Stamp Community Family of Web Sites
Thousands of stamps, consistently graded, competitively priced and hundreds of in-depth blog posts to read
Stamp Community Forum
 
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

Welcome Guest! Need help? Got a question? Inherit some stamps?
Our stamp forum is completely free! Register Now!

George C. Howard Philadelphia PA

Next Page    
 
To participate in the forum you must log in or register.
Author Previous TopicReplies: 23 / Views: 1,735Next Topic
Page: of 2
Pillar Of The Community
3290 Posts
Posted 04/05/2019   09:48 am  Show Profile Bookmark this topic Add jogil to your friends list Get a Link to this Message
Mr. George C. Howard, Sr., proprietor of the Howard Foundry and Machine Works, one of the oldest establishments of its nature in the State, is a remarkable man, and with a remarkable history. He is one of Philadelphia's "landmarks," as the modern editor would call him, having been here for about 50 years, originally coming from Worcester, Mass. His experience as a mechanical engineer has been manifold and in most unexpected directions. He is well known in the industrial field as an inventor, designer and builder of all kinds of machinery. Recently he has built quite a number of his "Howard shearing machine," which shears both sides of carpets, or any other goods, on both sides at one operation. He also built the carpet rolling machine which rolls the goods from the outside. He built the first perforating machine for the use of the government in the stamp department; he also built the first printing presses for Uncle Sam for the printing of notes, bonds and stamps; also his machines for the cutting, forming and weaving of wire are of his own invention and construction. (Fibre & Fabric, No. 690, May 21, 1898, page 157, Vol. XXVII)

GEORGE C. HOWARD-MECHANIC AND MACHINE MANUFACTURER, 1771 LUDLOW STREET, PHILA. (Fibre & Fabric, No. 695, June 25, 1898, page 224, Vol. XXVII) The Howard Foundry and Machine Works were opened in 1840 by William H. Howard on Prune Street, Philadelphia, between 5 th and 6 th, where they built shearing machines, traverse card grinders, etc. In 1842 the tools were moved to Rockdale, on Chester Creek, Delaware County, Pa., where straw hat pressing machines were added to the list of machinery manufactured. In 1844 the tools were moved to Broad Street, between Race and Vine, and in 1846 to Broad and Paper Alley, now the N.W. corner of the Masonic Temple. It was here that the machines for making tuskan braid were built, and where the son, George Chapin, received his mechanical education and practice, and where his name was published as William H. Howard & Son. In this shop the manufacture of plate printing presses was commenced, and became the standard among artists, engravers and printers. In 1851, Samuel Ash bought William H. Howard's interest and continued for one year as Howard & Ash. George C. Howard bought the Ash interest in 1852, and has since managed the business, erected a new building, increased the tools and power, and acquired a competence. He has trained to be good and reliable workmen many boys who have found employment in the navy as engineers; also in the Printing Bureau and Bank Note Companies, factories and machine shops in the United States, South America, Cuba, Central America, Africa and China. Within the period noted above, George C. Howard invented the press for forming straw, felt and buckram hats and bonnets. The treadle is so connected to the lifting springs that the workman has the benefit of his full weight, the tension of the springs being neutralized, proving a valuable advantage and making the presses popular. The side lever attachment enables the workman to give a pressure on the dies of about 12 tons. The carpet or cloth rolling machine rolls the material as solid as a log, retaining the width and length, and reduces the bulk, saving burlap, size of cases and space in warehouse or store. The shearing machines are adapted for finishing both sides of goods at one operation, modified to suit any class of goods— machines for shearing grey goods, jeans, carpet rugs, plush.

