Welcome to our world exploring the Historical, Political and Technological aspects of Locks, Keys and Safes

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 51
  1. #21
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    133
    Country: United States

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Doug MacQueen View Post
    Thanks for that one Patent. I have been wondering about that one for several years now. And Jack, it is not personal at all. I just don't get how you, as yet, have had nothing good to say about the book. Generally, critiques on books are done after a book is completely read. And better to be done by someone who has a more complete understanding of the particular subject. It is a fantastic book even with all of of its errors. Doug
    I believe I mentioned that I purchased the book primarily to extract its patent data. When I saw that that data could not be relied on, I started to document the errors & their corrections in an effort to have the correct information in my own files. It's been very time consuming but productive & a process that goes necessarily chapter by chapter rather than starting at the end of the entire book. I recall that it might have been you who suggested that I post my results. Others have encouraged me in this effort because this book is used as a reference by antique lock collectors & others might find my observations useful in the future.

    As far as havinng anything to positive to say about the book, the photography is generally excellent. It is also a good primer on the Mossman collection which I hope to visit later this year.

    I am generally interested in the history of technology & this book will become a valuable addition to my library.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Cleveland, Ohio USA
    Posts
    1,433
    Country: United States

    Default

    I don't have the Cambell patent mentioned in the Butterworth footnote but the Finney is #1,173 Jun 13, 1839 and Maples is #3,842 Dec 4, 1844. Doug

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    133
    Country: United States

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Doug MacQueen View Post
    I don't have the Cambell patent mentioned in the Butterworth footnote but the Finney is #1,173 Jun 13, 1839 and Maples is #3,842 Dec 4, 1844. Doug
    Yes, I posted that information of 9-8-11.

    Regarding the Campbell patent reference, if capable patent researchers can't find that information, how can the general reader or antique lock enthusiast make full use of this book?

    Jack
    Last edited by Jack Sullivan; 13-08-11 at 12:47 PM.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    73
    Country: UK

    Default American Genius

    Quote Originally Posted by Jason Jones View Post
    Page 350 second picture down says that its a Chubb 3G114 when its a 3U114
    Hi Jason.

    Just checking! Are you sure that the book you are referring to is "The American Genius"?
    No pictures on page 350 and I would not expect a reference to a modern Chubb lock.
    Thanks.
    Patent

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    133
    Country: United States

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Patent View Post
    Hi Jason.

    Just checking! Are you sure that the book you are referring to is "The American Genius"?
    No pictures on page 350 and I would not expect a reference to a modern Chubb lock.
    Thanks.
    Patent
    Yes, American Genius is the book. No 'The' in the title. Page 350 is only Notes from early chapters without photographs. And the only references in this book to Chubb refer to the early 19th Century.

    Jack

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Cleveland, Ohio USA
    Posts
    1,433
    Country: United States

    Default

    Jack, actually you didn't mention your primary reason for buying the book. You did state your goal of collecting patents and I understand your consternation in finding the book errors. I bought mine to help in the general study of locks from the period. My copy is heavily marked up but I gauge the book more on what it does contain, not on what it doesn't. There are extremely few books out there on the subject of U.S. locks and timelocks of the 1800-early 1900's. And in many ways, this one is better than "Lure of the Lock", where you will also find numerous mistakes. Doug

    ---------- Post added at 08:25 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:17 AM ----------

    Check out the post I made in the safe keylock section on the Solomon Andrews lock pictured on pages 46-47.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    133
    Country: United States

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Doug MacQueen View Post
    Jack, actually you didn't mention your primary reason for buying the book. You did state your goal of collecting patents and I understand your consternation in finding the book errors. I bought mine to help in the general study of locks from the period. My copy is heavily marked up but I gauge the book more on what it does contain, not on what it doesn't. There are extremely few books out there on the subject of U.S. locks and timelocks of the 1800-early 1900's. And in many ways, this one is better than "Lure of the Lock", where you will also find numerous mistakes. Doug

    ---------- Post added at 08:25 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:17 AM ----------

    Check out the post I made in the safe keylock section on the Solomon Andrews lock pictured on pages 46-47.
    As I mentioned, I have a peripheral interest in locks but a primary interest in the history of technology. I have found that the development of modern technology is perhaps best outlined in capsule format in patents.

    I was delighted to find the numerous bibliographic errors in this book as that has allowed me time to research the correct information & by this method correct & update my file of over 2,000 U.S. patents just for safe & vault locks.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    73
    Country: UK

    Default Campbell patent reference

    Details attached.

    December 28th 1835

    Cheers.

    Patent.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Campbell. December 28th 1835.jpg  

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    133
    Country: United States

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Patent View Post
    Details attached.

    December 28th 1835

    Cheers.

    Patent.
    Many thanks. Do you have the patent number, please?

    Thanks!

    Jack

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    73
    Country: UK

    Default Campbell patent reference

    Sorry, Jack. I don't have the Patent number nor the descriptive text.
    Patent.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •