on the export trade. The newly developing ready-made clothing industry was not only in a state of development to welcome the new machine but also was, in all probability, responsible for its immediate practical application and success.
Until the early part of the second quarter of the 19th century, the ready-made clothing trade in the United States was confined almost entirely to furnishing the clothing required by sailors about to ship out to sea. The stores that kept these supplies were usually in the neighborhood of wharf areas. But other than the needs of these seamen, there was little market for ready-made goods. Out of necessity many of the families in the early years in this country had made their own clothing. As wealth was acquired and taste could be cultivated, professional seamstresses and tailors were in increasing demand, moved into the cities and towns, and even visited the smaller villages for as long as their services were needed. At the same time a related trade was also growing in the cities, especially in New York City, that of dealing in second-hand clothing. Industrious persons bought up old clothes, cleaned, repaired and refinished them, and sold the clothing to immigrants and transients who wished to avoid the high cost of new custom-made clothing.
The repairing of this second-hand clothing led to the purchase of cheap cloth at auction— “half-burnt,” “wet-goods,” and other damaged yardage. When in excess of the repairing needs, this fabric was made into garments and sold with the second-hand items. Many visitors who passed through New York City were found to be potential buyers of this merchandise if a better class of ready-made clothes was made available. Manufacture began to increase. Tailors of the city began to keep an assortment of finished garments on hand. When visitors bought these, they were also very likely to buy additional garments for resale at home. The latter led to the establishment of the wholesale garment-manufacturing industry in New York about 1834-35.
Most of the ready-made clothing establishments were small operations, not large factories. Large quantities of cloth were purchased; cutting was done in multiple layers with tailor’s shears. Since many seamstresses were needed, the garments were farmed out to the girls in their homes. The manufacture of garments in quantity meant that the profit on each garment was larger than a tailor could make on a single custom-made item. The appeal of increased profits influenced many to enter the new industry and, due to the ensuing competition, the retail cost of each garment was lowered. Just as the new businesses were getting underway, the Panic of 1837 ruined most of them. But the lower cost and the convenience of ready-made clothing had left its mark. Not only was the garment-manufacturing business re-established soon after the Panic had subsided, but by 1841 the value of clothing sold at wholesale in New York was estimated at $2,500,000 and by 1850—a year before sewing machines were manufactured in any quantity—there were 4,278 clothing manufacturing establishments in the United States. Beside New York City, Cincinnati was also one of the important ready-made clothing centers. In 1850 the value of its products amounted to $4,427,500 and in 1860 to $6,381,190. Boston was another important center with a ready-made clothing production of $4,567,749 in 1860. Philadelphia, Baltimore, Louisville, and St. Louis all had a large wholesale clothing trade by 1860. Here was the ready market for a practical sewing machine.73
Clothing establishments grew and began to have agencies in small towns and the sewing work was distributed throughout the countryside. The new, competing sewing-machine companies were willing to deliver a machine for a small sum and to allow the buyer to pay a dollar or two a month until the full amount of the sale was paid. This was an extension of the hire-purchase plan (buying on credit) initiated by Clark of the Singer Company. The home seamstresses were eager to buy, for they were able to produce more piecework with a sewing machine and therefore earn more money. An example of the effect that the sewing machine had on the stitching time required was interestingly established through a series of experiments conducted by the Wheeler and Wilson company. Four hand sewers and four sewing-machine operators were used to provide the average figures in this comparative time study, the results of which were published in 1861;74
NUMBER OF STITCHES PER MINUTE
| By Hand | By Machine | |
| Patent leather, fine stitching | 7 | 175 |
| Binding hats | 33 | 374 |
| Stitching vamped shoes | 10 | 210 |
| Stitching fine linen | 23 | 640 |
| Stitching fine silk | 30 | 550 |
TIME FOR GARMENTS STITCHED
| By Hand | By Machine | |
| Frock coats | 16 hrs. 35 min. | 2 hrs. 38 min. |
| Satin vests | 7 hrs. 19 min. | 1 hr. 14 min. |
| Summer pants | 2 hrs. 50 min. | 0 hr. 38 min. |
| Calico dress | 6 hrs. 37 min. | 0 hr. 57 min. |
| Plain apron | 1 hr. 26 min. | 0 hr. 9 min. |
| Gentlemen’s shirts | 14 hrs. 26 min. | 1 hr. 16 min. |
The factory manufacturer, with the sewing work done at the factory, was also developing. In 1860, Oliver F. Winchester, a shirt manufacturer of New Haven, Connecticut, stated that his factory turned out 800 dozen shirts per week, using 400 sewing machines and operators to do the work of 2,000 hand sewers. The price for hand sewing was then $3 per week, which made labor costs $6000 per week. The 400 machine operators received $4 per week, making the labor cost $1600 per week. Allowing $150 as the cost of each machine, the sewing machines more than paid for themselves in less than 14 weeks, increased the operators pay by $1 a week, and lowered the retail cost of the item.75 The greatest savings of time, which was as much as fifty percent, was in the manufacture of light goods—such items as shirts, aprons, and calico dresses. The Commissioner of Patents weighed the monetary effect that this or any invention had on the economy against the monetary gain received by the patentee. When he found that the patentee had not been fairly compensated, he had the authority to grant a seven-year extension to the patent. 76
The sewing machine also contributed to the popularity of certain fashions. Ready-made cloaks for women were a business of a few years’ standing when the sewing machine was adopted for their manufacture in 1853. Machine sewing reduced the cost of constructing the garment by about eighty percent, thereby decreasing its price and increasing its popularity. In New York City alone, the value of the “cloak and mantilla” manufacture in 1860 was $618,400.77 Crinolines and hoopskirts were easier to stitch by machine than by hand, and these items had a spirited period of popularity due to the introduction of the sewing machine. Braiding, pleating, and tucking adorned many costume items because they could be produced by machine with ease and rapidity.
In addition to using the sewing machine for the manufacture of shirts, collars, and related men’s furnishings, the machine was also used in the production of men’s and boy’s suits and reportedly gave “a vast impetus to the trade.”78 The Army, however, was not quite convinced of the sewing machine’s practical adaptation to its needs. Although a sewing machine was purchased for the Philadelphia Quartermaster Depot as early as 1851, they had only six by 1860. On March 31, 1859, General Jesup of the Philadelphia Depot wrote to a Nechard & Company stating that the machine sewing had been tried but was not used for clothing, only for stitching caps and chevrons. In another letter, on the same day, to “Messers Hebrard & Co., Louisiana Steam Clothing Factory, N. Orleans,” Jesup states: “Machine sewing has been tried with us, and though it meets the requirements of a populous and civilized life, it has been found not to answer for the hard wear and tear and limited means of our frontier service. Particular attention has been paid to this subject, and we have abandoned the use of machines for coats, jackets and trousers, etc. and use them on caps and bands that are not exposed to much hard usage....”79 At this period prior to the Civil War, the Army manufactured its own clothing. As the demands of war increased, more and more of the Army’s clothing supplies were furnished on open contract—with no specifications as to stitching.80 Machine stitching, in fact, is found in most of the Civil War uniforms. One of the problems that most probably affected the durability of the machine stitching in the 1850s was the sewing thread, a problem that was not solved until the 1860s and which is discussed later under “thread for the machine.”
Shoe Manufacture
Another industry that was aided by the new invention was that of shoe manufacture. Although the earliest sewing-machine patents in the United States reflect the inventors’ efforts to solve the difficult task of leather stitching, and, although machines were used to a limited extent in stitching some parts of the shoe in the early and mid-1850s, it was not until 1858 that a machine was invented that could stitch the sole to the inner sole and to the upper part of the shoe. This was the invention of Lyman R. Blake and was patented by him on July 8, 1858; the patent model is shown in figure 55. Blake formed a chainstitch by using a hooked needle, which descended from above, to draw a thread through the supporting arm. Serving as the machine’s bedplate, the arm was shaped to accommodate the stitching of all the parts of the shoe.
The increased number of shoes required by the Army during the Civil War spurred the use of the sewing machine in their manufacture. The first “machine sewed bootees” were purchased by the Army in 1861. Inventors continued their efforts; the most prominent of these was Gordon McKay, who worked on an improvement of the Blake machine with Robert Mathies in 1862 and then with Blake in 1864. Reportedly, the Government at first preferred the machine-stitched shoes as they lasted eight times longer than those stitched by hand; during the war the Army purchased 473,000 pairs, but in 1871 the Quartermaster General wrote:
No complaints regarding the quality of these shoes were received up to February 1867 when a Board of Survey, which convened at Hart’s Island, New York Harbor reported upon the inferior quality of certain machine sewed bootees of the McKay patent, issued to the enlisted men at that post. The acting Quartermaster General, Col. D. H. Rucker, April 10, 1867, addressed a letter to all the officers in charge of depots, with instructions not to issue any more of the shoes in question, but to report to this office the quantity remaining in store. From these reports it appears that there were in store at that time 362,012 pairs M. S. Bootees, all of which were ordered to be, and have since been sold at public auction.81
The exact complaint against the shoes was not recorded. Possibly the entire shoe was stitched by machine. It was found that although machine-stitched shoes were more durable in some respects and the upper parts of most shoes continued to be machine stitched, pegged soles for the more durable varieties remained the fashion for a decade or more, as did custom hand-stitched shoes for those who could afford them.
Other Uses
The use of sewing machines in all types of manufacturing that required stitching of any type continued to grow each year. While the principal purpose for which they were utilized continued to be the manufacture of clothing items, by the year 1900 they were also used for awnings, tents, and sails; cloth bags; bookbinding and related book manufacture; flags and banners; pocketbooks, trunks, and valises; saddlery and harnesses; mattresses; umbrellas; linen and rubber belting and hose; to the aggregate sum of nearly a billion dollars—$979,988,413.82
Sewing-Machine Attachments
The growing popularity of the sewing machine offered still another boost to the economy—the development of many minor, related manufacturing industries. The repetitive need for machine needles, the development of various types of attachments to simplify the many sewing tasks, and the ever-increasing need for more and better sewing thread—the sewing machine consumed from two to five times as much thread as stitching by hand—created new manufacturing establishments and new jobs.
The method of manufacturing machine needles did not differ appreciably from the method used in making the common sewing needle, but the latter had never become an important permanent industry in the United States. Since the manufacture of practical sewing machines was essentially an American development and the eye-pointed needle a vital component of the machine, it followed that the manufacture of needles would also develop here. Although such a manufacture was established in 1852,83 foreign imports still supplied much of the need in the 1870s. As more highly specialized stitching machines were developed, an ever-increasing variety of needles was required, and the industry grew.
Soon after the sewing machine was commercially successful, special attachments for it were invented and manufactured. These ranged from the simplest devices for cutting thread to complicated ones for making buttonholes (see figs. 56 through 66).
The first patent for an attachment was issued in 1853 to Harry Sweet for a binder, used to stitch a special binding edge to the fabric. Other related attachments followed; among these were the hemmer which was similar to the binder, but turned the edge of the same piece of fabric to itself as the stitching was performed. Guides for stitching braid in any pattern, as directed by the movement of the goods below, were also developed; this was followed by the embroiderer, an elaborate form of braider. The first machine to stitch buttonholes was patented in 1854 and the first buttonhole attachment in 1856, but the latter was not practical until improvements were made in the late 1860s. Special devices for refilling the bobbins were invented and patented as early as 1862, and the popularity of tucked and ruffled garments inspired inventors to provide sewing-machine attachments for these purposes also. To keep the seamstress cool, C. D. Stewart patented an attachment for fanning the operator by an action derived from the treadle (fig. 65). While electric sewing machines did not become common until the 20th century, several 19th-century inventors considered the possibility of attaching a type of motor to the machine. One was the 1871 patent of Solomon Jones, who added an “electro motor” to an 1865 Bartlett machine (fig. 66). The attachments that were developed during the latter part of the 19th century numbered in the thousands; many of these were superfluous. Most of the basic ones in use today were developed by the 1880s and remain almost unchanged. Even the recently popular home zigzag machine, an outgrowth of the buttonhole machine, was in commercial use by the 1870s.
Sewing-machine improvements have been made from time to time. Like other mechanical items the machine has become increasingly automatic, but the basic principles remain the same. One of the more recent developments, patented84 in 1933 by Valentine Naftali et al., is for a manufacturing machine that imitates hand stitching. This machine uses a two-pointed “floating needle” that is passed completely through the fabric—the very idea that was attempted over one hundred years ago. The machine is currently used by commercial manufacturers to produce decorative edge-stitching that very closely resembles hand stitching.
