The Invention of the Sewing Machine Part 4

According to the contract made by the partners, the hurriedly built first machine was to be sent to the Patent Office with an application in the name of Singer and Phelps. An application was made between the end of September 1850 and March 14, 1851, as Singer refers to it briefly in the application formally filed on April 16, 1851, stating, "My present invention is of improvements on a machine heretofore invented by me and for which an application is now pending."[55]

[Ill.u.s.tration: Figure 28.--SINGER'S PATENT MODEL, 1851; a commercial machine was used, bearing the serial number 22. (Smithsonian photo 45572-D.)]

In late December 1850 Singer had bought Phelps' interest in the company.

Whether the first application was later abandoned by Singer or whether it was rejected is not known,[56] but a patent on the first application was never issued. The final disposition of this first machine has remained a mystery.[57]

[Ill.u.s.tration: Figure 29.--SINGER'S PERPENDICULAR ACTION sewing machine, an engraving from _Ill.u.s.trated News_, June 25, 1853, which states: "The sewing machine has, within the last two years acquired a wide celebrity, and established its character as one of the most efficient labor saving instruments ever introduced to public notice.... We must not forget to call attention to the fact that this instrument is peculiarly calculated for female operatives. They should never allow its use to be monopolized by men." (Smithsonian photo 48091-D.)]

A few machines were manufactured in late 1850 and early 1851, and these attracted considerable attention; orders began to be received in advance of production. The pending patent application did not delay the manufacture, and a number of machines were sold before August 12, 1851, when the patent was granted. The patent model is shown in figure 28.[58]

It made a lockst.i.tch by means of a straight eye-pointed needle and a reciprocating shuttle. The patent claims, as quoted from the specifications, were as follows:

1. Giving to the shuttle an additional forward motion after it has been stopped to close the loop, as described, for the purpose of drawing the st.i.tch tight, when such additional motion is given at and in combination with the feed motion of the cloth in the reverse direction, and the final upward motion of the needle, as described, so that the two threads shall be drawn tight at the same time, as described.

2. Controlling the thread during the downward motion of the needle by the combination of a friction-pad to prevent the slack above the cloth, with the eye on the needle-carrier for drawing back the thread, for the purposes and in the manner substantially as described.

3. Placing the bobbin from which the needle is supplied with thread on an adjustable arm attached to the frame, substantially as described, when this is combined with the carrying of the said thread through an eye or guide attached to and moving with the needle-carrier, as described, whereby any desired length of thread can be given for the formation of the loop without varying the range of motion of the needle, as described.

The feeding described in the Singer patent was "by the friction surface of a wheel, whose periphery is formed with very fine grooves, the edges of which are slightly serrated, against which the cloth is pressed by a spring plate or pad." Although claimed by the inventor in the handwritten specifications, it was not allowed as original.

The machines manufactured by the Singer company (fig. 29) were duplicates of the patent model. These machines were quite heavy and intended for manufacturing rather than for family use in the home.

[Ill.u.s.tration: Figure 30.--I. M. SINGER & CO. NEW YORK SHOWROOM of the mid-1850s, as ill.u.s.trated in _Frank Leslie's Ill.u.s.trated Newspaper_, August 29, 1857; only manufacturing machines are shown in this ill.u.s.tration. (Smithsonian photo 48091-B.)]

[Ill.u.s.tration: Figure 31.--HUNT AND WEBSTER'S SEWING-MACHINE MANUFACTORY exhibition and salesroom in Boston, as ill.u.s.trated in _Ballou's Pictorial_, July 5, 1856; only manufacturing machines are shown.

(Smithsonian photo 45771-A.)]

Singer enjoyed demonstrating the machine and showed it to church and social groups and even at circuses; this personal a.s.sociation then encouraged him to improve its reliability and convenience. He developed a wooden packing case which doubled as a stand for the machine and a treadle to allow it to be operated by foot. Because of the dimensions of the packing case, Singer put the pivot of the treadle toward its center, about where the instep of the foot would rest. This produced the heel-and-toe action treadle, a familiar part of the sewing machine until its replacement by the electric motor. Both hands were freed to guide and arrange the cloth that was being st.i.tched. Singer also added a flywheel to smooth out the treadle action and later an iron stand with a treadle wide enough for both feet. The treadle had been in use for two years before a rival pointed out that it might have been patented. To Singer's chagrin it was then too late for patent laws did not permit patenting a device that had been in public use.

A new obstacle appeared in the Singer company's path when Howe demanded $25,000 for infringement of his patent. Singer and Zieber decided to fight, enlisting the legal aid of Edward Clark, a lawyer and financier.

Howe's action was opposed on the basis of Hunt's machine of 1834, which they stated had antic.i.p.ated Howe's invention.

