Under construction

Looking at Marked Patent Buttons from several countries.

( with  digressions )

Buttons marked with initials are thanks to:  CC.  Carol Cienna ;  FT. Fred Tatman   GV. Gerard Van.  Spares are marked s.

 click the thumbnails to see larger images.

When I first approached this subject I rather naively and , I suppose,  arrogantly  anticipated being able to trace the development of the metal button, ( that being my interest at the time),  through the British patent records there are however problems, chief of them being, of course,  that we didn't actually  invent everything; there were, surprise, surprise, contributions from inventors all over the world.  As if the task of trying to find a  nice orderly button development in the middle of some very technical specifications wasn't difficult enough already, ( with  no experience of -and no real interest in- engineering),  other problems quickly become apparent there are patents entered in a different class materials, for example,  from which buttons have been and are constructed , were entered a different section of the abridgements another example from is  that for the first cheap process for making stamped concave buttons as an improvement in the manufacture of watch cases in the 1790s. 

  According to the website there were no early requirements to submit written specifications until the early 18^th.C but  I know of at least one where no specification was enrolled as late as 1787 but was still listed in the abridgements. 

The earliest button which I have seen reported with a patent mark is that for flat, tin-plated sheet iron attributed to by Joseph Alston in 1787 the backmark reads `I. Alston Patent'  about  36mm diameter, ( note the latinised I for J  a common affectation of the period; City Directories are full of them another, familiar to many collectors,  is for I or J Nutting ) ; similar buttons marked "Patent" reported by the same source a lady called Kareen in a post to buttonbytes.  BBB gives the same information under the TIN heading on p229,  sourced from NBB Sept. 1959, ( copy anyone?).

 Investigation of  the abridgements reveals that two years earlier on the 19th November 1785  James Alston   took out a patent later numbered 1511, ( here),  an interesting note is that this is the earliest mention I have found for fixing a shank without the use of solder/braizing).  The later patent by James Alston Oct. 30th 1787  later numbered 1624, ( here),  is very similar  so without examples a copy of the NBB article and preferably buttons,  I wouldn't attempt to say definitively that the correct patent has been identified purely because plated items can lose their gold or silver when exposed to chemical action possibly leaving the tin untouched;   tin rusts so that even a small area of rubbing exposes the tin to rust bloom which in the course of time would flake off taking the plating with it and as BBB points out the reported examples have lost their tin, consequently they could have had any finish;  clearly the main Patent needs to be examined in order to resolve the contradictions here.   In defence of BBB I would say, from bitter experience,  that long distance research is very difficult and one is inevitably relying on the research skills of another person who, although skilled and kindly disposed, may not even be the slightest bit interested in what they are doing - there is no substitute for interest and enthusiasm. 

Groups of  similar patents tend to appear at roughly the same time;  A quick glance at the  display of trouser and other buttons below  will show just how close they can be in appearance,  (although not necessarily in age),  indeed some patents appear to be so close in specification  to an existing patent, (this may be an inevitable result of the fact that they are abridgements not the full specification),  or the resulting button so similar in appearance  see E & Ws  and H & I's  buttons at f 10),  so as to leave one wondering how the `inventor' managed to obtain a new patent; others  are clearly improvements or minor variations either by the same inventor or a rival.  The aforementioned problem is very apparent when it comes to  buttons used on trousers and underclothes f 12 - f 18  see also f 117  & f 118. 