Thread for the Machine
The need for a good thread durable enough to withstand the action of machine stitching first created a problem and ultimately another new industry in this country. When the sewing machine was first developed the inventors necessarily had to use the sewing thread that was available. But, although the contemporary thread was quite suitable for hand sewing, it did not lend itself to the requirements of the machine. Cotton thread, then more commonly a three-ply variety, had a glazed finish and was wiry. Silk thread frequently broke owing to abrasion at the needle eye. For the most part linen thread was too coarse, or the fine variety was too expensive. All of the thread had imperfections that went unnoticed in the hands of a seamstress, but caused havoc in a machine. Quality silk thread that would withstand the rigors of machine stitching could be produced, but it was quite expensive also. A new type of inexpensive thread was needed; the obvious answer lay in improving the cotton thread.85
In addition to the popular three-ply variety, cotton thread was also made by twisting together either two single yarns or more than three yarns. Increasing the number of yarns produced a more cylindrical thread. The earliest record of a six-ply cotton thread was about 1840.86 And in 1850 C. E. Bennett of Portsmouth, New Hampshire, received a gold medal for superior six-cord, or six-ply, spool cotton at the Fair of the American Institute. But the thread was still wiry and far from satisfactory. By the mid-1860s the demonstrated need for thread manufacturers in America brought George A. Clark and William Clark, third generation cotton-thread manufacturers of Paisley, Scotland, to Newark, New Jersey, where they built a large mill. George Clark decided that a thread having both a softer finish and a different construction was needed. He produced a six-cord cabled thread, made up of three two-ply yarns (see fig. 67). The thread was called “Clark’s ‘Our New Thread,’” which was later shortened to O.N.T. The basic machine-thread problem was solved. When other manufacturers used the six-cord cabled construction they referred to their thread as “Best Six-Cord”87 or “Superior Six-Cord”88 to distinguish it from the earlier variety made up of six single yarns in a simple twist. Another new side industry of the sewing machine was successfully established.
Manufacture and Export, to 1900
Sewing machines were a commodity in themselves, both at home and abroad. In 1850, there were no establishments exclusively devoted to the manufacture of sewing machines, the few constructed were made in small machine shops. The industry, however, experienced a very rapid growth during the next ten years. By 1860 there were 74 factories in 12 States,89 mainly in the East and Midwest,90 producing over 111,000 sewing machines a year. In addition, there were 14 factories that produced sewing-machine cases and attachments. The yearly value of these products was approximately four and a half million dollars, of which the amount exported in 1861 was $61,000. Although the number of sewing-machine factories dropped from 74 in 1860 to 69 by 1870, the value of the machines produced increased to almost sixteen million dollars.
The number of sewing-machine companies fluctuated greatly from year to year as many attempted to enter this new field of manufacture. Some were not able to make a commercial success of their products. The Civil War did not seem to be an important factor in the number of companies in business in the North. Although one manufacturer ceased operations in Richmond, Virginia, and a Vermont firm converted to arms manufacture, several companies began operations during the war years. Of the 69 firms in business in 1870, only part had been in business since 1860 or before; some were quite new as a result of the expiration of the Howe patent renewal in 1867.
Probably due to the termination of many of the major patents, there were 124 factories in 1880, but the yearly product value remained at sixteen million dollars. The 1890 census reports only 66 factories with a yearly production of a little less than the earlier decade. But by 1900, the yearly production of a like number of factories had reached a value of over twenty-one million, of which four and a half million dollars worth were exported annually. The total value of American sewing machines exported from 1860 to 1900 was approximately ninety million dollars. The manufacture of sewing machines made a significant contribution to the economic development of 19th-century America.
II. American Sewing-Machine Companies of the 19th Century
During the latter half of the 19th century, there was a total of two hundred or more sewing-machine companies in the United States. Although a great many manufacturing-type machines were sold, this business was carried on by relatively few companies and most were primarily concerned with the family-type machines. A representative number of these family machines together with information concerning both the company and serial-number dating are found in figures 68 through 132. A great many of the companies were licensed by the “Combination,” but, in addition, some companies were constructing machines that did not infringe the patents, other companies infringed the patents but managed to avoid legal action, and there were numerous companies that mushroomed into existence after the “Combination” was dissolved in 1877. Most of the latter were very short-lived. It is difficult to establish the exact dates of some of these companies as many of their records were incomplete or have since disappeared; even a great many of the “Combination” records were lost by fire. A summary of the existing records kept by the “Combination” is given in figure 37.
As will be noted in the subsequent listing, only a small percentage of the companies were in business for a period longer than ten years; of those that continued longer, all but a few had disappeared by 1910. Today there are about sixty United States sewing-machine companies. Most of them manufacture highly specialized sewing machines used for specific types of commercial work; only a few produce family or home-style machines. Foreign competition has increased, and the high cost of skilled labor in this country has made competition in this consumer-product field increasingly difficult. The countless varieties of American family sewing machines, so evident in the 19th century, have passed away.
| Sewing Machine | Manufacturer or Company | First Made or Earliest Record | Discontinued or Last Record |
|---|---|---|---|
| Aetna | Aetna Sewing Machine Co., Lowell, Mass. | ca. 1867 | ca. 1877 |
| Aiken and Felthousen | ——, Ithaca, N.Y. | ca. 1855 | before 1880 |
| Alsop | —— | — | ca. 1880 |
| American | American Sewing Machine Co. | 1854 | — |
| American Buttonhole, Overseaming and Sewing Machine (fig. 68) | American Buttonhole, Overseaming and Sewing Machine Co., Philadelphia, Pa. | 1869 | ca. 1874 |
| Later New American (fig. 69) | American Sewing Machine Co., Philadelphia, Pa. | ca. 1874 | ca. 1886 |
| American Magnetic (fig. 70) | American Magnetic Sewing Machine Company, Ithaca, N.Y. | 1853 | 1854 |
| Atlantic (fig. 71) | —— | 1869 | ca. 1870 |
| Atwater (fig. 87) | —— | 1857 | ca. 1860 |
| Avery | Avery Sewing Machine Co., New York, N.Y. | 1852 | 185- |
| Avery | Avery Manufacturing Co., New York, N.Y. | 1875 | 1886-1900 |
| A. Bartholf Manfr. | A. Bartholf, manufacturer, New York, N.Y. | ca. 1850 | 185- |
| Blodgett & Lerow patent 1849 (see also) | |||
| A. Bartholf Manfr. | A. Bartholf, manufacturer, New York, N.Y. | 1853 | ca. 1856 |
| Howe’s patent, 1846 (fig. 72) | |||
| Bartholf | A. Bartholf, manufacturer | 1857 | 1859 |
| Bartholf Sewing Machine Co. | 1859 | ca. 1865 | |
| Bartlett (fig. 73) | Goodspeed & Wyman | 1866 | ca. 1870 |
| Bartlett Sewing Machine Co., New York, N.Y. | ca. 1870 | 1872 | |
| Baker | —— | — | before 1880 |
| Bartram & Fanton (fig. 74) | Bartram & Fanton Mfg. Co., Danbury, Conn. | 1867 | 1874 |
| Bay State | —— | — | before 1880 |
| Beckwith (fig. 75) | Barlow & Son, New York, N.Y. | 1871 | 1872 |
| Beckwith Sewing Machine Co., New York, N.Y. | 1872 | ca. 1876 | |
| Blees | Blees Sewing Machine Co. | 1870 | 1873 |
| Blodgett & Lerow | O. Phelps, Boston, Mass. | 1849 | 1849 |
| (fig. 21) | Goddard, Rice & Co., Worcester, Mass. | 1849 | 1850 |
| (fig. 20) | A. Bartholf, manufacturer, New York, N.Y. | 1849 | 185- |
| Bond | —— | — | before 1880 |
| Boston | J. F. Paul & Co., Boston, Mass. | 1880 | — |
| Later New Boston | Boston Sewing Machine Co., Boston, Mass. | — | after 1886 |
| Boudoir (fig. 76) | Daniel Harris, inventor and patentee Manufacturer—several | 1857 | ca. 1870 |
| Bradford & Barber | Bradford & Barber, manufacturers, Boston, Mass. | 1860 | 1861 |
| Brattleboro | Samuel Barker and Thomas White, Brattleboro, Vt. | ca. 1858 | 1861 |
| Buckeye | Wilson [W.G.] Sewing Machine Company, Cleveland, Ohio | ca. 1867 | ca. 1876 |
| Later New Buckeye (fig. 77) (see Wilson) | |||
| Buell, “E. T. Lathbury’s Patent” | A. B. Buell, Westmoreland, New York | ca. 1860 | — |
| Burnet & Broderick | Burnet, Broderick and Co. | 1859 | ca. 1860 |
| Centennial (fig. 78) | Centennial Sewing Machine Co. (see McLean and Hooper), Philadelphia, Pa. | 1873 | 1876 |
| Chamberlain | Woolridge, Keene and Moore, Lynn, Mass. | 1853 | ca. 1854 |
| Chicago Singer | Scates, Tryber & Sweetland Mfg. Co., Chicago, Ill. | 1879 | 1882 |
| Later Chicago | Chicago Sewing Machine Co. | 1882 | ca. 1885 |
| Chicopee | |||
| (see Shaw & Clark) | |||
| Clark (fig. 42) | D. W. Clark, Bridgeport, Conn. | ca. 1858 | after 1860 |
| Clark’s Revolving Looper [double thread] (fig. 79) | Lamson, Goodnow & Yale, Windsor, Vt. | 1859 | 1861 |
| (see Windsor) | |||
| Clinton | Clinton Brothers, Ithaca, N.Y. | ca. 1861 | ca. 1865 |
| Companion | Thurston Mfg. Co., Marlboro, N.H. | 1882 | — |
| Crown | Florence Sewing Machine Co., Florence, Mass. | 1879 | after 1886 |
| (see Florence) | |||
| Dauntless (later New Dauntless) | Dauntless Mfg. Co., Norwalk, Ohio | 1877 | after 1882 |
| Davis | J.A. Davis, New York, N.Y. | ca. 1860 | — |
| Davis Vertical Feed | Davis Sewing Machine Co., Watertown, N.Y. | 1869 | after 1886 |
| Davis Vertical Feed and Rotary Shuttle | Davis Sewing Machine Co., Dayton, Ohio | after 1886 | 1924 |
| Decker (also The Princess) | Decker Mfg. Co., Detroit, Mich. | — | before 1881 |
| Demorest | Demorest Mfg. Co (formerly N.Y. Sewing Machine Co.) | 1882 | 1908 |
| Diamond (formerly Sigwalt) | Sigwalt Sewing Machine Co., Chicago, Ill. | 1880 | — |
