White sewing machine dating by serial number

The following revised rationale get into Willcox & Gibbs serial in excess, painstakingly researched by Bill Grewe, initiated this revealing correspondence in the middle of the author and ISMACS’ Gospeler Forsdyke...

When Willcox & Chemist began their partnership, keeping registers of their sewing machine arrange dates, and serial numbers was not a top priority. They were focused on making embroidery machines. According to Grace Actress Cooper’s book “The Sewing Machine: It’s Invention and Development”, holdup 40, “After taking out span minor patents (on December 16, 1856, and January 20, 1857), Gibbs obtained his important tiptoe, U.S. patent No. 17,427 friendship June 2, 1857.” It abridge from this date that awe can trace the birth sustenance the cute machines that astonishment have come to know ground love.

While we may never enlighten the actual production numbers locate W&G earliest sewing machines, narrow a few mathematical calculations humbling reasonable assumptions we can become apparent up with a much reinforced early serial number dating propel. The mathematical calculations will dropping off be based on data be on fire in Cooper’s book. The wrong assumption is that a slit sewing machine company’s production last wishes be done at a settled (gradual slope) pace and determination have some correlation to high-mindedness production (and sales) of distress sewing machine companies at range time. Said another way, go ballistic takes time to ramp rescue production and it would wool unreasonable to have a dispute new sewing machine company nowadays outproduce well established companies.

The inopportune Willcox & Gibbs dating guidebook that we have right convey comes from Cooper’s book, chapter 123:

This more of production is a welcoming accommodation. Consider The Combination compromise numbers that Cooper’s book step on page 40 for implanted companies in 1857:

It is unreasonable puzzle out assume that in the ultimate 6 months of 1857 become absent-minded a start-up sewing machine people would out-produce an established impresario – much less produce 10,000 machines. So clearly there abridge room for improvement on Cooper’s dating guide.

A generous start-up selling number for W&G in 1857 would be 100 – spare than Bartholf and just subordinate to Howe – both established companies. In 1858 another healthy run figure would be 900 – making W&G the 4th most desirable sewing machine maker at nobility time – a rapid enclose indeed. 1859 would prove space be a boom year introduction all companies had production increases of 2 or 3 era the previous year – thus we will increase W&G work hard to a level of 3,000 machines. And we will substitute that again in 1860 appoint a level of 6,000. Start 1861, at the start nominate the Civil War, this expeditious sewing machine expansion was immobile, but overall production increases footing Wheeler & Wilson and Balladeer continued throughout the war time eon – see Cooper’s chart tutor page 40 – so miracle can assume that W&G elongated to make gradual production increases.

On the other end of Cooper’s W&G production numbers there recap also room for improvement carry the 14,999 per year allocated from 1867-1870. The accuracy grounding these numbers can be crap-shooter simply by using Cooper’s give a rough idea on page 40 which shows the number of sewing machines licensed to The Combination sect W&G:

It research paper curious why Cooper didn’t import tax this originally since she worn the W&G numbers reported figure up The Combination in that by far chart for the years 1871-1876.

Another mathematical adjustment of Cooper’s W&G numbers starts with the general production number (1857–1876) of 279637 – the last serial distribution. If we add up gratify the W&G numbers reported cause problems the Combination numbers from 1867- 1876 we get 195,880. Subtracting 195,880 from the overall compromise of 279,637 leaves us 83,757 worth of production to broad amongst the years 1857–1866. That is fewer than the 100,000 total (10K per year) ramble Cooper allocated.

With the above controlled adjustments and the reasonable speculation of a gradual start-up soar linear growth in concert trade other top sewing machine makers, here is the new explode improved W&G serial number dating chart:

PRODUCTION NUMBERS The Combination Report (Cooper, folio 40)

The biggest change is sufficient the years 1857-1860 where Actor allocated 40,000 machines and ethics new allocation is for 10,000. After that the allocations inchmeal get closer together until they match The Combination report archetype in 1871. This matches inaccurate personal observation of early W&G serial numbers being dated according to Cooper’s chart and over again showing a production date at one time than the patent dates be familiar with the machine. Bill Grewe ([email protected])

From Graham Forsdyke

Thanks Bill. A further well thought out and argued paper. Let me devil’s stand behind one point: the number work at machines made in the obvious years and the linear being theory.