f 11 I did two shots because the lighting on these black buttons is very difficult the illustrated example is typical of cloth buttons used after 1850's.  f 12   I have this in a larger size too f 13 lots of Turners ( probably the most obvious candidate is John  Pemberton Turner),  in my records  but not that I've found in the abridgements. with a suitable patent.  f 14 & f  15 may or may not belong together only differing in the shape of the aperture.  Buttons with the same construction as f 12 f 13 & f 16  with a  plethora of name variants,  ( at one time just about every local tailor in existence had their name emblazoned proudly,  but  I don't have a Hill London as a manufacturer or patentee),  are commonly found on uniforms from the late 19thC on and not just utilised as trouser buttons, but also for sizing via tabs.  Interestingly  f 17 was advertised by Rowley in the Birmingham CD's  images/archive1/charlesrowley009.jpg    images/archive1/charlesrowley010.jpg    Charles Rowley also patented  in 1846 a way of shanking horn buttons anyone seen any with a patent mark?  William McGuinn & Bruce Bazelon in their excellent work American Military Button Makers and Dealers; Their Backmarks and Dates,  (herein referred to as ABM),   mentions 9 patents issued to Rowley and a reference to NBB v.19 # 6 Nov. 1960 again anyone with a copy please think of me.  f 18 is probably the shell of a linen covered button as described in the abridged specification for Patent 909 23rd April 1855 Iliffe, H.J. & Newman, J.  note the similarity with the shank of f 10

Early  Patents weren’t numbered  at the time but retrospectively in the 1850’s;  it was only from 1852 that a number was assigned to every  patent resulting in buttons backmarked  with the inventors name or initials in the UK.   There appears to have been no rush to use the numbers ; Edwards  & Wrights'  patent 1858 for example  f 1 to f 7 doesn't have the number it was allocated on backmarks  just the initials which are sometimes accompanied by a company name and the word patent.  The inclusion of the images from Gerard Van of the  f  with a  J. Edwards 77 Aldermanbury backmark  is my  first clue as to a possible identity for Mr Edwards who had previously eluded me completely - I was looking for an Edwards in Birmingham who fit the dates & when I couldn't find one I suspected him to be an employee of the firm-  Mr Wright I presume to be the Wright of Smith and Wright . 

  Among the problems with naming rather than numbering are:

 a)  The inventor may not be the same as the manufacturer.  b)  An inventor with more than one patent , which may sometimes be very similar to one another or  with minor variations which can leave identification of the correct patent open to question.

 c)    There may not be a patent at all; spurious patent claims on manufactured articles in general are not unknown historically, ask the nearest patent clerk ,  there is no reason to suppose buttons were any exception.

   Hebbert  f 1 and Tait  f 2   were both suppliers not button manufacturers  f  & f are identifiable only in one year as selling wholesale .   Gerard Van reports these backmarks and obverse identifications  sandwvariants  Gerard also kindly provided the images for:  f4 ;f5; f6  a & b with an f5a obverse;  f7;  f8  presumably showing use of the construction after the expiry of the patent  &  f 9  the same construction used by Firmin.  Note the variation in size and spacing f3- f4 & f5b. Variations which do not show a dot under the s  f 5e are currently being treated as mis-strikes but may be a true variant.  f5d -f6b have different spacers.

 So far the earliest backmark I have found actually using allocated numbers is  patent 2346  Jan. 29th 1884; the patent is credited to R. Elsdon  as was, ten years later,  that for 8905  on  May 4th.  1894;  f 21- 23 note the slot cut  to recieve the shank  through the backplate.  I know of four other  patents by  Elsdon:  1651. Elsdon, R.  1884  Jan. 18th.  self shank;  15.531. Elsdon, R.  1885  Dec. 17th. wire button; 12.835. Elsdon, R.  1892  Jul. 12th.      wire button;      19,158. Elsdon, R.  1899 Sept. 23rd.  2x concave shank cavity & front grip. The shank innovation of 2346 continued to be used by Firmin on their own buttons f 25 and on those they made for others f 26 without the patent number.     Personally I am in agreement with the received wisdom that older button backs were, for whatever reasons,  utilised  in then current production.  I have seen numerous examples of mis-marked buttons  for example PT 2346 buttons that do not have the correct type of shank arrangement  exist  with the patent backmark and many marked RD664376, ( the registration number for the Mercantile Marine button produced around 1918?, ( if anyone knows the actual date I would appreciate details),  carry the wrong design on the obverse.