| Domestic | Wm. A. Mack & Co. and N. S. Perkins, Norwalk, Ohio | 1864 | 1869 |
| Domestic | Domestic Sewing Machine Co., Norwalk, Ohio, acquired by White Sewing Machine Co. in 1924 and maintained as a subsidiary at Cleveland, Ohio. | 1869 | A |
| Dorcas | John P. Bowker, Boston, Mass. | 1853 | 185- |
| Du Laney (fig. 80) | |||
| Also called Little Monitor (see) | |||
| Durgin | Charles A. Durgin, New York, N.Y. | 1853 | after 1855 |
| Eldredge | Eldredge Sewing Machine Co., Chicago, Ill. | 1869 | 1890 |
| Elliptic | |||
| Sloat’s Elliptic | George B. Sloat and Co., Philadelphia, Pa. | ca. 1858 | ca. 1860 |
| Sloat’s Elliptic | Union Sewing Machine Co., Richmond, Va. | 1860 | 1861 |
| Elliptic | Wheeler & Wilson Mfg. Co. | 1861 | ca. 1867 |
| Elliptic Sewing Machine Co., N.Y., N.Y. | 1867 | before 1880 | |
| Empire (fig. 86) | Empire Sewing Machine Co., Boston, Mass. | ca. 1860 | 1869 |
| Later Remington-Empire | |||
| Empress | Manufactured on order through Jerome B. Secor, Bridgeport, Conn. | 1877 | — |
| Estey | Estey Sewing Machine Co. | ca. 1880 | 1882 |
| Estey, Fuller-Model | Brattleboro Sewing Machine Co., Brattleboro, Vt. | 1883 | after 1886 |
| Eureka (fig. 81) | Eureka Shuttle Sewing New York, N.Y. | 1859 | — |
| Excelsior | Excelsior Sewing Machine Co., New York, N.Y. | 1854 | 1854 |
| Fairy (figs. 51, 52) | Madame Demorest, New York, N.Y. | 1863 | ca. 1865 |
| Finkle, M. (fig. 82) | M. Finkle, Boston, Mass. | 1856 | ca. 1859 |
| Finkle & Lyon | Finkle & Lyon Sewing Machine Co., Boston, Mass. | ca. 1859 | 1867 |
| Later Victor | |||
| First and Frost | First and Frost, New York, N.Y. | ca. 1859 | ca. 1861 |
| Florence (fig. 83) | Florence Sewing Machine Co., Florence, Mass. | ca. 1860 | after 1878 |
| Later Crown | |||
| Folsom | Folsom, J. G., Winchendon, Mass. | 1865 | ca. 1871 |
| (see Globe and New England) | |||
| Fosket and Savage | Fosket and Savage, Meriden, Conn. | 1858 | 1859 |
| Foxboro | Foxboro Rotary Shuttle Co., Foxboro, Mass. | ca. 1882 | — |
| Franklin | Franklin Sewing Machine Co., Mason Village, N.H. | 1871 | 1871 |
| Free | Free Sewing Machine Co., Chicago and Rockford, Ill. | 1898 | A |
| Gardner | C. R. Gardner, Detroit, Mich. | 1856 | — |
| Globe (figs. 84, 85) | J. G. Folsom, Winchendon, Mass. | 1865 | 1869 |
| Gold Medal (chainstitch) | Gold Medal Sewing Machine Co., Orange, Mass. | 1863 | 1876 |
| Gold Medal (running stitch) | —— | 1863 | ca. 1865 |
| Gold Hibbard | Hibbard, B. S., & Co. | 1875 | — |
| Goodbody (sewing shears) | Goodbody Sewing Machine Co., Bridgeport, Conn. | 1880 | ca. 1890 |
| Goodes | Rex & Bockius, Philadelphia, Pa. | ca. 1876 | before 1881 |
| Goodrich | H. B. Goodrich, Chicago, Ill. | ca. 1880 | ca. 1895 |
| Grant Brothers (fig. 90) | Grant Bros. & Co., Philadelphia, Pa. | 1867 | ca. 1870 |
| Greenman and True (fig. 91) | Greenman and True Mfg. Co. Norwich, Conn. | 1859 | 1860 |
| Morse and True | 1860 | 1861 | |
| Green Mountain | —— | ca. 1860 | — |
| Griswold Variety | L. Griswold, New York, N.Y. | ca. 1886 | ca. 1890 |
| Grover and Baker (figs. 34-36, 92) | Grover and Baker Sewing Machine Co., Boston, Mass. | 1851 | 1875 |
| Hancock (figs. 93, 94) | —— | 1868 | before 1881 |
| Heberling Running Stitch | John Heberling | 1878 | ca. 1885 |
| Herron’s Patent (fig. 95) | —— | 1857 | — |
| Higby | Higby Sewing Machine Co., Brattleboro, Vt. | ca. 1882 | after 1886 |
| Later Acme | |||
| Home Home Shuttle | Johnson, Clark & Co., Orange, Mass. | 1869 | after 1876 |
| Homestead | —— | ca. 1881 | — |
| Household | Providence Tool Co., Providence, R.I. | 1880 | ca. 1884 |
| Household Sewing Machine Co. | ca. 1885 | 1906 | |
| Howe (figs. 96, 97) | Howe Sewing Machine Co., New York, N.Y. | 1853 | 1873 |
| (company of A. B. Howe sold to Howe Machine Co.) | |||
| Howe (fig. 98) | Howe Machine Co., Bridgeport, Conn. | 1867 | 1886 |
| Howe’s Improved Patent (fig. 107) | Nichols and Bliss, Boston, Mass. | 1852 | 1853 |
| J. B. Nichols & Co. | 1853 | 1854 | |
| which became Leavitt | Nichols, Leavitt & Co., Boston, Mass. | 1854 | 1856 |
| N. Hunt, which became Hunt and Webster (figs. 99, 100) | N. Hunt & Co., Boston, Mass. | 1853 | 1854 |
| Hunt and Webster, Boston, Mass. | 1854 | 1857 | |
| Later Ladd and Webster (see) | |||
| Improved Common Sense (fig. 102) | —— | ca. 1870 | — |
| Independent Noiseless | Independent Sewing Machine Co., Binghamton, N.Y. | 1873 | — |
| Jennie June | June Mfg. Co., Chicago, Ill. | 1881 | 1890 |
| Later Belvidere, Ill. | |||
| Jewel | Jewel Mfg. Co., Toledo, Ohio | 1884 | after 1886 |
| Johnson (fig. 103) | Emery, Houghton & Co., Boston, Mass. | 1856 | after 1865 |
| Keystone | Keystone Sewing Machine Co. | before 1872 | ca. 1874 |
| Ladd & Webster (fig. 101) | Ladd, Webster & Co., Boston, Mass. | 1858 | ca. 1866 |
| Ladies Companion (fig. 115) | —— | 1858 | ca. 1858 |
| (see Pratt’s Patent) | |||
| “Lady” (fig. 104) | —— | 1859 | — |
| Landfear’s Patent (fig. 105) | Parkers, Snow, Brooks & Co., West Meriden, Conn. | 1857 | — |
| Langdon | L.W. Langdon | 1856 | — |
| Lathrop (fig. 106) | Lathrop Combination Sewing Machine Co. | 1873 | — |
| Leader | Leader Sewing Machine Co., Springfield, Mass. | 1882 | — |
| Leavitt (fig. 108) | Nichols, Leavitt & Co., Boston, Mass. | 1855 | 1857 |
| Leavitt & Co. | 1857 | ca. 1865 | |
| Leavitt Sewing Machine Co. | ca. 1865 | 1870 | |
| Leslie Revolving Shuttle | Leslie Sewing Machine Co., Cleveland, Ohio | 1881 | — |
| Lester (fig. 109) | J.H. Lester, Brooklyn, N.Y. | ca. 1858 | early 1860 |
| Lester Mfg. Co., Richmond, Va. | early 1860 | late 1860 | |
| Union Sewing Machine Co., Richmond, Va. | late 1860 | 1861 | |
| Little Gem | —— | — | ca. 1870 |
| Little Giant | Domestic Sewing Machine Co., Norwalk, Ohio | ca. 1882 | — |
| Little Monitor (not associated with Monitor) | G.L. Du Laney, Brooklyn, N.Y. | ca. 1866 | after 1875 |
| Love | Love Mfg. Co., Pittsburgh, Pa. | 1885 | after 1886 |
| Lyon | Lyon Sewing Machine Co. | 1879 | ca. 1880 |
| Macauley | Thos. A. Macauley Mfg., New York, N.Y. | before 1879 | — |
| Manhattan | Manhattan Sewing Machine Co. | ca. 1868 | ca. 1880 |
| McKay | McKay Sewing Machine Assoc. | 1870 | 1876 |
| McLean and Hooper | B. W. Lacy & Co., Philadelphia, Pa. | ca. 1869 | ca. 1873 |
| (see Centennial) | |||
| Meyers | J. M. Meyers | 1859 | — |
| Miller’s Patent | —— | 1853 | — |
| Monitor (fig. 88) | Shaw & Clark Sewing Machine Co., Biddeford, Me. | 1860 | 1864 |
| Moore | Moore Sewing Machine Co. | ca. 1860 | — |
| Morey & Johnson (fig. 18) | Safford & Williams Makers, Boston, Mass. | 1849 | ca. 1851 |
| Morrison | Morrison, Wilkinson & Co., Hartford, Conn. | 1881 | — |
| Mower | —— | ca. 1863 | — |
| National | Johnson, Clark & Co., Orange, Mass. | 1874 | — |
| National (also sold under distributor’s name) | National Sewing Machine Co. (consolidation of the June and Eldredge Companies), Belvidere, Ill. | 1890 | 1953 |
| Ne Plus Ultra (fig. 110) | O. L. Reynolds Manufacturing Co., Dover, N.H. | 1857 | — |
| Nettleton & Raymond (fig. 111) | Nettleton & Raymond, Brattleboro, Vt. | ca. 1857 | — |
| New England (figs. 112, 113) | Charles Raymond (also by: | ca. 1859 | 1866 |
| Grout & White, Orange, Mass.; | 1862 | 1863 | |
| William Grout, Winchendon, Mass.; | 1863 | — | |
| and J. G. Folsom, Winchendon, Mass.) | 1865 | 1865 | |
| Newell | —— | 1881 | — |
| New Fairbanks | J. H. Drew & Co. | 1878 | 1880 |
| Thomas M. Cochrane Co., Belleville, Ill. | 1880 | — | |
| New Home | New Home Sewing Machine Co., Orange, Mass. (in 1928 became affiliated with Free Sewing Machine Co.) | 1876 | A |
| New York | ——, New York, N.Y. | ca. 1855 | ca. 1855 |
| New York Shuttle | N.Y. Sewing Machine Co., New York, N.Y. (later Demorest Mfg. Co.) | before 1880 | 1882 |
| Noble | Noble Sewing Machine Co., Erie, Pa. | before 1881 | after 1886 |
| Novelty | C. A. French, Boston, Mass. | 1869 | — |
| Old Dominion | Old Dominion Sewing Machine Co., Richmond, Va. | ca. 1858 | 1860 |
| Pardox | —— | ca. 1865 | — |
| Parham | Parham Sewing Machine Co., Philadelphia, Pa. | ca. 1869 | ca. 1871 |
| Parker | Charles Parker Co., Meriden, Conn. | before 1860 | after 1865 |
| Later Parker Sewing Machine Co. | |||
| Pearl | —— Bennett | ca. 1859 | — |
| Philadelphia | Philadelphia Sewing Machine Co., Philadelphia, Pa. | ca. 1872 | ca. 1881 |
| Post Combination | Post Combination Sewing Machine Co., Washington, D.C. | before 1885 | after 1886 |
| Pratt’s Patent (fig. 114) | —— | 1857 | ca. 1858 |
| Later Ladies Companion | |||
| Queen | Dauntless Mfg Co., Norwalk, Ohio | ca. 1881 | — |
| Quaker City (fig. 116) | Quaker City Sewing Machine Co., Philadelphia, Pa. | 1859 | ca. 1861 |
| Remington Empire Later Remington | Remington Empire Sewing Machine Co. | 1870 | 1872 |
| E. Remington & Sons, Philadelphia, Pa. | 1873 | ca. 1894 | |
| Robertson (dolphin & cherub) (figs. 40, 41) | T. W. Robertson, New York, N.Y. | 1855 | after 1860 |
| Robinson | F. R. Robinson, Boston, Mass. | 1853 | ca. 1855 |
| Robinson’s patent sewing machine with Roper’s improvement (fig. 117) | Howard & Davis, Boston, Mass. | 1855 | — |
| Later Robinson and Roper (fig. 118) | same | 1856 | before 1860 |
| Royal St. John (formerly St. John) | Royal Sewing Machine Co., Springfield, Ohio (later Free Co.) | ca. 1883 | 1898 |
| Ruddick | —— | ca. 1860 | — |
| Secor | Secor Machine Co., Bridgeport, Conn. | 1870 | 1876 |
| Sewing Shears (Hendrick’s patent) (fig. 43) | Nettleton & Raymond, Bristol, Conn. | ca. 1859 | — |
| Sewing Shears | American Hand Sewing Machine Co., Bridgeport, Conn. | ca. 1884 | ca. 1900 |
| Shaw & Clark | Shaw & Clark Co., Biddeford, Me. | ca. 1857 | 1866 |
| Running Stitch Machine (fig. 53) | |||
| Chainstitch Machine (fig. 119) | |||
| Chainstitch Machine (fig. 120) | Shaw & Clark Co., Chicopee Falls, Mass. | 1867 | 1868 |
| Chicopee Sewing Machine Co., Chicopee Falls, Mass. | 1868 | ca. 1869 | |
| Sigwalt | Sigwalt Sewing Machine Co., Chicago, Ill. | ca. 1879 | — |
| Singer (figs. 28, 29, 30, 32, 33, 121, 122) | I. M. Singer & Co. (later Singer Mfg. Co.). Moved from Boston to New York to Elizabethport, N.J. (factory). | 1851 | A |
| Springfield | Springfield Sewing Machine Co., Springfield, Mass. | 1880 | — |
| Standard (chainstitch) (fig. 123) | —— | 1870 | — |
| Standard (shuttle) | Standard Shuttle Sewing Machine Co., New York, N.Y. | 1874 | ca. 1881 |
| Standard | Standard Sewing Machine Co., Cleveland, Ohio (acquired by Singer Co.) | 1884 | ca. 1930 |
| Stewart | Henry Stewart & Co., N.Y., N.Y. | 1874 | 1880 |
| Later New Stewart | Stewart Mfg Co. | 1880 | ca. 1883 |
| St. John (later Royal St. John) | St. John Sewing Machine Co., Springfield, O. | 1870 | ca. 1883 |