While they were resisting, Howe sued three firms that were using and selling Singer machines. The court order required the selling firms and the purchasers to provide an account of the profits accrued from the sale and the use of the sewing machines and restrained the firms from selling the machines during the pendency of the suit.[59] As a result of this action, a number of Singer's rivals purchased licenses from Howe and advertised that anyone could sell their machines without fear of a suit. This gave them a great compet.i.tive advantage, and Singer and Clark[60] decided it was best to seek a settlement with Howe. On July 1, 1854, they paid him $15,000 and took out a license.

[Ill.u.s.tration: Figure 32.--SINGER'S NEW FAMILY SEWING MACHINE, ill.u.s.tration from a brochure dating about 1858 or 1859 which states: "A few months since, we came to the conclusion that the public taste demanded a sewing machine for family purposes more exclusively; a machine of smaller size, and of a lighter and more elegant form; a machine decorated in the best style of art, so as to make a beautiful ornament in the parlor or boudoir; a machine very easily operated, and rapid in working.... To supply this public want, we have just produced, and are now prepared to receive orders for, 'Singer's new Family Sewing Machine.'" (Smithsonian photo 48091-H.)]

In spite of this defeat, the Singer company could claim several important improvements to the sewing machine and the acquisition of the patents rights to the Morey and Johnson machine of 1849, which gave them control of the spring or curved arm to hold the cloth by a yielding pressure. Although this point had not been claimed in the 1849 patent, the established principle of patent law allowed that a novel device introduced and used in a patented machine could be covered by a reissue at any time during the life of the patent. Upon becoming owners of the Morey and Johnson patent, Singer applied for a reissue which covered this type of yielding pressure. It was granted on June 27, 1854. The Singer company's acquisition of the Bachelder patent had given them control of the yielding pressure bar also.

[Ill.u.s.tration: Figure 33.--SINGER FAMILY MACHINE, 1858, head only.

(Smithsonian photo 45524-F.)]

Singer's aggressive selling had begun to overcome the public's suspicion of sewing machines. He pioneered in the use of lavishly decorated sewing-machine showrooms when the company offices were expanded in the mid-1850s (fig. 30). These were rich with carved walnut furniture, gilded ornaments, and carpeted floors, places in which Victorian women were not ashamed to be seen. The machines were demonstrated by pretty young women. The total effect was a new concept of selling, and Singer became the drum major of a new and coming industry that had many followers (see fig. 31).

[Ill.u.s.tration: Figure 34.--GROVER AND BAKER'S PATENT MODEL, 1851.

(Smithsonian photo 32003-G.)]

The first, light, family sewing machine by the Singer company was not manufactured until 1858 (figs. 32 and 33). Comparatively few of these machines were made as they proved to be too small and light. The men in the shop dubbed the machine "The Gra.s.shopper," but it was officially called the new Family Sewing Machine or the Family Machine.[61] Because of its shape, Singer company brochures of the 1920s referred to it as the Turtleback Machine.

Since the cost of sewing machines was quite high and the average family income was low, Clark suggested the adoption of the hire-purchase plan.

Into the American economy thus came the now-familiar installment buying.

Singer and Clark continued to be partners until 1863 when a corporation was formed. At this time Singer decided to withdraw from active work. He received 40 percent of the stock and retired to Paris and later to England, where he died in 1875.

[Ill.u.s.tration: Figure 35.--THIS GROVER AND BAKER CABINET-STYLE SEWING MACHINE of 1856 bears the serial number 5675 and the patent dates February 11, 1851, June 22, 1852, February 22, 1853, and May 27, 1856.

(Smithsonian photo 45572-F.)]

By the mid-1850s the basic elements of a successful, practical sewing machine were at hand, but the continuing court litigation over rival patent rights seemed destined to ruin the economics of the new industry.

It was then that the lawyer of the Grover and Baker company, another sewing-machine manufacturer of the early 1850s, supplied the solution.

Grover and Baker were manufacturing a machine that was mechanically good, for this early period. William O. Grover was another Boston tailor, who, unlike many others, was convinced that the sewing machine was going to revolutionize his chosen trade. Although the sewing machines that he had seen were not very practical, he began in 1849 to experiment with an idea based on a new kind of st.i.tch. His design was for a machine that would take both its threads from spools and eliminate the need to wind one thread upon a bobbin. After much experimenting, he proved that it was possible to make a seam by interlocking two threads in a succession of slipknots, but he found that building a machine to do this was a much more difficult task. It is quite surprising that while he was working on this idea, he did not stumble upon a good method to produce the single-thread (as opposed to Grover and Baker's two-thread) chainst.i.tch, later worked out by another. Grover was working so intently on the use of two threads that apparently no thought of forming a st.i.tch with one thread had a chance to develop.

At this time Grover became a partner with another Boston tailor, William E. Baker, and on February 11, 1851, they were issued U.S. patent No. 7,931 for a machine that did exactly what Grover had set out to do; it made a double chainst.i.tch with two threads both carried on ordinary thread spools. The machine (figs. 34 and 35) used a vertical eye-pointed needle for the top thread and a horizontal needle for the underthread.

