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

Page 1 of 6 123456 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 51
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    133
    Country: United States

    Default Errors in 'American Genius'

    In Chapter 2, p. 56, 'D. M. Smith's Bank Lock,' there is reference to Smith's patent as 'footnote #27.' In the Notes section, on p. 347, however, the patent citation is found in 'footnote #26' as US6878 issued to 3 April 1849. That patent number, however, is not for a lock but rather for an 'ox-yoke.' Assuming that the given publication date was correct I did locate the Smith patent as US6272. How 6272 became 6878 is a puzzle as it can hardly be attributed to mistyping as the numbers involved on the typical QWERTY keyboard are quite separate. It & the misnumbered footnote appear to be just the inevitable products of sloppy proofreading while this book was being finalized for publication.

    In a bit of serendipity I happened upon another bank lock patent issued on the same date: US6252 to Ritchie. This patent is mentioned in "American Genius' on page 68 as 'footnote 48' (p. 347) but with the inventor's name misspelled as 'Ritchey.'

    Jack

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

    Default

    Jack, here the mistake was entirely in the footnotes, which I didn't catch since I already had the correct Smith 1846 patent referred to on page 56, which is #4,635 July 14, 1846. It is true that Smith also patented another lock, #6272 on April 3, 1849, but if you check the patent drawing you will see it is entirely different than the lock discussed in the book. Doug

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Doug MacQueen View Post
    Jack, here the mistake was entirely in the footnotes, which I didn't catch since I already had the correct Smith 1846 patent referred to on page 56, which is #4,635 July 14, 1846. It is true that Smith also patented another lock, #6272 on April 3, 1849, but if you check the patent drawing you will see it is entirely different than the lock discussed in the book. Doug
    Doug

    You seem to be an impassioned apologist fir the Errolls' book for reasons that are unclear to me. Mistakes still remain misstakes, and their genisis is even more troubling when you read oin the dustjacket that the authors are curator & son of the Mossman collection. Of anyone who should be expected to get the facts correct it is them. I hate to sound picky but in an expensive volume about highly technical lock exhibits & their history within their immediate custody, care & control one would expect a higher level of curatorial scholarship concening the provenance & historical context of each lock exhibit. So far, at least, that seems to be lacking fron my experience with this book.

    Jack

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    1,485
    Country: United States

    Default

    Regardless of impassioned intent (or lack of) I do appreciate having a central point of reference for errors (and their correction) as well as additions/extensions to the text.

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

    Angry

    Quote Originally Posted by wylk View Post
    Regardless of impassioned intent (or lack of) I do appreciate having a central point of reference for errors (and their correction) as well as additions/extensions to the text.
    Thank you. This thread is only intended to be an impassionate & objective discussuion of errors or errata
    contained in American Genius, a book that many subscribers to this forum own & depend on for factual information about antique locks. This effort is part of a larger project that I have undertaken to make all U.S. safe & vault lock patents available on CD-ROM, so my interest here is only in getting as many as possible of the facts straightened out & sharing this information for the for the guidance of all.

    Jack
    Last edited by Jack Sullivan; 08-08-11 at 04:04 PM.

  6. #6

    Default Simmer down now

    Yes, there are mistakes in the book that should be pointed out and corrected but your claims that it's poorly researched and doesn't meet the standard of "curatorial scholarship", are exaggerated and incorrect. Show me a book or academic paper about anything that doesn't have multiple errors and I'll show you my pet unicorn Sally.

    Again, there are multiple mistakes in the book and it's great that you want to find them, however, there is no need to repeatedly attack the authors because the book has mistakes and ommisions. Most reasonable and knowledgable people would agree that overall, it's a very well-researched book.

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thelockcollector View Post
    Yes, there are mistakes in the book that should be pointed out and corrected but your claims that it's poorly researched and doesn't meet the standard of "curatorial scholarship", are exaggerated and incorrect. Show me a book or academic paper about anything that doesn't have multiple errors and I'll show you my pet unicorn Sally.