| Taggart & Farr (figs. 124, 125) | Taggart & Farr, Philadelphia, Pa. | 1858 | — |
| Thompson | C. F. Thompson Co. | 1871 | 1871 |
| T. C. Thompson, Ithaca, N.Y. | ca. 1854 | — | |
| Union | Johnson, Clark & Co., Orange, Mass. | 1876 | — |
| Victor | Finkle & Lyon Mfg. Co. | 1867 | ca. 1872 |
| Victor Sewing Machine Co., Middletown, Conn. | ca. 1872 | ca. 1890 | |
| Wardwell | Wardwell Mfg. Co., St. Louis, Mo. | ca. 1876 | 1890 |
| Watson (fig. 126) | Jones & Lee | 1850 | ca. 1853 |
| Watson & Wooster, Bristol, Conn. | ca. 1853 | ca. 1860 | |
| Waterbury | Waterbury Co., Waterbury, Conn. | 1853 | ca. 1860 |
| Weed | T. E. Weed & Co. (became Whitney & Lyons) | 1854 | — |
| Weed | Weed Sewing Machine Co. (reorganized from Whitney & Lyons), Hartford, Conn. | 1865 | — |
| Family Favorite | 1867 | — | |
| Manu. Favorite | 1868 | — | |
| General Favorite | 1872 | — | |
| Hartford | 1881 | ca. 1900 | |
| Wesson | Farmer & Gardner Manufacturing Co. | 1879 | 1880 |
| D. B. Wesson Sewing Machine Co., Springfield, Mass. | 1880 | — | |
| West & Willson (fig. 127) | West & Willson Co., Elyria, Ohio | 1858 | — |
| A. B. Wilson (fig. 23) | E. E. Lee & Co., New York, N.Y. | 1851 | 1852 |
| A. B. Wilson’s patent seaming lathe | Wheeler, Wilson, Co., Watertown, N.Y. | late 1851 | 1856 |
| Later Wheeler and Wilson (fig. 26, 27, 128, 129) | Wheeler & Wilson Mfg.Co., Bridgeport, Conn. | 1856 | 1905 |
| Singer Co., Bridgeport, Conn. | 1905 | 1907 | |
| White (fig. 130) | White Sewing Machine Co., Cleveland, Ohio | 1876 | A |
| Whitehill | Whitehill Mfg. Co., Milwaukee, Wis. | ca. 1875 | after 1886 |
| Whitney | Whitney Sewing Machine Co., Paterson, N.J. | ca. 1872 | ca. 1880 |
| Whitney & Lyons | Whitney & Lyons (a machine based on the 1854 patent of T. E. Weed) | ca. 1859 | ca. 1865 |
| Wickersham | Butterfield & Stevens Mfg. Co., Boston, Mass. | 1853 | — |
| Willcox & Gibbs (figs. 39, 131) | Willcox & Gibbs Sewing Machine Co., New York, N.Y. | 1857 | A |
| Williams & Orvis | Williams & Orvis Sewing Machine Co., Boston, Mass. | ca. 1859 | after 1860 |
| Wilson (fig. 89) | Wilson (W.G.) Sewing Machine Co., Cleveland, Ohio | ca. 1867 | after 1885 |
| (see Buckeye) | |||
| Windsor (one thread) | Vermont Arms Co., Windsor, Vt. | 1856 | 1858 |
| Windsor | Lamson, Goodnow & Yale, Windsor, Vt. | 1859 | 1861 |
| (see Clark’s Revolving Looper) | |||
| Name Unknown | John W. Beane | 1853 | — |
| “ | Henry Brind | 1860 | — |
| “ | Garfield Sewing Machine Co. | 1881 | — |
| “ | Geneva Sewing Machine Co. | 1880 | — |
| “ | Gove & Howard | 1855 | — |
| “ | Charles W. Howland, Wilmington, Del. | ca. 1860 | — |
| “ | Miles Greenwood & Co., Cincinnati, Ohio | ca. 1861 | — |
| “ | Hood, Batelle & Co. | 1854 | 1854 |
| “ | Wells & Haynes | 1854 | 1854 |
| “ | Wilson H. Smith, Birmingham, Conn. | ca. 1860 | — |
The true Bartholf machine evolved when the manufacturer substituted Howe’s reciprocating shuttle for the rotary shuttle of the Blodgett & Lerow machine, continuing to manufacture the machine in his own adapted style. Bartholf manufactured reciprocating-shuttle machines as early as 1853, and his was one of the first companies licensed by Howe.
All Bartholf machines licensed under Howe’s patent carry the Howe name and patent date. They are sometimes mistakenly referred to as Howe machines, but they are no more Howe machines than those manufactured by Wheeler & Wilson, Singer, or many others.
On April 6, 1858, Bartholf was granted a patent for an improvement of the shuttle carrier. He continued to manufacture sewing machines under the name “Bartholf Sewing Machine Co.” until about 1865.
Using serial numbers, Bartholf machines can be dated approximately as follows:
| Serial Number | Year |
| 1-20 | 1850 |
| 21-50 | 1851 |
| 51-100 | 1852 |
| 101-235 | 1853 |
| 236-290 | 1854 |
| 291-321 | 1855 |
| 322-356 | 1856 |
| 357-387 | 1857 |
| 388-590 | 1858 |
| 591-1337 | 1859 |
No record of the number of machines produced by Bartholf after 1859 is available.
The Bartholf machine illustrated bears the serial number 128 and the inscription “A. Bartholf Manfr., NY—Patented Sept. 1846 E. Howe, Jr.” This machine is in the collection of the Baltimore County Historical Society. Note the close similarity between it and the 1850 Blodgett & Lerow machine manufactured by Bartholf. (Photo courtesy of the Baltimore County Historical Society.)
Using serial numbers, Bartlett’s machines can be dated approximately as follows: 1-1000, 1866; 1001-3126, 1867; 3127-?, 1868. There is no record of serial numbers for the succeeding years. (Smithsonian photo 45524-G.)
In 1860, the Boudoir, also called Harris’s Patent sewing machine, was exhibited at the Massachusetts Charitable Mechanics Association Exhibition where it won a silver medal for “its combination of parts, its beauty and simplicity, together with its ease of operation.” At this time the machine was described as making a “double lock stitch” (another name for the double chainstitch). It was also described as having been before the public for some time and combining “the improvements of others for which the parties pay license.” The machine head was positioned on the stand similarly to that of the West & Willson (fig. 127) and stitched from left to right.
It is not known exactly how many of these machines were made or how long they were in vogue. Manufacture, although probably ceasing in the 1860s, is known to have been discontinued before 1881, when a list of obsolete sewing machines was published in The Sewing Machine News. (Smithsonian photo P63199.)
Machines can be dated by their serial number approximately as follows:
| Serial Number | Year |
| 1-200 | 1856 |
| 201-450 | 1857 |
| 451-700 | 1858 |
| 701-950 | 1859 |
| 951-1500 | 1860 |
| 1501-3000 | 1861 |
| 3001-5000 | 1862 |
| 5001-7000 | 1863 |
| 7001-9000 | 1864 |
| 9001-11000 | 1865 |
| 11001-13000 | 1866 |
| 13001-15490 | 1867 |
| 15491-17490 | 1868 |
| 17491-18830 | 1869 |
| 18831-21250 | 1870 |
| 21251-28890 | 1871 |
| 28891-40790 | 1872 |
| 40791-48240 | 1873 |
| 48241-53530 | 1874 |
| 53531-59635 | 1875 |
| 59636-65385 | 1876 |
No estimates are available for the years 1877 to 1890. (Smithsonian photo 48216-A.)
| Serial Number | Year |
| 1-500 | 1860 |
| 501-2000 | 1861 |
| 2001-8000 | 1862 |
| 8001-20000 | 1863 |
| 20001-35000 | 1864 |
| 35001-50000 | 1865 |
| 50001-60000 | 1866 |
| 60001-70534 | 1867 |
| 70535-82534 | 1868 |
| 82535-96195 | 1869 |
| 96196-113855 | 1870 |
| 113856-129802 | 1871 |
| 129803-145592 | 1872 |
| 145593-154555 | 1873 |
| 154556-160072 | 1874 |
| 160073-164964 | 1875 |
| 164965-167942 | 1876 |
In 1866 Folsom devised a new treadle attachment for hand-operated machines; the invention was featured in Scientific American, volume 14, number 17, with a Globe machine. Folsom again exhibited at the Massachusetts Mechanics exhibition in 1869. In addition to an improved single-thread Globe, he also showed a double-thread, elastic-stitch (double chainstitch) machine for which he received a silver medal.
Folsom machines were manufactured until 1871; 280 machines were manufactured in that year.
The Globe sewing machine illustrated is stamped “J. G. Folsom, Maker, Winchendon, Mass. Patented April 28, 1863 [Ketchum’s patent], Mar. 1, 1864. May 17, 1864.” The machine was manufactured before November 1864 or it would include the patent for the lower loop adjustment. (Smithsonian photo 48216-H.)
Note: At least five sewing machines, those in figures 84 through 89, are similar enough in appearance to cause some confusion, because their basic design stems from a short pillar.
Neither a name nor a date appears on the machine. In the June 25, 1907, issue of the Sewing Machine Times it was called the Common Sense machine, but detailed research has turned up no evidence to substantiate this name. However, a dated brochure advertising the Grant Brothers machine and showing a model identical to that illustrated in the Sewing Machine Times has been found. The brochure states that the machine made an elastic lockstitch; this was not a true lockstitch, however, but was in fact a simple chainstitch.
Grant Brothers sold their machine, which had silver-plated mountings, for $18; the price included hemmer, Barnum’s self-sewer, oilcan, screwdriver, clamp, gauge, and four silver needles. An additional charge of $12 was made for a table and treadle. Compared to other chainstitch machines the price was high, and the company was short-lived. (Smithsonian photo 60794-E.)
The machine illustrated is marked “Greenman and True” and bears the serial number 402; it was probably manufactured early in 1860. (Smithsonian photo 48216-N.)
| Serial Number | Year |
| 1-500 | 1851 |
| 501-1000 | 1852 |
| 1001-1658 | 1853 |
| 1659-3893 | 1854 |
| 3894-5038 | 1855 |
| 5039-7000 | 1856 |
| 7001-10681 | 1857 |
| 10682-15752 | 1858 |
| 15753-26033 | 1859 |
| 26034-44869 | 1860 |
| 44870-63705 | 1861 |
| 63706-82641 | 1862 |
| 82642-101477 | 1863 |
| 101478-120313 | 1864 |
| 120314-139148 | 1865 |
| 139149-157886 | 1866 |
| 157887-190886 | 1867 |
| 190887-225886 | 1868 |
| 225887-261004 | 1869 |
| 261005-338407 | 1870 |
| 338408-389246 | 1871 |
| 389247-441257 | 1872 |
| 441258-477437 | 1873 |
| 477438-497438 | 1874 |
| 497439-512439 | 1875 |
(Smithsonian photo 45513-B, an engraving of a Grover and Baker sewing machine from an advertising brochure of about 1870.)
Figures 96, 97, and 98.—The Howe machines. It is difficult for many to believe that the stamped legend “Elias Howe patent, Sept. 10, 1846” does not certify that a machine is an original Howe. Although Elias Howe was granted a patent for the lockstitch machine in 1846, he did not establish a sewing-machine factory for about twenty years. Early in the 1850s and later through the “Combination,” however, he licensed others to make machines using his patent. These machines bore that patent date for which a royalty was being paid.
Among his early licensees was his elder brother Amasa who organized the Howe Sewing Machine Co. in 1854. The Amasa Howe machines were very good ones, and in 1862 Amasa won the prize medal at the London International Exhibition. This immensely increased the popularity of the machine and Elias offered to join Amasa by building a large factory at Bridgeport, Connecticut, to fill the increasing demand for more machines. The machines produced at Bridgeport, however, although imitating the Amasa Howe machines, proved inferior in quality. Amasa found that, rather than helping his business reputation, his brother’s efforts were hurting him, and he severed business relations with Elias.
