Errors in 'American Genius'

Jack Sullivan · 2011-08-08T03:06:28+00:00

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

Jack Sullivan

Doug MacQueen wrote
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.

[unknown]

Doug MacQueen

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

Jack Sullivan

Doug MacQueen wrote
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

[unknown]

Syd Waterman

Jason Jones wrote
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

[unknown]

Jack Sullivan

Patent wrote
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

[unknown]

Doug MacQueen

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.

Jack Sullivan

Doug MacQueen wrote
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.

[unknown]

Syd Waterman

Details attached.

December 28th 1835

Cheers.

Patent.

Jack Sullivan

Patent wrote
Details attached.

December 28th 1835

Cheers.

Patent.

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

Thanks!

Jack

[unknown]

Syd Waterman

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

Jack Sullivan

Jack Sullivan wrote
Many thanks. Do you have the patent number, please?

Thanks!

Jack

Thanks. Patent numbers for US patents earlier than 1836 are problematical, perhaps due to a fire that destroyed many of the records just prior to that time. But at least we now know that the elusive Campbell patent does exist!

Jack

[unknown]

Jack Sullivan

Described on p. 81, Footnotes #62 & 63 might reference patent numbers but the names of Harig & Stoy do not appear to be there (p. 348). The patent number for their lock is US11374 of 25 July 1854.

Jack

Jack Sullivan

Described on p. 124, ‘…North and Isham found that Stewart Perry of Newport, New York, had patented (Footnote #40, p. 349) his own keyless lock.’ Footnote #40 does refer to patents US17293 and US20658, both to ‘S. Perry.’ Both patents are issued to Stuart Perry.

Jack

Jack Sullivan

Described on p. 78, Hall’s patent is referenced in Footnote #59. The actual patent reference is found in Footnote #58. This footnote references US11158 issued to Hall on 27 June 1858 with the title ‘Door Lock.’ Not referenced but found in the same Patent Class (70/354) is Hall’s patent US37290 issued 6 January 1863 (‘Lock’) patenting improvements to the same changeable bit key lock concept. The lack of the second patent reference, while not an error per se, is certainly an omission considering the more complete patent listings found for other locks in this book.

Jack

Jack Sullivan

Described on pp.180-183, the almost complete lack of footnoting to document facts mentioned in the text is frustrating.

The excellent closeup photo of the interior of the lock on p. 183 provided the following list of patent dates associated with this lock (next to the equivalent patents):

20 July 1875 (US165878)
7 August 1877 (US Reissue 7835 which is a reissue of US165878)
13 November 1877 (US Reissue 7947 which is a reissue of US195539)
25 September 1877 (US195539)

Researching the patent numbers corresponding to the dates on the lock was unnececessarily time consuming due to the lack of adequate footnoting.

Jack

Jack Sullivan

This beautiful & very clever combination lock is described on pp. 112-113. However neither footnote in this description provides a patent reference.

From my files, US36908 issued 11 November 1862 to Macneale & Dodds (W B Dodds Co, Dodds-Macneale-Urban) describes this lock & its operation in detail (see attached thumbnail). The center key or wrench (figure W in patent drawing) is neither illustrated nor mentioned in the book.

Jack

Jack Sullivan

Though mentioned and partly described on p. 46, there is no footnote reference to help the reader with understanding & visualizing the Jenning’s lock, which seems to not be part of the Mossman Collection. From my files, the Jennings patent (‘Lock’) appears to be US7244 of 2 April 1850 (thumbnail attached).

Jack

Jack Sullivan

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

The patent number for this is USx9294 in patent class 70/304. i believe this was one of the patent documents saved from the 1836 fire.

Jack

[unknown]

Jack Sullivan

This lock, described on p. 114, refers to the introduction of this lock design in 1863. The only footnote, however, is #30, which refers to Yale’s 1865 patent US48475 issued 27 June 1865 (p. 349).

My files indicate that 2 US patents issued to Yale in 1863 but both are reissues of earlier patents: USRE1469 issued 28 April 1863 (reissue of US32331 issued 14 May 1861) and USRE1470 of the same date (reissue of US28740 issued on 12 June 1860). The USRE1469 refers to both the ‘disconcerter’ mechanism and the pin bit key mentioned in the book. USRE1470 also deals with pin bit key mechanisms. Both patents are apparently involved with the Double Dial Bank Lock. To add to the reader’s confusion, USRE1469 is also mentioned in Footnote #27 and the disconcerter and pin bit key mechanisms of Yale’s Double Treasury Lock (pp. 106-7) which was introduced at about the same time as the Double Dial Bank Lock.

Jack.

Jack Sullivan

This lock is described on p. 116 with reference to MacNeale’s 1864 patent (Footnote #31 on p. 349). This is US43457 issued 5 July 1864. The book mentions that the lock’s design was ‘revamped around 1870’ but with no footnote as to the patent number. This is MacNeale’s US105102 issued 5 July 1870.

Jack

« Previous Page Next Page »