The cloth was placed on the horizontal platform or table, which had a hole for the entry of the vertical needle. When this needle pa.s.sed through the cloth, it formed a loop on the underside. The horizontal needle pa.s.sed through this loop forming another loop beyond, which was retained until the redescending vertical needle enchained it, and the process repeated. The slack in the needle thread was controlled by means of a spring guide. The cloth was fed by feeding rolls and a band.

[Ill.u.s.tration: Figure 36.--GROVER'S PATENT MODEL FOR THE FIRST PORTABLE CASE, 1856. The machine in the case is a commercial machine of 1854, bearing the serial number 3012 and the patent dates "Feby 11, 1851, June 22, 1852, Feby 22, 1853." Powered by a single, foot-shaped treadle that was connected by a removable wooden pitman, it also could be turned by hand. (Smithsonian photo 45525-D.)]

A company was organized under the name of Grover and Baker Sewing Machine Company, and soon the partners took Jacob Weatherill, mechanic, and Orlando B. Potter, lawyer (who became the president), into the firm.

Potter contributed his ability as a lawyer in lieu of a financial investment and handled the several succeeding patents of Grover and Baker. These patents were primarily for mechanical improvements such as U.S. patent No. 9,053 issued to Grover and Baker on June 22, 1852, for devising a curved upper needle and an under looper[62] to form the double-looped st.i.tch which became known as the Grover and Baker st.i.tch.

One of the more interesting of the patents, however, was for the box or sewing case for which Grover was issued U.S. patent No. 14,956 on May 27, 1856. The inventor stated "that when open the box shall const.i.tute the bed for the machine to be operated upon, and hanging the machine thereto to facilitate oiling, cleansing, and repairs without removing it from the box." It was the first portable sewing machine (fig. 36).

Though the Grover and Baker company manufactured machines using a shuttle and producing the more common lockst.i.tch, both under royalty in their own name and also for other smaller companies, Potter was convinced that the Grover and Baker st.i.tch was the one that eventually would be used in both family and commercial machines. He, as president, directed the efforts of the company to that end. When the basic patents held by the "Sewing-Machine Combination" (discussed on pp. 41-42) began to run out in the mid-1870s, dissolving its purpose and lowering the selling price of sewing machines, the Grover and Baker company began a systematic curtailing of expenses and closing of branch offices. All the patents held by the company and the business itself were sold to another company.[63] But the members of the Grover and Baker company fared well financially by the strategic move.

The Grover and Baker machine and its unique st.i.tch did not have a great influence on the overall development of the mechanics of machine sewing.

The merits of a double-looped st.i.tch--its elasticity and the taking of both threads from commercial spools--were outweighed by the bulkiness of the seam and its consumption of three times as much thread as the lockst.i.tch required. Machines making a similar type of st.i.tch have continued in limited use in the manufacture of knit goods and other products requiring an elastic seam. But, more importantly, Grover and Baker's astute Orlando B. Potter placed their names in the annals of sewing-machine history by his work in forming the "Combination,"

believed to be the first "trust" of any prominence.

FOOTNOTES:

[33] See biographical sketch, pp. 138-141.

[34] _In the Matter of the Application of Elias Howe, Jr. for an Extension of His Sewing Machine Patent Dated September 10, 1846_, New York, 1860, with attachments A and B, U.S. Patent Office. [L.C. call no.

TJ 1512.H6265]

[35] It is interesting to note that when William Thomas applied for the British patent of the Howe machine (issued Dec. 1, 1846), the courts would not allow the claim for the combination of the eye-pointed needle and shuttle to form a st.i.tch, due to the Fisher and Gibbons patent of 1844. For more details on Howe's years in England see his biographical sketch, pp. 138-141.

[36] The machine referred to as the London Sewing Machine is the British patent of the Thimonnier machine. This patent was applied for by Jean Marie Magnin and was published by _Newton's London Journal_, vol. 39, p.

317, as Magnin's invention.

[37] The exact date is not known; however, it was prior to 1856 as the patent was included in the sewing-machine patent pool formed that year.

[38] JAMES PARTON, _History of the Sewing Machine_, p. 12, (originally published in the _Atlantic Monthly_, May 1867), later reprinted by the Howe Machine Company as a separate.

[39] _Sewing Machine Times_ (Feb. 25, 1907), vol. 17, no. 382, p. 1, "His [Bonata's] shop was on Gold Street, New York, near the Bartholf shop, where Howe was building some of his early machines."

[40] _Sewing Machine News_, vol. 3, no. 5, p. 5, Sept. 1881-Jan. 1882.

"History of the Sewing Machine."

[41] Op. cit. (footnote 34).

[42] _New York Daily Tribune_, Jan. 15, 1852, p. 2.