Because of their brief association, the 1862 prize medal awarded to A. B. Howe was sometimes credited to Elias. The latter did receive awards for his patent, but never for his manufactured machines. When the two brothers dissolved their joint venture, Elias attempted to call his new company the Howe Sewing Machine Co., but Amasa’s claim that this name had been his exclusive property for many years was upheld by the courts. Elias then omitted the word “Sewing” and called his company simply the Howe Machine Co.
After Elias died in 1867, the company was run by his sons-in-law, the Stockwell brothers. To distinguish their machines from those of A. B. Howe, they marked each machine with a brass medallion picturing the head and flowing locks of Elias Howe. They also continued to advertise their machine as the “original” Howe. In about 1873, B. P. Howe, Amasa’s son, sold the Howe Sewing Machine Co. to the Stockwell brothers, who continued to manufacture Howe machines until 1886.
The machines of the A. B. Howe Sewing Machine Co. may be dated by serial number approximately as follows:
| Serial Number | Year |
| 1-60 | 1854 |
| 61-113 | 1855 |
| 114-166 | 1856 |
| 167-299 | 1857 |
| 300-478 | 1858 |
| 479-1399 | 1859 |
No figures are available for 1860-1870, but 20,051 machines were manufactured in 1871.
The machines of the [Elias] Howe Machine Co. are not believed to have begun with serial number 1, and no figures are available for 1865-1867. After that, the machines may be dated by serial number approximately as follows:
| Serial Number | Year |
| 11,000-46,000 | 1868 |
| 46,001-91,843 | 1869 |
| 91,844-167,000 | 1870 |
| 167,001-301,010 | 1871 |
| 301,011-446,010 | 1872 |
| 446,011-536,010 | 1873 |
| 536,011-571,010 | 1874 |
| 571,011-596,010 | 1875 |
| 596,011-705,304 | 1876 |
No figures are available for 1877-1886.
Figures 99, 100, and 101.—The N. Hunt (later, in 1856, Hunt & Webster and finally in 1858 Ladd and Webster) sewing machine was based on the patents of Christopher Hodgkins, November 2, 1852, and May 9, 1854, both of which were assigned to Nehemiah Hunt. First manufactured in 1853, the machine, which closely resembled the Hodgkins’ patent, won a silver medal at the exhibition of the Massachusetts Charitable Mechanics Association that same year.
In 1856 Hunt took a partner, and the company became Hunt & Webster. An interesting account of this company appeared as a feature article in Ballou’s Pictorial, July 5, 1856, where it was reported that “the North American Shoe Company have over fifty of the latest improved machines, represented in these drawings [fig. 31], now running....” The article also estimated that a 55-million dollar increase in shoe manufacturing in Massachusetts in 1855 was due to the sewing machine. In 1856 the Hunt & Webster machine again won a silver medal at the exhibition. Very late in 1858 the company became Ladd, Webster, & Co. and continued to manufacture both family and manufacturing sewing machines until the mid-1860s.
The approximate date of manufacture can be determined by serial number:
| Serial Number | Year |
| 1-100 | 1853 |
| 101-368 | 1854 |
| 369-442 | 1855 |
| 443-622 | 1856 |
| 623-1075 | 1857 |
| 1076-1565 | 1858 |
| 1566-3353 | 1859 |
No figures are available for the 1860s.
Dating from the early 1870s, the Improved Common Sense machine is about 10 inches in width, two inches larger than the New England machine. The spool holder is similar to Folsom’s patented design, but is less refined. A page from an advertising brochure of the period verifies the name of the machine, but does not identify the manufacturer.
There are no patent dates or identifying names or numbers on the machine illustrated. Although the Empire Co. also produced a machine of this style, their models are marked with their name and with Ketchum’s patent date, April 23, 1863. Of the several styles of machine using the Raymond looper, this type seems to account for the largest volume manufactured, as evidenced by the proportionately higher number of examples still extant. (Smithsonian photo 48328-E.)
The sewing machines based on the “Cora Munro” design also use branch designs as the overhanging arms. A mother bird sits in the upper branch and descends to feed a young bird as the machine is in operation. The one illustrated was used as the machine submitted with a request for patent by George Hensel of New York City for which patent 24,737 was issued on July 12, 1859. Since Hensel’s patent application was for an improvement in the feed, there was no need for the highly decorative head unless such a machine was commercially available. The patent specifications merely state that the head is “ornamented.” Another sewing machine of this type was used as the patent model by Sidney Parker of Sing Sing, New York, number 24,780, issued on the same date as the Hensel patent. Parker’s patent also covered an improved feeding mechanism. In the patent description, however, the inventor states that “the general form of the machine is not unlike others now in use.” By this he might have meant in the design, or possibly in the basic structural form. Other than the two machines described, no other examples are known to have survived, but “Lady” or “Cora Munro” sewing machines were manufactured. (Smithsonian photo 45506-D.)
The Landfear patent was for a shuttle machine, but it also included a mode for regulating stitch length. The name chosen for this machine may be incorrect, since the single-thread chainstitch mechanism is primarily that of W. H. Johnson, but since the Johnson patent also was used on other machines the name “Landfear” was assigned. The machine was probably another attempt to evade royalty payment to the “Combination.”
The serial number 262 indicates that at least that many machines were manufactured, although this model is the only one known to be in existence. The support arm of the machine head is iron, cast as a vase of flowers and painted in natural colors. The paint on the head is original, but the table has been refinished, and the iron legs, which had rusted, have been repainted. (Smithsonian photo 48440-G.)
Figures 107 and 108.—The Nichols and Leavitt sewing machines. One of Elias Howe’s earliest licensees was J. B. Nichols. His machine, manufactured at first with George Bliss and later alone as J. B. Nichols & Co., was called Howe’s Improved Patent Sewing Machine. It was, however, no more a Howe machine than any of the others produced under the Howe patent.
In July 1855 Nichols went into partnership with Rufus Leavitt, and the company name changed to Nichols, Leavitt & Co. In 1857 it was changed again to Leavitt & Co., and finally in the mid-1860s to Leavitt Sewing Machine Co. By the 1870s, it was defunct.
The Nichols-Leavitt machines can be dated by their serial numbers approximately as follows:
| Serial Number | Year | Company |
| 1-28 | 1853 | Nichols & Bliss |
| 29-245 | 1854 | J. B. Nichols & Co. |
| 246-397 | 1855 | J. B. Nichols & Co.—Nichols, Leavitt & Co. |
| 398-632 | 1856 | Nichols, Leavitt & Co. |
| 633-827 | 1857 | Leavitt & Co. |
| 828-902 | 1858 | ″ |
| 903-1115 | 1859 | ″ |
| 1116-1436 | 1860 | ″ |
| 1437-1757 | 1861 | ″ |
| 1758-2077 | 1862 | ″ |
| 2078-2400 | 1863 | ″ |
| 2401-2900 | 1864 | ″ |
| 2901-3900 | 1865 | Leavitt Sewing Machine Co. |
| 3901-4900 | 1866 | ″ |
| 4901-5951 | 1867 | ″ |
| 5952-6951 | 1868 | ″ |
| 6952-7722 | 1869 | ″ |
There is no record that the company was in existence after 1869.
Figures 112 and 113.—New England sewing machines. The small, hand-turned, sewing machines some of which were called Common Sense, were manufactured by at least three companies and possibly more. The earliest ones were those made by Nettleton & Raymond based on Charles Raymond’s patent of March 9, 1858, which featured a hinged presser foot acting as the top feed. On July 30, 1861, Raymond received a patent for an improved looper; this date is found on all machines later manufactured by the inventor.
In 1858 Nettleton and Raymond had moved from Bristol, Connecticut, to Brattleboro, Vermont. Also in Brattleboro at this time were Thomas H. White and Samuel Barker, who were manufacturing a small machine called the Brattleboro. White left Vermont in 1862 and went to Massachusetts. There, in partnership with William Grout, he also began to manufacture New England machines; these were basically the same as the Raymond machines. After a short time, Grout left the partnership with White and moved to Winchendon, there continuing to make New England machines for approximately one more year. In 1865, J. G. Folsom of Winchendon exhibited a New England machine at the Tenth Exhibition of the Massachusetts Charitable Mechanics Association along with his Globe machine. Whether both machines were manufactured by him or whether he might have been exhibiting one of Grout’s machines is not known.
There is no record that New England machines were manufactured after 1865. There is a great similarity between these machines and the Improved Common Sense sewing machines of the 1870s. It is believed that the name “Common Sense” was given by frugal New Englanders to several of the cheaper chainstitch machines of the 1860s.
Figures 114 and 115.—Pratt’s patent and the Ladies Companion sewing machine. The machines manufactured under the patents of Samuel F. Pratt were first sold in 1857 and 1858 as Pratt’s patent. These machines carry the Pratt name and the patent dates “Feb. 3, 1857 Mar. 3;” the latter is an 1857 patent date also. In 1859 the Pratt machine was called the Ladies Companion and was so marked. It was also marked with the 1857 patent dates, the date February 16, 1858, and a serial number, and was stamped “Boston, Mass.” Manufacture was discontinued after a few years.
Figures 117 and 118.—Robinson and Roper sewing machines, 1855-1856. This is one of the few machines producing a backstitch or half backstitch to realize any commercial success. Manufactured a very short time by Howard & Davis, it was a short-thread machine, based on the Frederick Robinson patent of December 10, 1850, and the Samuel Roper patent of August 15, 1854. Roper produced additional improvements for which he received a patent on November 4, 1856. In the Scientific American, November 1, 1856, the new machine was discussed: “Robinson & Roper exhibit their new improved sewing machines, which appear to operate with great success. Two needles are employed, the points of which are furnished with hooks that alternately catch the thread and form the stitch. The finest kind of cotton thread or silk can be used. The work appears well done. Price $100.”
Figures 119 and 120.—Shaw & Clark sewing machines. In addition to the early style Monitor sewing machine sold by Shaw & Clark without a name or any identifying marks, the company continued to manufacture machines after a lawsuit with the “Combination” forced them to take out a license. They manufactured an adapted version of their Monitor and an entirely new design patented in 1861. Their machines were now marked with the company name and a list of patent dates including those of Howe, Wheeler and Wilson, Grover and Baker, and Singer and the Batchelder patent, together with their own design patents. In 1867 the company moved from Biddeford, Maine, to Chicopee Falls, Massachusetts. In the same year, they began manufacturing a machine of the design patented by T. C. Page. The company is believed to have become the Chicopee Sewing Machine Company which appeared the following year and remained in business only a very short time. One Chicopee sewing machine is in the Smithsonian collection.
Figures 121 and 122.—Singer sewing machines. From 1850 to 1858 the Singer company produced heavy manufacturing-type sewing machines similar to the patent model shown earlier (fig. 28). The first machine for family use, Singer’s new “Family” sewing machine (fig. 33) was manufactured from 1858-1861. Their second-style family machine was called the “Traverse Shuttle Machine—Letter A;” it was manufactured from 1859 to 1865, when they introduced their third family machine and called it the “New Family” sewing machine. This style machine continued until about 1883 when the “Improved Family” machine appeared. In addition to the lockstitch machines, Singer also manufactured chainstitch machines, and many highly specialized manufacturing machines.
From 1857 through the 1880s, the Singer machines were marked with two serial numbers. It is possible that the numbers were related to the “Combination” royalties paid by the Singer company. Until about 1873 there was a difference of exactly 4,000 in the two numbers, thus one machine would be marked 12163 and directly below it would be marked 16163. From 1873 the last three digits of the two numbers continued to be the same but the lower number might be much lower in value than either number used in earlier years. The larger number is believed to have been a record of total production while the lower number may have referred to a machine of a particular style. The Singer company records can shed no light on the meaning of the top (or lower of the two) serial numbers. Generally, in the earlier machines, the difference in the two numbers will not affect the dating of a machine by more than one year. Since dating by serial number can only be estimated, the two numbers do not add an appreciable variable prior to 1873. Only the larger number, however, should be considered in dating machines after 1873.
| Serial Number Year | |
| 1-100 | 1850 |
| 101-900 | 1851 |
| 901-1711 | 1852 |
| 1712-2521 | 1853 |
| 2522-3400 | 1854 |
| 3401-4283 | 1855 |
| 4284-6847 | 1856 |
| 6848-10477 | 1857 |
| 10478-14071 | 1858 |
| 14072-25024 | 1859 |
| 25025-43000 | 1860 |
| 43001-61000 | 1861 |
| 61001-79396 | 1862 |
| 79397-99426 | 1863 |
| 99427-123058 | 1864 |
| 123059-149399 | 1865 |
| 149400-180360 | 1866 |
| 180361-223414 | 1867 |
| 223415-283044 | 1868 |
| 283045-369826 | 1869 |
| 369827-497660 | 1870 |
| 497661-678921 | 1871 |
| 678922-898680 | 1872 |
| 898681-1121125 | 1873 |
| 1121126-1362805 | 1874 |
| 1362806-1612658 | 1875 |
| 1612659-1874975 | 1876 |
Since records of annual production from 1877 to the turn of the century are not complete, it is difficult to establish yearly approximations. Using the machines submitted as patent models, and thus known to have been manufactured before the date of deposit, however, has provided us with the following date guides. By 1877 there had been 2 million machines manufactured, 3 million by 1880, 4 million by 1882, 5 million by 1884, 6 million by 1886, 7 million by 1888, 8 million by 1889, 9 million by 1890, and 10 million by 1891.
