Errors in 'American Genius'

Jack Sullivan

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

Doug MacQueen

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

Jack Sullivan

Doug MacQueen wrote
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

[unknown]

wylk

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.

Jack Sullivan

wylk wrote
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

[unknown]

thelockcollector

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.

Jack Sullivan

thelockcollector wrote
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

[unknown]

Jack Sullivan

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

Jack Sullivan

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 ———-

Jack Sullivan wrote
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

[unknown]

Jack Sullivan

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

Jack Sullivan

This lock is described on p. 64: ‘Pye did patent a bank lock in 1846 (Footnote #41).’ The information about this is found in Footnote #40 on p. 347: US4406 7 March 1846. The patent number is correct; the Footnote numbering is not.

On p. 66 the book states ’Prior to Pye’s 1851 Gold Medal, patents were issued for time locks to Rutherford in England (Footnote #42) and to Savage in 1847 in the United States (Footnote #43).' However the Rutherford patent referred to in Footnote #42 on p. 347 (US6105) is an 1849 US patent for a boiler water feeder and not a lock. The patent to Savage referenced in Footnote #43 is given as US5321, which is correct (9 October 1847). The Rutherford patent may be a UK (GB) patent. The full name of this inventor appears to be Williams Rutherford. I have been unable to access this patent reference on the EPO. Does anyone have this?

Jack

Jack Sullivan

This is described on p. 70. ‘…Betteley was awarded a patent for his design in 1852 (Footnote #53)’. This corresponds to the misnumbered Footnote #52 on p. 347 for patent US8918 6 April 1852. However, this patent is for an agricultural boiler from a different inventor patented on 4 May 1852, not a lock. Assuming that the publish date was correct & only the patent number was wrong, I manually searched the patents issued on that date & found only US8851 to Betteley but I’m not certain this patent refers to the lock shown on pp. 70-71 as Footnote #52 refers to the patent being titled ‘Door Lock’ while US8851 is only titled ‘Lock.’ It is, however, a lock for a safe or vault. Albert Betteley was a pretty prolific inventor so the book may be referencing a different patent of his. I’d appreciate it if anyone can supply additional lock patent numbers from this inventor.

Jack

Jack Sullivan

Described on p. 96, 3 patents are referenced in Footnote #1 (p. 348) (Chapter 3):

US18228 - 15 Sept 1857 (correct patent)
US21685 - 5 Oct 1858 - patent for ‘card clothing’ to another inventor. Assuming that the issue date was correct, I found the correct patent as US21655 ‘Cam for Throwing Bolt in Locks’
US23222 - 1 March 1859 - patent for ‘folding bedstead’ to another inventor issued 8 March 1859. No Covert patent found by searching 1 March 1859 manually. Can anyone supply the correct reference?

Jack

Jack Sullivan

Described on p.102, ‘Also in 1858, a bank lock was patented by L H Miller (Footnote#32)’. On p. 349 it is not clear what Footnote 32 corresponds to because the footnotes are almost consistently misnumbered. However, my files show that L H Miller was issued a patent US21689 on 3 October 1858 for A ‘Permutation Lock’ & the mechanism described appears to be similar to that shown in the photos in the book.

Jack

Doug MacQueen

Jack, in your haste to point out errors in the book, you are making them yourself. The L.H. Miller footnote is 22 not 32, and correctly shows the patent number and date. I have been a bit busy lately but I will try to double check your previous postings for accuracy. Or should I say scholarship. Ha Ha Doug

———- Post added at 07:15 PM ———- Previous post was at 06:37 PM ———-

Jack, of the 3 patents listed for Covert on p. 348, I have only the first two which you have found. No patent shows up in the 1859 U.S. Pat Office Index listing for a Covert lock and I do not know where this 1859 date came from. The second incorrect patent listed in the footnote was 21,865, not 21,685 and that was for a clock escapement. Doug

———- Post added at 07:48 PM ———- Previous post was at 07:15 PM ———-

Jack, I have only 1 Betteley patent, at least in my organized info, and that is the # 8851 you found. There are no other lock patents listed for Betteley in the 1852 index and although the patent shows a different 5 lever lock, the 12 lever shown in the book is based on it. Doug

Jack Sullivan

Doug MacQueen wrote
Jack, in your haste to point out errors in the book, you are making them yourself. The L.H. Miller footnote is 22 not 32, and correctly shows the patent number and date. I have been a bit busy lately but I will try to double check your previous postings for accuracy. Or should I say scholarship. Ha Ha Doug

Thanks again for pointing out my minor errors, Doug. I’m a senior citizen & even with near 20/20 vision after multiple eye surgeries I still need a magnifying lens to read those tiny (& faint) footnote numbers. Twenty-three vs 33? Give me a break, please.

I’ve demonstrated that this book has multiple errors. I wouild hope that you would contribute to my efforts & provide the subscribers here with an accurate & complete list of corrected errors for their future reference. And ‘ha, ha’ yourself, Doug. I’m sure you meant nothing negative or personal by that comment & neither do I.

———- Post added at 07:15 PM ———- Previous post was at 06:37 PM ———-

[unknown]

Syd Waterman

No Covert patent found by searching 1 March 1859 manually. Can anyone supply the correct reference?
Jack.

Hello Jack.
The reference to 1 March 1859,is an addition to the 1857 patent. The claim was-
“ The combination of the disc and centre,toothed or corrugated,as represented,for the purpose of fastening them securely together;but I do not confine myself to any particular size,or shape,or number of teeth,nor to any particular position on the disc centre.”

This additional claim was incorporated into the re-issue of the patent on 12, July 1864.

Hope this helps you and other collectors.
Regards.
Patent.

Jack Sullivan

Patent wrote
No Covert patent found by searching 1 March 1859 manually. Can anyone supply the correct reference?
Jack.

Hello Jack.
The reference to 1 March 1859,is an addition to the 1857 patent. The claim was-
“ The combination of the disc and centre,toothed or corrugated,as represented,for the purpose of fastening them securely together;but I do not confine myself to any particular size,or shape,or number of teeth,nor to any particular position on the disc centre.”

This additional claim was incorporated into the re-issue of the patent on 12, July 1864.

Hope this helps you and other collectors.
Regards.
Patent.

Thank you. And the Reissue patent mentioned is number RE1725.

Jack

[unknown]

Jason Jones

Page 350 second picture down says that its a Chubb 3G114 when its a 3U114

Doug MacQueen

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

———- Post added at 07:24 AM ———- Previous post was at 07:17 AM ———-

The Evans and Watson lock on page 67 was patented by Rickards and Flanders, Dec. 16, 1851, #8,593. Doug