He has arranged shears and rolling machine so that both operations are done at once, saving space, labor and time. His lapping and measuring machine is arranged with elliptical gear, causing the goods to pass over the measure at an equal speed, thus securing accurate record of length or yards, doubling and rolling machines for wide goods. He has patterns for most of the shearing machines in use, and grinds and repairs shears at short notice. His patent hoisting machinery is in use in almost every State. He was the inventor and manufacturer of the automatic folding hatch doors now in general use: his gravity safety catch is a novel and practical speed governor and safety clutch attachment to elevator cars, and can be erected at small cost. The patent carriage lift with ropes at the corners of the car, 8 ft. x 16 ft, is in use in most stables. The holding clutch and lowering brake, both operated with one rope, is an admirable device for hand elevators, waiters for houses, hotels or restaurants, to suit duty required of them, easy to operate and reliable. When postage stamps were required to be perforated in 1857, he was selected to make the machines, and operated them for the contractors, Toppan Carpenter & Co., and built for them the first successful power plate printing presses, and later built power presses that would automatically ink, wipe and polish the plate; they were used at the Bureau of Engraving and Printing at Washington. In 1861 he was selected to build the trimming and separating machines for cutting the notes the treasury issued. The 40 women there employed tried to injure these with hoop skirt wire and other substances, but the knives were of good temper, and from their successful resistance the present Bureau of Engraving and Printing has grown. He also made mills for grinding ink, hydraulic press and pumps for pressing and finishing the sheets. Machines for separating the fractional currency were said by Secretary Chase to act almost as intelligently as the girls who fed them. When the Bureau in 1861 commenced to furnish the post office with stamps, he built the rotary perforators. He has recently patented a system of curved keys for shafts, couplings or hubs that are superior to longitudinal keys, as they convey or resist circular motion with radial pressure at several raised points on the circumference of the shaft. The system has been proven to be superior to keys on stamp mills in the West, South America and Africa. Mr. Howard was born in Worcester, Mass., in 1824; b now 74 years old, but well and able to direct the Howard Works with seven hours' application, each day returning to his country home at Wallingford, Delaware County, Pa., obtaining daily rest and recreation with his wife and children, grand-children, flocks, poultry, shade and fresh air.

See U.S. patents US32370A and US32693A
Send note to Staff
Edited by jogil - 04/05/2019 10:10 am

Pillar Of The Community
United States
560 Posts
Posted 04/05/2019   10:01 am  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add modernstamps to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
Interesting jogil. Thanks for sharing.
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Pillar Of The Community
United States
2067 Posts
Posted 04/05/2019   10:03 am  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add txstamp to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
It certainly seems as though Howard is the segue from the Bemrose rouletter to the final government perforator.

Very interesting.
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Pillar Of The Community
3290 Posts
Posted 04/05/2019   2:26 pm  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add jogil to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
txstamp: George C. Howard does mention Bemrose in his U.S. rotary perforator patent US32370A and he also got a patent US32693A for a stroke perforator too. The oldest rotary perforator picture is from around 1895 at the Bureau of Engraving and Printing (BEP). On close up one can see "Geo C Howard Philadelphia" on the perforator.

Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Edited by jogil - 04/05/2019 2:51 pm
Pillar Of The Community
United States
2067 Posts
Posted 04/05/2019   3:09 pm  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add txstamp to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply

Quote:
My invention relates to improvements in the machine for punching and perforating paper &c., for which an English patent, No. 2607, was granted to IV. and H. H. Bemrose, Decr. 11th, 1854, and my improvements consist, firstly, in a device for presenting the sheet of paper or other material, to the perforating, cutt-ing, or punching rollers; secondly, in a device for adjusting the sheetof paper `or other material, to a proper position, prior to its passing between the said rollers; thirdly, in mechanism, which serves the double purpose of first confining the sheet of paper before it is subjected to the perforating, puncturing rollers, and then starting the machine; fourthly, in a mode of construct ing the upper perforating roller, whereby the pins or punches can be readily removed and replaced, and iifthly, in a peculiar manner of constructing the lower perforated roller.


US32370A is the one.

He explicitly states that he improved on the Bemrose machine.

Now this patent was issued on 5/21/1861, a little over four years after the first government perforated stamp.

It seems as though he probably went to work adapting the initial Bemrose perforator, which we know had to be done by someone. This patent probably represents the culmination of his work, after he had some time to perfect things a bit better.
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Pillar Of The Community
United States
2067 Posts
Posted 04/05/2019   3:18 pm  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add txstamp to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
jogil - That's a good find. Thanks.

I figured there had to be prior art on this:

http://stampsmarter.com/learning/Ma...rations.html

Gotta love stampsmarter ! Whose website might that be.

Anyway, I figured the end reference would be the Boggs book on Early Perforations. I'm not surprised. That is a book that has never graced my library, by design.

Maybe I've been too harsh. I've been told more times than I can remember by numerous very bright people that there are a lot of errors in that book. I'm sure this isn't one of them - but elsewhere.

Maybe I'll break down and get it one of these days...
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Pillar Of The Community
3290 Posts
Posted 04/05/2019   3:39 pm  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add jogil to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
The Law in Patents and Decisions of the Courts in Patent Cases Compiled from Official Reports, R.M. Clapp, Burlington, Vermont, 1885, pages 228-229.