Figures 124 and 125.—Taggart & Farr sewing machine, 1860. The Taggart & Farr is an almost forgotten machine. It was based on Chester Farr’s patent of August 9, 1859. The machine, however, was in commercial production as early as 1858, the year the patent application was made. Using two threads—both taken directly from the spool—to form a chainstitch, the machine was operated basically by treadle but also by hand. The drive wheel is missing on this machine, but it would normally appear on the right.
The name and patent date were painted on the end of the machine. This was true of many other machines of this period, which is why so many go unidentified once the paint has become worn. Several thousand Taggart & Farr machines were manufactured, but the company is believed to have had a short life, for it was among those that had disappeared by 1881.
Figures 128 and 129.—Wheeler and Wilson sewing machines. The Wheeler and Wilson company was the largest manufacturer of sewing machines in the 1850s and the 1860s.
It began in 1851 as A. B. Wilson; from 1852 to 1856 it was the Wheeler, Wilson & Co., Watertown, Connecticut; and from 1856 to 1876, it was Wheeler & Wilson Mfg. Co., Bridgeport, Connecticut.
The style of the head changed very little during these years (see figs. 26 and 27). Both a table style with iron legs and a cabinet model were made: the head was usually mounted to stitch from left to right. In 1861, the company introduced the famous glass presser foot, patented on March 5 of that year by J. L. Hyde. The presser foot was made of metal but shaped like an open _ into which was slid a small glass plate, with a hole for the needle descent. The glass allowed the seamstress to observe the stitching and to produce very close-edge stitching. It remained a favorite of many women for years. In 1876, the new No. 8 machine was introduced and a new series of serial numbers was initiated. It is, therefore, imperative to know that the machine is one of the earlier style machines before using the following list of serial numbers to date the machines, approximately as follows:
Records of the second series of serial numbers dating from 1876 are not available.
The machine illustrated is a standard lockstitch machine, which would have been set into a sewing-machine table and operated by a treadle. The small handle was used to start the wheel, and thus the stitching operation, in the forward direction. This machine bears the serial number 28241 and the following patents: “Mar. 14, 1876, May 2, 1876, Oct. 24, 1876, Jan. 16, 1877, Mar. 20, 1877, Mar. 27, 1877,” which are primarily the patents of D’Arcy Porter and George W. Baker.
The machines of the 1870s may be dated approximately as follows:
| Serial Number | Year |
| 1-9000 | 1876 |
| 9000-27000 | 1877 |
| 27001-45000 | 1878 |
| 45001-63000 | 1879 |
(Smithsonian photo 58986.)
It has not been possible to secure information on records of serial numbers from the late 1870s through the 1920s to aid in dating machines of that period. For the preceding years, however, the machines may be dated approximately as follows:
| Serial Number | Year |
| 1-10000 | 1857 |
| 10001-20000 | 1858 |
| 20001-30000 | 1859 |
| 30001-40000 | 1860 |
| 40001-50000 | 1861 |
| 50001-60000 | 1862 |
| 60001-70000 | 1863 |
| 70001-80000 | 1864 |
| 80001-90000 | 1865 |
| 90001-100000 | 1866 |
| 100001-115000 | 1867 |
| 115001-130000 | 1868 |
| 130001-145000 | 1869 |
| 145001-160000 | 1870 |
| 160001-190127 | 1871 |
| 190128-223766 | 1872 |
| 223767-239647 | 1873 |
| 239648-253357 | 1874 |
| 253358-267879 | 1875 |
| 267880-279637 | 1876 |
Although the Willcox and Gibbs company is still in existence, for the past several decades the company has limited itself to the production of specialized manufacturing machines rather than family machines. (Smithsonian photo 58986.)
Single Thread
1. Running stitch.
2. Back stitch.
3. Fast stitch.
4. Chainstitch.
5. Coiled-loop chainstitch.
6. Knitted-loop chainstitch.
7. Knotted-loop chainstitch.
8. Loop enchained by second alternate stitch.
9. Each loop locks and enchains alternate loops.
10. Staple stitch (for waxed threads only).
Two Threads
11. Double-needle chainstitch.
12. Double-thread chainstitch (one needle).
13. Double-looped chainstitch.
14. Chain with interlocking thread.
15. Under-thread through its own loop.
16. Two needles penetrate fabric from opposite sides.
17. Two needles working from the same side.
18. Double interlocking loop.
19. Lockstitch.
20. Twist in needle thread.
21. Double twist in needle thread.
22. Twist in shuttle thread.
23. Double twist in shuttle thread.
24. Knot stitch, shuttle thread knotted at every stitch.
25. Knot stitch, shuttle thread knotted at every other stitch.
26. Knot stitch, shuttle thread through the needle thread loop and knotted around the loop.
27. Shuttle thread pulled to the surface and interlocked with succeeding stitch to form an embroidery stitch.
28. Wire-lock stitch, thread locked in place with wire.
Three Threads
29. Two shuttles, each locking alternate loops.
30. Double loop with interlocking third thread.
31. Two shuttle threads, both locking each loop.
32. Two shuttle threads intertwining and locking each loop.
33. Single thread; loop of needle thread drawn up over the edge and locked by needle at its next descent.
34. Two threads; loops of needle thread, above and below, extend to the edge of the fabric, and are locked by shuttle thread.
35. Two threads; needle penetrates back from edge, its loop passed to and interlocked by the needle at its next descent over the edge, and this second needle-loop locked by shuttle thread.
36. Two threads; shuttle thread drawn up over the edge of the fabric to the line of the needle thread.
37. Two threads; needle loop through the fabric locked by needle loop over the edge and second loop locked by second thread.
38. Two threads; edge of fabric covered by shuttle thread.
39. Three threads; third thread laid around the stitch at the edge of the fabric.
Ornamental Stitches
40. Zigzag; single thread chainstitch (4).
41. Zigzag; two-thread lockstitch (19).
42. Zigzag; two-thread chainstitch (13).
43. Zigzag; chain stitch with interlocking thread (14).
44. Zigzag; double loop with interlocking third thread (30).
45. Zigzag; running stitch (1).
46. Zigzag; two needles and shuttle.
47. Zigzag; variation of 46.
48-52. Zigzag stitches for sewing straw braid.
53-62. Straight straw-braid stitches.
63-67. Special embroidery stitches.
68. Saddler’s stitch.
In the Sewing Machine News, vol. 3, no. 5, p. 12 (1881), there were listed a number of then “defunct” machines and companies. Among these are many well-known names and little-known names for which at least one additional reference can be found. There are some, however, for which this is the only reference to date. These are: Blanchard, Babcock, Banner, Brown Rotary, Cottage, Cole, Duplex, Economist, Erie, Gutman, Hill, Hancock & Bennett, Jenks, Lockmar, La Favorite, Learned, Leggett, McCoy, McCardy, Medallion, McArthur & Co., Monopoly, Moreau, Mack, Niagra, New Cannaan, Orphean, Pride-of-the-West, Seamen & Guiness, Surprise, Stackpole, Shanks, Stanford, Troy, Utica, United States Family, Weaver, Wagner, and Williams. Some of these names may have been a “special” name given to machines manufactured by one of the known companies, but at least a few are names of machines manufactured for a very short time prior to 1881 about which we would like to know more.
III. Chronological List of U.S. Sewing-Machine Patent Models in the Smithsonian Collections
There are more than seven hundred sewing-machine patent models and a similar number of attachment models in the Smithsonian collections. Most of these machines were received in 1926 when the Patent Office disposed of its collection of hundreds of thousands of models. Prior to 1880, models had been required with the patent application; although the requirement was discontinued that year, patentees continued to furnish models for another decade or so. All models prior to 1836 were lost in a Patent Office fire of that year, but since the sewing-machine patent history dates from the 1840s, most of the historically important ones of this subject have been preserved.
These models form a valuable part of the record of the invention, supplementing the drawings and the text of the written specifications. The early sewing-machine models were made to order, either by the inventor or a commissioned model maker. As soon as sewing machines were produced commercially, it was less expensive for the patentee to use a commercial machine of the period, to which he added his change or improvement, than to have a complete model constructed to order. Some of the commercial machines used in this way are the only examples known to be in existence, and as such, are of more interest in establishing the history of the manufactured machine than for the minor patented changes.
During the period of the “Sewing Machine Combination,” many patentees attempted to invent and patent “the different machine.” This was either a radical change in style or an attempt to produce a far less-expensive type of machine. These machines were not always put into commercial production, but the patent models give an indication of the extent to which some inventors went to simplify or vary the mechanics of machine sewing.
The following is a list of those sewing-machine patent models in the Smithsonian Institution collections:
IV. 19th-Century Sewing-Machine Leaflets in the Smithsonian Collections
| Machine or Manufacturer | Date | Type |
| American B.H.O. and Sewing Machine | 1874 | Illustrated, advertising leaflet |
| Buckeye sewing machine | ca. 1870 | Illustrated, directions for using the machine |
| New Buckeye | ca. 1872 | Illustrated, directions for using the machine |
| Centennial sewing machine | 1876 | Illustrated, advertising leaflet |
| Domestic sewing machine | 1872 | Illustrated, advertising leaflet |
| Florence sewing machine | 1873 | Illustrated, advertising leaflet |
| Florence sewing machine | 1878 | Illustrated, directions for using the machine |
| Goodes sewing machine | ca. 1876 | Advertising leaflet |
| Grant Brothers sewing machine | 1867 | Illustrated, advertising leaflet (Xerox copy) |
| Grover and Baker sewing machine | 1853 | Illustrated, advertising leaflet |
| Grover and Baker sewing machine | ca. 1870 | Illustrated, advertising leaflet |
| Home sewing machine | ca. 1870 | Illustrated, advertising leaflet |
| Howe sewing machine, new “B” machine | 1868 | Illustrated, instruction booklet |
| Howe sewing machine | 1876 | Illustrated, catalog of machines |
| Independent Noiseless sewing machine | ca. 1874 | Illustrated, advertising leaflet |
| Ladd, Webster sewing machine | 1861 | Illustrated, advertising leaflet |
| Little Monitor sewing machine | ca. 1872 | Illustrated, advertising leaflet |
| Remington Family sewing machine | ca. 1874 | Illustrated, advertising leaflet |
| Shaw and Clark sewing machine | 1864 | Illustrated, advertising leaflet |
| Singer sewing machine | 1871 | Illustrated, advertising leaflet |
| Singer sewing machine | 1893 | Catalog of machines shown at the Columbian Exposition |
| Standard Shuttle sewing machine | ca. 1875 | Illustrated, advertising leaflet |
| Ten Dollar Novelty sewing machine | ca. 1870 | Illustrated, advertising leaflet |
| Weed sewing machine | 1873 | Illustrated, advertising leaflet |
| Wheeler and Wilson sewing machine | ca. 1869 | Illustrated, instruction booklet |
| Wheeler and Wilson sewing machine | ca. 1870-1875 | Illustrated, advertising leaflet |
| Wheeler and Wilson no. 8 machine | ca. 1878 | Illustrated, instruction booklet |
| Wilson sewing machine | 1872 | Illustrated, advertising leaflet |
V. A Brief History of Cotton Thread
Although Samuel Slater’s wife is credited with making the first cotton sewing thread from yarns spun at the Pawtucket, Rhode Island, mill in about 1794, cotton thread did not become a manufactured item at that time. Slater turned all his interests to producing cotton-twist yarns needed for the warps of cotton fabrics. By 1809, however, the agents of Almy and Brown, partners and distributors for Slater, were advertising cotton thread as follows:
Factory Cotton and Thread Store, No. 26 Court Street opposite Concert Hall. George Connell, Agent for Almy and Brown of Providence and Pawtucket Manufactories, has now for sale from eight to ten thousand weight of yarn, for weaving... five hundred pounds cotton thread, in hanks, from No. 12 to 60 of a superior quality and very white.91
Although it was a short hop from the spinning of cotton warps to the twisting of these cotton yarns to form a sewing thread, the general manufacture of cotton thread as an industry did not originate in the United States but rather in Scotland in the early 19th century. Napoleon’s blockade, which curtailed Great Britain’s importation of silk—needed not only for fabrics but also for making heddle strings for the looms—stimulated the production of cotton thread there. James and Patrick Clark, in desperation, attempted to substitute cotton for silk in their manufacture of these heddle strings. When they were successful, they considered that if cotton could be used successfully for this purpose it could also be made suitable for sewing thread. In 1812 they built a factory in Paisley, Scotland, which had long been noted for its textile industries. The thread was sold in hanks. About 1820 James’ sons, James and John, who were now running J. & J. Clark & Co., began to wind the thread on spools. For this service they charged an extra halfpenny, which was refunded when the empty spool was returned. The thread was usually a three-ply or so-called three-cord thread.