    Again, there are multiple mistakes in the book and it's great that you want to find them, however, there is no need to repeatedly attack the authors because the book has mistakes and ommisions. Most reasonable and knowledgable people would agree that overall, it's a very well-researched book.
    Please understand that i don't believe I'm attacking anyone. And this a mass market coffee table book, not a scholarly tome. As such it shouldn't be expected to rise to that level of scholarship. And from what I've seen from the several examples that I've posted, it doesn't.

    My area of interest is patents. If you mention a patent associated with a lock, either mention the number or, if you do mention the number, at least make sure it is correct. The principal author is curator of the Mossman collection so you would think that he had all the proper information available to him when he wrote this book.

    Jack
    Last edited by Jack Sullivan; 08-08-11 at 08:32 PM.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    133
    Country: United States

    Default J H Butterworth's Combination Lock

    On p. 58 is presented J H Butterworth's Combination Lock with no patent reference other than ' Also patented in 1846 was J H Butterworth's Combination Lock.' I found a patent to J H Butterworth as US4452 of 11 April 1846 & A Reissue to inventor George G Baldwin & assigned to Butterworth (USRE1193 of 4 June 1861). While I'm not an expert on lock mechanics these appear to be the patents reffered to in the book.

    Footnote 28 on p. 58 actually refers to footnote 27 on p. 347.

    Footnote 29, referring to '...prior patents for permutation lock designs' actually refers to footnote 28 on p. 347 referencing only patents by J R and H C Campbell (1835), E Finney (1839) & D Maples (1844), with no patent numbers given, leaving the reader to locate these documents if he did not already have them. I don't have these patents in my files & could not locate them with quick name searches. I was hoping that Doug or someone else might be able to supply this info. Manually searching a year's worth of patents is a very time consuming endeavor otherwise.

    Jack
    Last edited by Jack Sullivan; 09-08-11 at 08:43 PM.

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

    Default

    Reissue USRE1193 of 4 June 1861 was assigned to Baldwin & the inventor was J H Butterworth.

    Jack

    ---------- Post added at 05:15 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:35 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Sullivan View Post
    On p. 58 is presented J H Butterworth's Combination Lock with no patent reference other than ' Also patented in 1846 was J H Butterworth's Combination Lock.' I found a patent to J H Butterworth as US4452 of 11 April 1846 & A Reissue to inventor George G Baldwin & assigned to Butterworth (USRE1193 of 4 June 1861). While I'm not an expert on lock mechanics these appear to be the patents reffered to in the book.

    Footnote 28 on p. 58 actually refers to footnote 27 on p. 347.

    Footnote 29, referring to '...prior patents for permutation lock designs' actually refers to footnote 28 on p. 347 referencing only patents by J R and H C Campbell (1835), E Finney (1839) & D Maples (1844), with no patent numbers given, leaving the reader to locate these documents if he did not already have them. I don't have these patents in my files & could not locate them with quick name searches. I was hoping that Doug or someone else might be able to supply this info. Manually searching a year's worth of patents is a very time consuming endeavor otherwise.

    Jack
    Luckily both the Finney & Maples patents are found in the same patent class as the Butterworth lock: 70/307:

    Finney 1839 - US1173
    Maples 1844 - US3842

    That leaves only the 1835 patent to the Campbells as missing.

    Jack

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    133
    Country: United States

    Default William Hall's 'Grasshopper Lock'

    On p. 60 is described William Hall's so-called 'Grasshopper Lock' as being patented in 1848 but no patent number is given. The date 'Aug. 1' is visible on the photo of the lock's handle. This lock was said to have won an award in 1851 as being a 'gunpowder-proof lock.'

    A quick search turned up W. Hall's patent US5686 of 1 August 1848 for a 'Powder-Proof Lock.'

    Jack

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
  •