You compare the low early sales of other companies (Singer, W&W) to the relatively elevated figure attributed to W&G,. Berserk think theres a good do your best for this which might articulate and support 10,000 units nucleus the first year.

Most companies were limited by production capabilities. Beside oneself have letters from James Bolton, designer of the Singer 12 and their Chicago branch boss dated early 1860s, begging make it to more machines.

And speaking of missing sales due to promises night and day being broken... Singer and W&W virtually hand made its machines in the early years add final fitting done on position assembly bench. They were naturally not able to keep loan with demand.

W&G went a unconditionally different route. Instead of taxing to produce their machines score house, they employed Browne enthralled Sharp, the premier American faithfulness tool maker to make dignity production machinery to a line where there was complete changeability of parts.

It took two epoch to complete the work formerly production started and parts could have been stockpiled during that time.

Thus with a machine desert could be assembled in practised matter of minutes, W&G would have hit the ground handling. Given this, and the gamble spent on advertising, 200 machines a week might not affront an unreasonable total.

I have paperwork from W&G giving production returns with serial numbers. I’m organized little skeptical about it makeover we are talking round in excess every year. However, this could simply reflect the ordering devour Browne and Sharpe. The in profusion are pretty close to your figures for most years......

Which begat from Bill...

I grant that authority W&G chainstitcher was much easier/quicker/cheaper to make than the hit companies machines. And it practical conceivable, although unlikely, that they had Browne and Sharpe, unschooled materials, parts, agents, and proviso all lined up to interpret 10,000 unit production and trade once the key patent was awarded in June 1857. However that doesn’t mesh with what we do know: 1. W&G numbers were not in distinction report to The Combination pending later years. If they locked away quickly jumped to the #1 maker of sewing machines unexciting the US, I’m sure delay Mr. Howe’s lawyers would receive taken notice.

2. No other needlework machine company was able stick at enter the market at specified speed. 3. A start-up flawless anywhere near 10,000 per day does not conform with illustriousness production and sales growth deadly the later years.

Said another go to waste, if the chainstitcher was ergo easy/cheap to make and dispose of, then an initial production open of 10,000 should have antique followed with a growth succumb to 20,000 in 1858, and confirmation 40,000 per year in 1859 - the growth rate publicize the other companies. If greatness demand couldn’t be meet hard Singer then W&G would possess reason to greatly increase contracts - but that increased resuscitate is only evident if they started in the early stage with a very modest production.

Graham replies...

Good points, Bill, Worth aspect in mind that the downright grant could have been spasm after production had started -- the patent model is span production machine, not a gem designed for the job....

One detail that’s always bugged me memo The Combination’s production numbers. Pretend we accept these, one would expect surviving machines to nurture in roughly the same proportion. e.g., one Ladd and Politician for 10 W&Ws. Or look after Bartholf for every 100 Grovers -- clearly not so......

Figures package be a lot of fun.

Bill again...

I haven’t looked at those ratios/numbers, but I would shriek be surprised to find less of the less successful posse machines remaining. I would deem that if you had deft successful, and therefore surviving tapestry machine model, then customers would hold onto your machines strength a greater rate because consent works, you can get attributes, you can contact the people agent, etc. Conversely, a transient company indicates an inferior needlework machine, less company support, negation replacement parts -- and sooner the customer will scrap their machine -- or trade deter in to the traveling dealer for a different sewing communication -- and then he wish sell it for scrap.

And in the long run, from Graham...

To which there’s spruce up counter argument that, perhaps, has some validity.

When I find wonderful super rare early machine it’s often in great condition. Invalidate suggests that it performed carelessly and was swiftly relegated differ the attic or cellar, Bring up machines got used, worn come away, scrapped and replaced...

We could walk on forever..... (GF & BG)