Toppan, Carpenter & Company agt. The national Bank Note Company and others— Shipman, D. J.—This is a motion for a preliminary injunction to restrain the respondents from using a machine, or machines, for perforating paper, alleged to be the invention of George C. Howard, and for which he holds a patent. The complainants allege that after the issuing of the patent to Howard (May 21, 1861), he assigned to them the exclusive right to use the invention for one year. It is not stated in the bill where the year began to run, nor is the date of the assignment given. But I assume the year commenced on the day of the date of the patent. From the allegations of this bill, and the affidavits filed in the cause, I must, in deciding this motion, assume the following facts:— 1. That the machine patented was invented by Howard, more than four years before he applied for a patent. 2. That for a valuable consideration to the patentee, and for the profit of the complainants, the former permitted the latter to use one or more of the machines for more than two years before any application was made for a patent. 3. That at the instance of the complainants the patentee permitted the American Bank Note Company to construct one or more of these machines, and use them in their business; precisely how long, or upon what consideration, does not appear. 4. That only one month and ten days, or, at the longest, about two months elapsed, during which exclusive possession of the invention secured by the patent could have been enjoyed either by the patentee or the complainants. Without touching upon the question of abandonment, if I were called to decide upon this motion, upon the ground that the patentee had forfeited his right to a patent, under the seventh section of the act of 1837, I should, as the case now stands, be compelled to deny the relief. I could not resist the conclusion that the use of the machines by the complainants, with the consent of the patentee, for a period of more than two years before the application for a patent, in the absence of any evidence that a single step was taken to secure one, or that either the inventor or the complainants ever intended to secure one, that the patentee had forfeited his right. It would be difficult, on the present evidence, to hold that the use was not a public one. And if it was a public use, then the patentee, by permitting such use for more than two years before he made any application for a patent, forfeited all right to one, and his patent is void. This I understand to be the doctrine aid down in McCormick agt. Seymour (2 Blatch. 254). In that case, Mr. Justice Allson remarked, in construeing the seventh section of the act of 1839, that if a patentee "either sells a machi, e, or uses one, or puts one into public use two years before his application for a patent, it works a forfeiture of his right." But I do not wish to prejudge this point of forfeiture in the present case, nor the other of abandonment. Courts should be very tender of the rights of inventors, and not draw hasty conclusions adverse to the validity of their rights secured by patent. I am, therefore, disposed to decide this motion on another ground, and one which will throw no doubt on the validity of this patent, although it is difficult to see how it can be saved on the conceded facts. I will therefore assume, for the purposes of this decision, that there was no public use of this invention prior to the application for a patent-no forfeiture of the patentee's rights by a use of more than two years, and no abandonment and dedication to the public. I will assume that whatever use there was secret, and under such circumstances that the right to a patent was not lost. But after these assumption, it is equally clear that I can grant no preliminary injunctionTnis extraordinary relief is never granted as matter of course. It is never granted on filing a bill and producing a patent. The patent itself, although in a certain sense is prima facie evidence of the validity of the grant, is never sufficiently strong per se to warrant the relief asked for in this motion. The title of the patentee must, in order to obtain this relief, always be strengthened by exclusive possession for some period of time, or by an adjudication in which the validity of the patent has been sustained. This patent never having been litigated, of course no judgment has ever been pronounced in its favor. The right could not have been in the exclusive enjoyment of any one for more than one month and ten days, or at farthest about two months, as the application was made on the 23d of April and the patent was granted on the 21st of May, 1861, and before the 1st of July the respondents asserted their right to use the machine, and insisted that the patent was void. The principle that exclusive possession for a time strengthens the title of a patentee, is founded on the idea that, as it is a claim of right adverse to the public, and the ublic acquiesce in that claim, such acquiesence raises a presumption that the claim is good. # nosuch presumption can be raised in this case. There is no evidence that the public, or that small portion of them which would be likely to avail themselves of this invention, knew even of its existence, much less of the existence of an exclusive grant to this patentee or to any one else. Nor in this view of the case can I take into account the possession of the right, and the use of the invention, before the application or the grant of the patent. This is sometimes done on the principle laid down in Sargeant agt, Seagreave, 2 Curtis C. C. R., 555. But, of course, the use in such a case must be a public use, under an avowed claim of a right to a patent; otherwise there is no exclusive possession as against the public, and no claim in which the public can acquiesce. In this case, I must assume the use prior to the application to have been secret, or the patent is clearly void. This unavoidably places the complainant, so far as this motion is concerned, between Scylla and Charybdis. To hold that the use prior to the application was a public use, and was exclusive as against the public, would, as it extended beyond two years, wreck the patent. To hold that it was a secret use, away from the eye of the public, sweeps away the ground of exclusive sion, and acquiescence of the public, and leaves no foundation upon which the motion can stand. But the latter result is least prejudical to the patent. The motion is, therefore, denied. At these questions of forfeiture and abandonment are peculiarly within the proince of the jury, I think unless the answer, when filed, should change the aspect of the case, that they should be passed upon by a jury before an injunction is asked for.
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Edited by jogil - 04/05/2019 3:44 pm
Pillar Of The Community
United States
2067 Posts
Posted 04/05/2019   3:47 pm  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add txstamp to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply

Quote:
if a patentee "either sells a machine, or uses one, or puts one into public use two years before his application for a patent, it works a forfeiture of his right."


I presume this is the significant part of the above, which re-inforces my earlier presumption that Howard had this working for some time, in some form, before he patented it.
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Pillar Of The Community
3290 Posts
Posted 04/05/2019   4:14 pm  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add jogil to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
This is the most important original first philatelic article source on George C. Howard and his perforating machine patent and his patent trial.

See: http://chronicle.uspcs.org/pdf/Chro..._20/5678.pdf
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Edited by jogil - 04/06/2019 04:59 am
Pillar Of The Community
United States
2067 Posts
Posted 04/05/2019   4:24 pm  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add txstamp to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply

Quote:
1) Howard invented the machine more than four years before he applied for a patent.


Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Pillar Of The Community
3290 Posts
Posted 04/05/2019   5:37 pm  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add jogil to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
I believe that at the time there was a grace period of two years at the most before a patent application which was later changed to one year.

With regards to Boggs booklet on perforations, the Collectors Club booklet from September 1954 contains more updated information than the Unitrade 1982 reprinted booklet because the Unitrade booklet is a reprint of two earlier articles in the Collectors Club Philatelist from March and May 1954. The Collectors Club booklet was printed after the two first articles in response to suggestions, corrections and updates that club members and readers sent to Boggs regarding his first two articles.


Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Edited by jogil - 04/06/2019 04:51 am
Pillar Of The Community
United States
2067 Posts
Posted 04/05/2019   11:22 pm  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add txstamp to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
Thanks, I'll put that on my literature wish-list.
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Pillar Of The Community
3290 Posts
Posted 04/06/2019   1:09 pm  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add jogil to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
Does anyone know of the following power point seminar presentation from May 31, 2006 at Washington 2006 stamp show?

The History of Perforations on United States Stamps (through 1857) by Wilson Hulme, US Philatelic Classics Society.

I found the following but I am not sure if it is the above:

https://d2jf3tgwe889fp.cloudfront.n...ER%20ERA.pdf

I found this from the following page:

https://www.uspcs.org/resource-cent...h-documents/
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Edited by jogil - 04/06/2019 1:54 pm
Pillar Of The Community
United States
2067 Posts
Posted 04/06/2019   2:06 pm  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add txstamp to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
I recognize at least some of those pages from an earlier version that he presented to us at ARIPEX around 1997.

It is clearly a version of that pitch. I wasn't at the DC show unfortunately.
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Pillar Of The Community
3290 Posts
Posted 05/27/2019   10:27 am  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add jogil to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
Here is some more information on the Bemrose perforator patent:

https://books.google.ca/books?id=Z2...tent&f=false
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Pillar Of The Community
United States
2067 Posts
Posted 05/28/2019   1:10 pm  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add txstamp to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply

Quote:
In a sample we have before us, the perforations are elongated slits, no paper being actually removed, as with a common punch.


This certainly seems to make it clear that its a roulette-style machine, which is how it has always been characterized.
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Page: of 2 Previous TopicReplies: 23 / Views: 1,735Next Topic  
Next Page
 
To participate in the forum you must log in or register.


Go to Top of Page
Disclaimer: While a tremendous amount of effort goes into ensuring the accuracy of the information contained in this site, Stamp Community assumes no liability for errors. Copyright 2005 - 2020 Stamp Community Family - All rights reserved worldwide. Use of any images or content on this website without prior written permission of Stamp Community or the original lender is strictly prohibited.
Privacy Policy / Terms of Use    Advertise Here
Stamp Community Forum © 2007 - 2020 Stamp Community Forums
It took 0.95 seconds to lick this stamp. Powered By: Snitz Forums 2000 Version 3.4.05