About 1815 James Coats, also of Paisley, started manufacturing thread at Ferguslie, Scotland. His two sons took over the company in 1826 and formed the J. & P. Coats Company. Another brother, Andrew Coats, became the selling agent in the United States about 1840. But the cotton-thread industry was not fully launched.
As reported in an 1853 Scientific American, there was “more American thread made ten years ago than there is today.”92 It was not until the six-cord cabled cotton thread, which was suitable for both machine and hand sewing, was perfected that the industry progressed into full operation.
VI. Biographical Sketches
Barthelemy Thimonnier
The first man known to have put a sewing machine into practical operation, Barthelemy Thimonnier, was a Frenchman of obscure parentage. His father, a textile dyer of Lyon, left that city in 1793 as a result of the Revolution and journeyed with his family to l’Arbresle where Barthelemy was born in August of that year.
The family resources were small, and, although the young Thimonnier was able to begin studies at the Seminaire de Saint-Jean at Lyons, he soon was forced to leave school for financial reasons and return to his home, then at Amplepuis. There he learned the tailoring trade and by 1813 was fairly well established in his own shop.
At that time many of the town’s inhabitants were weavers and almost every house possessed one or two looms. The noise of the shuttle echoed from these family workshops. Thimonnier noted the relatively small amount of time needed to weave a fabric compared with the slow painstaking task of sewing a garment by passing the needle in and out for each stitch of each seam. When his mind began to dwell on the idea of producing a machine to do this stitching, another of the town’s occupations supplied him with a clue and an additional incentive. This village industry produced a type of embroidery work called point de chainette, in which a needle with a small hook was used to form the chainstitch, a popular type of decorative stitch long used in countries all over the world. It was Thimonnier’s plan to use this type of hooked needle and produce the stitch by machine, employing it both as a decorative stitch and a seam-forming one.
In 1825 Thimonnier moved to St. Etienne, where he became completely absorbed in the idea of inventing a sewing machine. Ignorant of any of the principles of mechanics, he worked alone and in secret for four years, neglecting his tailoring business to the extent that neighbors looked upon him as peculiar, if not crazy. By 1829 he had not only mastered the mechanical difficulties of bringing his dream to realization, but also had made the acquaintance of the man who helped him to success. Ferrand, of l’Ecole des Mines of Saint-Etienne, became interested in the machine and helped finance Thimonnier through his trials and disappointments. In 1830 Thimonnier received a patent on his machine, which produced the chainstitch by means of a needle shaped like a small crochet hook.
Thimonnier, together with Ferrand and a M. Beaunier, made attempts to introduce his machine in Paris. By 1841 they were successful in having eighty of Thimonnier’s machines in use sewing army clothing in a shop in Paris. But the fears of the tailors could not be quieted. The machines were destroyed by an ignorant and infuriated mob, as had been earlier labor-saving devices such as the Jacquard attachment for the loom and Hargreaves’ spinning jenny. Thimonnier was forced to flee to his home in St. Etienne, once more penniless.
Soon after this, Jean Marie Magnin, an engineer from Villefranche -sur-Saône became interested in Thimonnier’s machine and provided the inventor again with financial backing. In 1845 under the name of Thimonnier and Magnin the patent of 1830 was renewed, and under it they organized the first French sewing-machine company. The machines they manufactured could produce 200 stitches per minute.
The Revolution of 1848 curtailed the manufacture and sale of the machines. Thimonnier, remembering his unpleasant experience in 1841, decided to go to England with Magnin, where, on February 8, 1848, they received the English patent for his chainstitch machine. He was also granted United States patent 7,622 on September 20, 1850. This later machine had some advantages over his French machine of 1830, but by this time other inventors had joined the field with machines that were more practical. Magnin entered a sewing machine (which from the description in the catalog must have been Thimonnier’s invention) in the Crystal Palace Exhibition in London in 1850, but because it was late in arriving it was overlooked by the judges and not even considered in the competition. Thimonnier died in poverty at Amplepuis on July 5, 1857.
Walter Hunt
Walter Hunt was born near Martinsburg, New York, on July 29, 1796. Although little is known of Hunt’s early childhood, we do learn from the author of his obituary, which appeared in Scientific American, July 9, 1860, that even as a child he was more interested in people and what he could do for them than in what he could do to insure his own welfare. He is said to have devoted his life to his friends, frequently giving away his last cent when he did not have enough to provide for himself.
There is no record that Hunt maintained a regular business other than the occupation of inventor. His interests were numerous and varied. He received his first patent on June 26, 1826, for a machine for spinning flax and hemp. During the next 33 years he patented 26 ideas. In addition he sold or dropped several more. His second patent was for a coach alarm, and through the years he also received patents for a variety of things including a knife sharpener, heating stove, ice boat, nail machine, inkwell, fountain pen, safety pin, bottle stopper, sewing machine (1854), paper collars, and a reversible metallic heel.
Elias Howe, Jr.
Elias Howe, Jr., was born on his father’s farm in Spencer, Massachusetts, on July 9, 1819. This was one of those barren New England farms with many rock-filled acres. All possible ingenuity was necessary to secure a living. The elder Howe supplemented his farming by having a small gristmill, a sawmill, and also by manufacturing cards for the fast-growing cotton industry of New England. Elias Jr.’s earliest recollections were of the latter. He worked with his brothers and sisters sticking wire teeth into strips of leather to make these cotton cards, but, not being very good at this, his family decided to let him “live out” with a neighboring farmer. (Children were leased in those days; they received their board and keep in exchange for chores they would perform.) After a few years, Elias returned home and worked in his father’s mill until he was sixteen. Then, against the wishes of his family, he went to Lowell, Massachusetts. Here, he obtained a learner’s place in a machine shop where cotton-spinning machinery was made and repaired.
In 1837, when a financial panic hit the country, Howe lost his job. He then decided to go to Boston, and this marked a turning point in his career. In Boston he met Ari Davis, a maker of mariners’ instruments and scientific apparatus. Howe began to work in Davis’ shop, a place to which inventors often came to ask advice about their ideas. Davis sometimes helped them, but just as often he shouted at them in anger—he is said to have been one of the noisiest men in Boston. One day Howe overheard his employer bellowing at a man who had brought a knitting machine to the shop to seek Davis’ advice. “Why are you wasting your time over a knitting machine?” said Davis, “Take my advice, try something that will pay. Make a sewing machine.” “It can’t be done,” was the reply. “Can’t be done?” shouted Davis, “Don’t tell me that. Why—I can make a sewing machine myself.” “If you do,” interrupted the capitalist, “I can make an independent fortune for you.” Davis, like most men of many words, often talked of more than he planned to do. He never attempted to invent a sewing machine.
But the loud voices interested Howe, who, it is said, determined then that he would produce a sewing machine and win the fortune that the prosperous-looking man had asserted was waiting for such a deed. A kind of lameness since birth had made physical tasks painful for Howe, and he perhaps felt that this would offer an opportunity to become independent of hard physical work.
After marrying on a journeyman machinist’s pay of $9 a week, Howe’s health worsened and by 1843 was so bad that he had to stop work for days at a time. His wife was forced to take in sewing to maintain the family. It was the sight of his wife toiling at her stitches together with the pressure of poverty that recalled to Howe his earlier interest in a machine to sew. He decided to make an earnest attempt to invent one. Watching his wife for hours at a time, he tried to visualize a machine that would duplicate the motions of the arm. After many trials, he conceived the idea of using an eye-pointed needle in combination with a shuttle to form a stitch. It is possible that, as some authors state, the solution appeared to him in a dream, a manifestation of the subconscious at work. Others have suggested that he may have learned of Hunt’s machine. There is a general similarity in the two, not only in the combination of eye-pointed needle and shuttle but in the overhanging arm and vertical cloth suspension.
After conceiving the idea, whatever his inspiration, Howe determined to devote all of his time to producing a working model of his machine. Elias’ father, who had then started a factory for splitting palm leaves in Cambridge, gave him permission to set up a lathe and a few tools in the garret of the factory. Elias moved his family to Cambridge. Soon after his arrival, unfortunately, the building burned down, and Howe despaired of finding a place to work. He had a friend, however, in George Fisher, who had just come into a small inheritance, and Howe persuaded him to enter into partnership with him for the development of the machine. Fisher agreed to board Howe and his family, which now included two children, while Howe completed the model. Fisher also agreed to supply $500 for material and tools in exchange for a half interest in a patent if one was obtained.
At long last Howe was able to spend his full time and concentration on building his machine. His family was being fed and had a roof over its head. Within a few months Howe had completed a model and by April 1845 had sewed his first seam (see fig. 14). In July of that year he sewed all the principal seams of two suits of wool clothes, one for George Fisher and one for himself.
Several efforts were made to solicit public interest in the new machine. One was installed in a public hall in Boston, and a tailor was employed to operate it at three times the regular wage. The reception was similar to that of Thimonnier’s: crowds came to see the “contraption,” but, when Howe tried to interest large clothing establishments in using the machine, the protests of the tailors effectively blocked him. He took his sewing machine to the Quincy Hall Clothing Manufactory and offered to sew up any seams brought to him. Daily he sat in one of the rooms demonstrating his machine, and finally he challenged five of the swiftest seamstresses there to a race. Ten seams of equal length were prepared for stitching. One was given to each of the girls while the remaining five were given to Howe. Howe finished his five a little sooner than the girls each finished one, and his seams were declared the strongest and neatest. (Had any curved or angular work been brought, he could not have stitched it.) Still Howe did not receive a single order. The fear of throwing hand sewers out of work was again expressed, and, in addition, the cost of the machine was said to be too high. When it was estimated that a large shirtmaker would have to buy thirty or forty such machines, the necessary large investment was dismissed as ridiculous.
Howe was not too discouraged. In the meantime, he had finished a second machine for deposit with the patent specifications, as the patent laws then required. The second was a better made machine (fig. 15) and showed several minor changes. As soon as the patent was issued on September 10, 1846, Howe and his partner returned to Cambridge.
Without the inventor’s enthusiasm or love of his own invention, George Fisher became thoroughly discouraged. He had boarded Howe and his family for nearly two years, had furnished the money needed to purchase the tools and materials for making the two sewing machines, had met the expense of obtaining the patent and the trip of Howe and himself to Washington; representing in all an outlay of practically $2000. Since no orders for machines had been received from either garment makers or tailors, Fisher did not see the slightest probability of the machine’s becoming profitable and regarded his advances of cash as a dead loss.
Howe moved back to his father’s house with a plan to look elsewhere for a chance to introduce the machine. Obtaining a loan from his father, he built another machine and sent it to England by his brother Amasa. After many discouraging attempts to interest the British, Amasa met William Thomas, a manufacturer of umbrellas, corsets, and leather goods. Thomas employed many workmen, all of whom stitched by hand, and he immediately saw the possibilities of a sewing machine. He proposed that Howe sell the machine to him for £250 sterling (about $1250). Thomas further proposed to engage the inventor to adapt this machine to the making of corsets, at a salary of £3 a week.
When Amasa Howe returned to Cambridge with the news, Elias was reluctant to accept Thomas’ offer but had nothing better in sight. So the brothers sailed for London in February 1847, taking with them Howe’s first machine and his patent papers. Thomas later advanced the passage money for Howe’s wife and three children so that they could join Howe in England.
At this point, historians disagree on how long Howe was in Thomas’ employ and whether he succeeded in adapting the machine to meet Thomas’ needs. He was in England long enough, however, to find himself without employment in a strange country, his funds nearly exhausted, and his wife ill. He hoped to profit by the notice that his work had received and began to build another machine. He sent his family home to reduce expenses while he stayed on to finish the machine.
