On
the other hand, some of the variations are significant, even now.
The first patent may have been for a design that was difficult to
machine;
or awkward to use; or quickly wore out. The second patent
introduced
a new way that not only got by the first patent, but also produced a
better
article of commerce. Never mind that the mechanism's basic
operation
was the same. My best guess is that there were so many unpatented
mechanisms in common use (in the public domain) that if the concept was
unpatentable, the execution was. Witness the little
roller that keeps the bevel gears of a No.2 Millers Falls eggbeater
drill in near-perfect mesh on the pitch lines of the mating
gears.
No one ever found a better way; yet the only patent which illustrates
this
mechanism (that I have been able to find) uses an instantly
recognizable
rendition of that model as an example of the quintessential geared bit
driver: George L. Wilcox, "Locking Device for Hand Drills" US Patent
No.
1,083,784, January 6, 1914 - "It is understood that the hand drill so
far
described is of the standard type of drill now generally in use." Mr.
Wilcox's
witnesses were Theo. G. Hoster and Philip D. Rollhaus.
Sometimes it's difficult to imagine the circumstances
under
which such tools as these were used. The image, Uncle Mark,
gives a hint.
Some of the firms making braces had complex
histories.
I have tried to tie some of them together by examining the patent
papers, using the working assumption that the attorneys who handled the
patent applications must have avoided conflicts of interest by working
for only one firm at a time in a given field. Thomas Earle, Attorney, [see Note 2] and Wilhelm & Bonner, Attorneys, [see
Note 1] were two such commonalities.
Ronald
W. Pearson, D.O., wrote the definitive book on patented braces: The American Patented Brace 1829-1924
(Astragal Press, Mendham, NJ, 1994)
and he maintains at the Mid-West Tool Collectors Association website a current
database on the patents, covering the periods:
The
database is also indexed alphabetically by patentee:
Note:
Until this study is more complete, you can see the brace images by
copying
the unlinked file name of a brace (in the column at left in the table
below) and
then pasting it onto the end of this URL: http://www.georgesbasement.com/braces/
Patentee;
chuck first, then ratchet or mfg., etc. |
Manufacturer | US Patents |
Amidon661.JPG | Amidon, probably [see
Note 2] |
Chuck: Amidon, 226,646, April 20, 1886; Pad: |
DavisFribora690.JPG | Paul Krampen Co. (Fribora, D.R.P.) | Chuck:
Davis, 432,180,
July 15, 1890. Actually a Deutches Reich patent ... |
IvesPfleghar616.JPG | Ives, William A. [see Note 1] | Chuck:
Ives, 301,058,
June 24, 1884; Ratchet: Pfleghar, 175,151,
March 21, 1876. See also the later Amidon ratchet patent 283,844 of
August 28, 1883. |
IvesPfleghar622.JPG | Ives, probably [see Note 1] | Chuck: Ives, 195,373, September 18, 1877; Ratchet: Pfleghar, 175,151, March 21, 1876. |
OsgoodOsgood628.JPG | Saxton & Osgood, [see
Note 2] Buffalo, NY, 1886-87 |
Chuck: Osgood, 361,368, April 19, 1887; Ratchet: Osgood, 344,130, June 22, 1886. |
OsgoodOsgood635.JPG (a better example than above) |
Saxton & Osgood, [see
Note 2] Buffalo, NY, 1886-87 |
Chuck: Osgood, 361,368, April 19, 1887; Ratchet: Osgood, 344,130, June 22, 1886. |
PeckPexto673.JPG | Peck, Stowe & Wilcox | Chuck: O. Peck, 246,904, September 13, 1881. |
StreeterShepardson655.JPG | Shepardson &
Co. Shelbourne [Shelburne ?] Falls, Mass. |
Chuck:
Streeter, 61,113,
January 8, 1867. The claims and non-claims tell quite a
story. Everything that wasn't claimed in the patent drawings was
reproduced exactly in the final product, but the stuff that counted
looks quite different. |
Taylor-I-679.JPG (octagonal bar frame) |
Unknown | Chuck: Taylor |
TaylorWilson683.JPG | Wilson Mfg. Co. New London, Conn. |
Chuck: Taylor |
Unknown666.JPG | Maybe Chantrell | Chuck: Chantrell, 284,275, September 4, 1883 or 328,648, October 20, 1885; Ratchet, either 286,683; or 302,320; or 328,649 or another, as the selector does not match any of his ratchet patents, but the frame shape does. I have three examples, all different. |
WilcoxWilcox669.JPG | American Bit Brace
Co., Buffalo, NY [see Note 2] |
Chuck & Ratchet: Wilcox, 428,984, May 27, 1890; See also: The Amidon chuck patents 210,075 and 226,646, the Zirikelback 438,338 chuck patent & the Parker ratchet patent 384,865. |
WPeck814318-320.JPG | Fulton (a trademark used by the Stanley Rule & Level Co.) | Chuck:
W. Peck, 814,320;
Pad bearing: W. Peck, 814,318.
Stanley eventually came to own these
two patents,
and 814,319
as well. All dated March 6, 1906. |
WPeckPhoenixNotFulton.JPG | Phoenix Hdw. Mfg.
Co. Homer, NY. |
Chuck: W. Peck, 814,320; Pad bearing: W. Peck, 814,318. Stanley eventually came to own these two patents, and 814,319 as well. All dated March 6, 1906. |
StanleyX-3OD.htm | Stanley, New Britain, Conn. USA | Jaws:
C.E. Mitchell, 1,011,227,
December 12, 1911. |
JFSteward084.htm | Unknown maker, Kansas | Crank
& handle:
J.F. Steward, 460,256,
September 29, 1891. |
Mystery
braces: GoodellOverall267.JPG ConsolidatedOverall383WS.JPG |
Albert
Goodell made one of these; Consolidated Tool Works, the other. |
These two braces bear superficially similar ratchet mechanisms, but closer inspection reveals some important differences in function and in reliability. Goodell's design has a weak structure for supporting the forces applied to the ratchet pawls, but the patent claimed says nothing at all about this ratchet mechanism. The Consolidated Tool Works brace is marked Pat App'd For; but none of these braces has yet surfaced with a claimed patent date. Sandy Moss has picked US Patent 875,493 which almost matches, but that's not yet "it," because Consolidated's ratchet mechanism has two pawl pivots, not just one. |
Another mystery brace: Overall185.JPG |
Made in Germany ... all we know. |
Here's a bad example of the German practice of basing their
brace designs on expired U.S. patents. Bad, because I haven't
found any relevant US patents for this one. It's a rugged design,
though. |