Thread: Halls Premier lock.

I'm reading the excellent American Genius: Nineteenth Century Bank Locks and Time Locks by the Errolls. On page 29 there is a reference to an 1869 patent to Hall employee Henry Gross for a combination lock...the Hall Premier. The earliest Gross patent to Hall that I've been nable to locate was published in 1870. And unfortunately this bit of information is not supplied either in the text or in a foot note. Does anyone have this patent number?

Thanks in advance!

Jack

Jack, the Sept 7, 1869 patent date found on the bolt of Premier locks refers to #94,613 by W.F. Kistler, another Hall employee. It is not, however, for a Premier lock specifically. Kistler also has another 1870 patent that contributes to the Premier design. Gross has an 1869 patent but it is for a keylock. He does have at least 2 other 1870 patents for locks, one of which is the basis for the famous Hall Crescent lock. Doug

Originally Posted by Doug MacQueen

Jack, the Sept 7, 1869 patent date found on the bolt of Premier locks refers to #94,613 by W.F. Kistler, another Hall employee. It is not, however, for a Premier lock specifically. Kistler also has another 1870 patent that contributes to the Premier design. Gross has an 1869 patent but it is for a keylock. He does have at least 2 other 1870 patents for locks, one of which is the basis for the famous Hall Crescent lock. Doug

Hi Doug & thanks for the prompt & authoritative response.

I've just started extracting patent data from this presumably well-researched book (which is based on the Mossman Collection in NYC) & have been a bit surprised at the thinness of the scholarship contained in the text. I haven't been to see this Collection (housed at the General Society of Mechanics & Tradesmen building on West 44th St in Manhattan. See
John M. Mossman Lock Collection | Exhibits | The General Society of Mechanics & Tradesmen of the City of New York) yet but I plan to visit later this year with a list of just these kind of points. They sell Mossman's The Lure of the Lock, which deals with this collection, as well as a CD containing the wonderful color photos of the items in the collection that are also found in the Errolls' book. I plan to add these items to my antique lock library shortly. I hope to learn more about these points during my visit, either from the exhibit labels or other information resources there.

Jack

Jack, I think you are being a little overly critical of "American Genius". Overall, it is a very well researched book. Ferreting out the true history of locks and lockmakers is not an easy task, especially when you consider that so many of the existing sources of information themselves have some misinformation in them. For example, take the 1928 "Lure Of The Lock" written about the Mossman Collection and a primary source book for "American Genius" . In it you will find a reference to the McBride and Davidson Safe Co. of Albany, N.Y. Still today, the company is referred to as McBride and Davidson. The problem is that there were not 2 men involved here. The owner was John McBride Davidson, one man not two. That little mistake has been handed down as fact for a long time and yes, will be found in "American Genius". Not a big deal but also not correct. Doug

Originally Posted by Doug MacQueen

Jack, I think you are being a little overly critical of "American Genius". Overall, it is a very well researched book. Ferreting out the true history of locks and lockmakers is not an easy task, especially when you consider that so many of the existing sources of information themselves have some misinformation in them. For example, take the 1928 "Lure Of The Lock" written about the Mossman Collection and a primary source book for "American Genius" . In it you will find a reference to the McBride and Davidson Safe Co. of Albany, N.Y. Still today, the company is referred to as McBride and Davidson. The problem is that there were not 2 men involved here. The owner was John McBride Davidson, one man not two. That little mistake has been handed down as fact for a long time and yes, will be found in "American Genius". Not a big deal but also not correct. Doug

Perhaps, but I've caught several mistakes or omissions like the Premier one I mentioned & I'm only up to page 56. As an example, the description of George Wilder's Salamander Safe Lock on p. 50: 'In 1843 George Wilder of Brooklyn, New York, secured his patent...' If you use no other secondary research sources & go hunting for an 1843 patent to George Wilder in the USPTO, you won't find one. If, however, you pursue the 'Patented June 1 1843' found on the photograph of the lock, one of the first patents issued that day (US3117) was to Daniel Richardson & assigned to Enos Wilder having to do with safe fireproofing & not to a lock. Further research on the internet does bring out more details about the further involvement of George Wilder & Rich & Co in lock & safe design & marketing & the common use of the salamander design on safe doors as a mark of a safe's fire resistance ability.

I've done a lot of research work in my career over the years & I fault the Erroll's book for both these kinds of lapses & for its lack of thorough footnoting in their discussions of inventions & patents.

Jack

Jack, your example of Wilder and the 1843 patent is not so much inaccurate as incomplete and slightly misleading. B.G. Wilder did obtain the patent rights in Sept of 1843 from Enos Wilder. Enos had already made a deal with Fitzgerald in 1839 for his fire protection methods which included the patent rights that followed in mid 1843. Also it was not unusual to reference safe patents on the dials or in this case the lock knob. But keep posting possible errors as you find them. Doug

Originally Posted by Doug MacQueen

Jack, your example of Wilder and the 1843 patent is not so much inaccurate as incomplete and slightly misleading. B.G. Wilder did obtain the patent rights in Sept of 1843 from Enos Wilder. Enos had already made a deal with Fitzgerald in 1839 for his fire protection methods which included the patent rights that followed in mid 1843. Also it was not unusual to reference safe patents on the dials or in this case the lock knob. But keep posting possible errors as you find them. Doug

Doug

Whatever. I hold this & other examples up as proof that the Erroll's book is the one that is incomplete & very misleading. I use it only as a point for digging deeper to find the real facts because this book is sadly lacking in hard facts. Since I have about 300 more pages to go I'm sure there will be more examples to illustrate my point.

Jack

Originally Posted by Jack Sullivan

Doug

Whatever. I hold this & other examples up as proof that the Erroll's book is the one that is incomplete & very misleading. I use it only as a point for digging deeper to find the real facts because this book is sadly lacking in hard facts. Since I have about 300 more pages to go I'm sure there will be more examples to illustrate my point.

Jack

Due to the fact that errors in the Erroll's book is greater in scope than just the examples mentioned in this thread, I'm starting a new thread on this topic.

Jack