After working on it for three or four months, he was forced to sell it for five pounds and to take a note for that. To collect enough for his passage home, he sold the note for four pounds cash and pawned his precious first machine and his patent papers. He landed in New York in April 1849 with but half a crown in his pocket to show for his labors. A short time after he arrived, he learned that his wife was desperately ill. Only with a loan from his father was he able to reach her side before she died. Friends were found to look after the children, and Elias returned to work as a journeyman machinist.
Howe discovered, much to his surprise, that during his absence in England the sewing machine had become recognized in the United States. Several machines made in Boston had been sold to manufacturers and were in daily operation. Upon investigating them, he felt that they utilized all or part of the invention that he had patented in 1846, and he prepared to secure just compensation for its use. The first thing he did was to regain his first machine and patent papers from the London pawnshop. It was no easy matter for Howe to raise the money, but by summer he had managed. It was sent to London with Anson Burlingame, who redeemed the loans, and by autumn of the same year the precious possessions were back in Howe’s hands. Though Howe gained nothing by his English experience, William Thomas by his modest expenditure obtained all rights to the machine for Great Britain. This later proved to be a valuable property.
Howe then began writing letters to those whom he considered patent infringers, requesting them to pay a fee or discontinue the manufacture of sewing machines which incorporated his patented inventions. Some at first were willing to pay the fee, but they were persuaded by the others to stand with them and resist Howe. This action forced Howe to the courts. With his father’s aid he began a suit, but soon found that considerably more money than either possessed was necessary for such actions. Howe turned once more to George Fisher, but years of investing money in Howe’s machine without any monetary return had cooled him to the idea. Fisher, however, agreed to sell his half interest, and in February 1851 George S. Jackson, Daniel C. Johnson, and William E. Whiting became joint owners with Howe. These men helped Howe to procure witnesses in the furtherance of numerous suits, but more money was needed than they could raise. The following year a Massachusetts man by the name of George W. Bliss was persuaded to advance the money for the heavy legal expenses needed to protect the patent. Bliss did this as a speculation and demanded additional security. Once more Elias’ long-suffering parent came to the rescue and mortgaged his farm to get the necessary collateral.
Only one of these suits was prosecuted to a hearing, but this one, relatively unimportant in itself, set the precedent. In it the defense relied on the earlier invention of Walter Hunt to oppose Howe’s claims. The defendant succeeded in proving that Hunt invented, perfected, and sold two machines in 1834 and 1835 which contained all the essential devices in Howe’s machine of 1846. But Howe showed that the defendant’s machine (which was a Blodgett and Lerow) contained some features of Howe’s machine which were not in Hunt’s. The jury decided the case in favor of Howe. Howe later fought a vigorous battle with Isaac Singer, but after much legal controversy the ultimate decision in that case also was in Howe’s favor. The suits and payments to each patent holder for the right to use his idea were choking the sewing-machine industry. Even Howe could not manufacture a practical machine without an infringement. Finally an agreement was reached and a “Combination” was formed by the major patent holders (see pp. 41-42).
In the meantime, eight years of the first term of Howe’s patent had expired without producing much revenue. This permitted Howe, upon the death of his partner, George Bliss, to buy Bliss’ half interest for a small sum. He became, then, the sole owner of his patent just as it was to bring him a fortune. He obtained a seven-year extension for his patent in 1860 without any difficulty, and in 1867, when he applied for another extension, he stated that he had received $1,185,000 from it. Though he endeavored to show that because of the machine’s great value to the public he was entitled to receive at least $150,000,000, the second application was denied.
During the Civil War, Howe enlisted as a private soldier in the 17th Regiment Connecticut Volunteers. He went into the field and served as an enlisted man. On occasion when the Government was pressed for funds to pay its soldiers, he advanced the money necessary to pay his entire regiment.
Howe did not establish a sewing-machine factory until just before his death in 1867. One of his early licensees had been his elder brother, Amasa, who had organized the Howe Sewing Machine Company about 1853. When Elias began manufacturing machines on his own, he sunk into the bedplate of each machine a brass medallion bearing his likeness. Elias gave his company the same name that his elder brother had used. As this had been Amasa’s exclusive property for many years, he took the matter to the courts where the decision went against Elias. He then organized the Howe Machine Company and began to manufacture sewing machines. On October 3, 1867, Elias died in Brooklyn, New York, at the home of one of his sons-in-law. The company was then carried on by his two sons-in-law, who were Stockwell brothers. In 1872 the Howe Sewing Machine Company was sold by Amasa’s son to the Stockwells’ Howe Machine Company, which in turn went out of business in the mid-1880s.
Allen Benjamin Wilson
Allen B. Wilson was born in the small town of Willett, Cortlandt County, New York, in 1824. At sixteen he was apprenticed to a distant relative, a cabinetmaker. Unfortunate circumstances caused him to leave this employ, and in 1847 Wilson was in Adrian, Michigan, working as a journeyman cabinetmaker. The place and year are important, for it was at this time that he conceived his idea of a sewing machine. Because of the distant location, it is believed that he was not aware of similar efforts being made in New England. Wilson became ill and for many months could not work at his trade. By August 1848 he was able to work again and found employment at Pittsfield, Massachusetts. Resolving to develop his idea of a sewing machine, he worked diligently and by November had made full drawings of all the parts, according to his previous conceptions.
In comparison to the monetary returns received by the inventors Howe and Singer, Wilson himself did not receive as great a monetary reward for his outstanding sewing-machine inventions. Because of his health Wilson retired in 1853, when the stock company was formed, but he received a regular salary and additional money from the patent renewals. Wilson petitioned for a second extension of his patents on April 7, 1874, stating that, due to his early poverty, he had been compelled to sell a half interest in a patent (his first one) for the sum of $200. Also he stated that he had not received more than his expenses during the original fourteen-year term. Wilson also stated that he had received only $137,000 during the first seven-year extension period. These figures were verified by his partner. The petition was read before both Houses of Congress and referred to the Committee on Patents.93 There was strong feeling against the extension of the Wilson patents. The New York Daily Graphic, December 30, 1874, reported:
So valuable has been this latter four-motion feed that few or no cloth-sewing machines are now made without it. The joint ownership of this feature of the Wilson patents has served to bind the combination of sewing-machine builders together, and enabled them to defy competition by force of the monopoly. It is this feature which the combination wishes to further monopolize for seven years by act of Congress. The inventor has probably realized millions for his invention. Singer admits that his patents, which are much less important, paid him two millions prior to 1870, since which time he has not been compelled to render an account. The Wilson patents with their extended terms were worth a much larger sum. They have been public property, so far as the feed is concerned, since June 15, 1873, and will remain so if too great a pressure is not brought to bear on Congress for their extension. A monopoly of this feed motion for seven years more would be worth from ten to thirty millions to the owner—and would cost the people four times as much.
Wilson had not made the millions for he only received a small percentage of the renewals’ earnings plus his salary from the patents’ owner, the Wheeler and Wilson Manufacturing Company.
The Congressional Committee on Patents made an adverse report in 1874 and again in 1875 and 1876, when applications for an extension were continued
Wilson died on April 29, 1888.
Isaac Merritt Singer
Isaac Singer, whose name is known around the world as a manufacturer of sewing machines, was the eighth child of poor German immigrants. Isaac was born on October 27, 1811, in Pittstown, New York, but most of his early life was spent in Oswego. He worked as a mechanic and cabinetmaker, but acquired an interest in the theater. Under the name of Isaac Merritt, he went to Rochester and became an actor. In 1839, during an absence from the theater, he completed his first invention, a mechanical excavator, which he sold for $2000. With the money Singer organized a theatrical troupe of his own, which he called “The Merritt Players.” When the group failed in Fredericksburg, Ohio, Singer was stranded for lack of funds.
Forced to find some type of employment, Singer took a job in a Fredericksburg plant that manufactured wooden printers’ type. He quickly recognized the need for an improved type-carving machine. After inventing and patenting one, he found no financial support in Fredericksburg and decided to take the machine to New York City. Here, the firm of A. B. Taylor and Co. agreed to furnish the money and give Singer room in its Hague Street factory to build machines. A boiler explosion destroyed the first machine, and Taylor refused to advance more money.
While Singer was with Taylor, George B. Zieber, a bookseller who had seen the type-carving machine, considered its value to publishers. Zieber offered to help Singer and raised $1700 to build another model. In June 1850 the machine was completed. Singer and Zieber took the machine to Boston where they rented display space in the steam-powered workshop of Orson C. Phelps at 19 Harvard Place. Only a few publishers came to look at the machine, and none wanted to buy it.
Singer, contemplating his future, became interested in Phelps’ work, manufacturing sewing machines for J. A. Lerow and S. C. Blodgett. Phelps welcomed Singer’s interest as the design of the mechanism was faulty and purchasers kept returning the machines for repairs. Singer examined the sewing machine with the eyes of a practical machinist. He criticized the action of the shuttle, which passed around a circle, and the needle bar, which pushed a curved needle horizontally. Singer suggested that the shuttle move to and fro in a straight path and that a straight needle be used vertically. Phelps encouraged Singer to abandon the type-carving machine and turn his energies toward the improvement of the sewing machine. Convinced that he could make his ideas work, Singer sketched a rough draft of his proposed machine, and with the support of Zieber and Phelps the work began.
Singer continued to be active in the sewing-machine business until 1863. He made his home in Paris for a short time and then moved to England. While living at Torquay he conceived the idea of a fabulous Greco-Roman mansion, which he planned to have built at Paignton. Singer called it “The Wigwam.” Unfortunately, after all his plans, he did not live to see its completion. Singer died on July 23, 1875, of heart disease at the age of sixty-three.
Footnotes
73 Eighth Census, 1860, Manufactures, Clothing (United States Census Office, published Government Printing Office: Washington, D.C., 1865).
74 Eighty Years of Progress of the United States (New York, 1861), vol. 2, pp. 413-429.
75 George Gifford, “Argument of [George] Gifford in Favor of the Howe Application for Extension of Patent” (New York: United States Patent Office, 1860).
76 Op. cit. (footnote 34).
77 Eighth Census, 1860, Manufactures (United States Census Office, published Government Printing Office: Washington, D.C., 1865), “Women’s Ready-Made Clothing,” p. 83.
78 Ibid., p. 64.
79 National Archives, Record Group 92, Office of the Quartermaster General, Clothing Book, Letters Sent, volume 17.
80 The author wishes to acknowledge the valuable help of Mr. Donald Kloster of the Smithsonian Institution’s Division of Military History for the preceding four references and related information.
81 Letter of Nov. 4, 1871, to Col. Theo. A. Dodge, USA (Ret.), Boston, from Quartermaster General M. C. Meigs, in the National Archives, Record Group 92, Quartermaster General’s Office, Letters Sent, Clothing Supplies, 1871.
82 Twelfth Census of the United States, 1900, vol. 10, Manufactures, Part 4, Special Reports on Selected Industries (United States Census Office, Washington, D.C., 1902).
83 Charles M. Karch, “Needles: Historical and Descriptive,” in Twelfth Census of the United States, 1900, vol. 10, Manufactures, Part 4, Special Reports on Selected Industries (United States Census Office: Washington, D.C., 1902), pp. 429-432.
84 U.S. patent 1,931,447, issued to Valentine Naftali, Henry Naftali, and Rudolph Naftali, Oct. 17, 1933. The Naftali machines are manufactured by the American Machine and Foundry Company and are called AMF Stitching Machines.
85 See Appendix V, p. 135, “A Brief History of Cotton Thread.”
86 The Story of Cotton Thread (New York, The Spool Cotton Company, 1933).
87 J. and P. Coats spool cotton.
88 Willimantic spool cotton.
89 New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Kentucky. Eighth Census, 1860, Manufactures (United States Census Office, published by Government Printing Office: Washington, D.C., 1865.)
90 Sewing-machine manufacture in the South was just beginning to blossom when it was curtailed by the outbreak of the Civil War. See Lester sewing machine, figure 109 on page 102.
A Still in existence.
91 William R. Bagnall, Textile Industries of the United States (Cambridge, Mass., 1893), vol. 1, p. 164.
92 Scientific American (Oct. 22, 1853), vol. 9, no. 6, p. 46.
93 The Proceedings and Debates of the 43rd Congress, First Session, 1874 Congressional Record, vol. 2, part 3, petition read to the House by Mr. Creamer on April 7, 1874. In part 4 of the same, Mr. Buckingham read a similar petition to the Senate on May 19, 1874. Both were referred to the Committee on Patents; an extension was not granted.