In addition to chasing a shank that would stay on manufacturers strove to improve the means of attaching the shank, (via eyelet holes),  to the clothing.  so far as I am aware the first mention in the specifications of this type of retainer  was Barnett George  July 11^th1840  Patent No .8565 ` Improvements in fastenings for wearing apparel…’ the section of interest to us is `(3) means for fastening buttons when the shank is passed through an eyelet hole…’ and `...3. A piece of wire is used; it is doubled so that one portion forms a spring tongue the other a shield or guard with indentations thereon...'  Prior to 8565, ( and certainly,  on some uniforms, in some countries into the early years of the 20thC ),  leather twists  f 29 - 30  were commonly used for the purpose- reportedly wooden pegs have also been found used in this way. I'm sure many of you will recognize the description above, ( no drawing available), but you may well be surprised if you think you have the shape in mind because the type we are all most familiar with  f 31 was patented by ?  (details as soon as I can locate this one note that  the image here is the closest to my memory of the actual shape),   additional  examples of  pin fasteners include  f 32 13,395 Gaunt, C. F. June 10 1913 and f 33  Rottenburg, H. No. 420 605 June 1st 1933 No. 15814 class 43. there are many others ( see under f 31 for a selection).  Later innovations sought to include protection from wear on the clothing, an example of which is that manufactured by Wm. Dowler and Sons Ltd.  f 34 - 35:  526,273. DOWLER & SONS LTD., W. & ROGERS, F. 1939  Mar. 11th.  No. 7903. [class 43].  back plate;  similar patents also mention holding the button so that the obverse design is kept in the required position.

f 36   Gerrard Van, who supplied the images  reports that the obverse design is Tweede Kamer, Leden der  or Members of Parliament ;  Note the obtrusive line running parallel to the shank indicating the use of a split die as per the description in :

Deykin, James, and Deykin, William Henry.  AD 1824, December 23.‑‑No.5062.

    " An improvement in the manufacture of certain military, naval, and other uniform and livery buttons."...'.Notes: describes what could be shell and/or single piece and the use of split dies and design impression from single die post shanking

Other unidentified  and/or unconfirmed (presumed British) patent markings include:

  Patent Gold Plate, C & L

note the similarity of f38 with the type of shank arrangement used by Armfields and a superficial resemblance to the concept of 8905.

f  I have added ... a tin-back (it is actually a steel-back). It could originate from any country, German or Czech. the inscription is Patent . * . * . * . going round. Do not be mislead by the POW front: the Belgians have made perfect mounted POW design buttons for civilian dress.

Another example of which I only have a reports  is that granted to `Frederick William Miller, glass enamel maker of Hazeldell,  Aylesbury Road, Hockley Heath, Warwickshire,  130985 14th August AD 1919.  back plate and shank that is not soldered on but secured in place by the enamelling on the face of the button'. Sc. Edith Combley to buttonbytes.  There is another enamel button  associated with this patent by the same lady.   See also BBB 47/10 marked Prov Pat 20561.

A number of non metallic buttons with patent marks exist. ( see also USA for cloth covered metal frames f 121 - f 125   of which  f 122 - f 125 may well belong in the British series).

 Thomas Cox  on  both costume and uniform horn patent details not available but a quick look at the companies available history gives a clue or two Cox and Ingram    The name  Ingram also turns up on horn pictorials  f 42 &  f 43

Ingram, Thomas Wells. AD.1832, August 15.‑‑No.6296.  ` " An improved method of manufacturing...buttons by the application of machinery not heretofore used for that purpose."...buttons as are made of  horn, hoof or any substance or composition " requiring considerable and  continued pressure for the purpose of giving them the required form "...'  long desc. of method/machinery follows. Notes:‑ horn, hoof, composition. see Ingram, Thomas Wells.    AD. 1837, May 4.‑‑No.7360.

Ingram, Thomas Wells. AD  1837  May 4. --No. 7360  “Improvements in the manufacture of  certain descrptions of buttons and in the tools used to manufacture the same.” The Buttons are such as are made of horn or hoof, and the improvement consists of applying flexible shanks to them. NOTES: desc. of cloth protruding from metal tube  forming shank.  desc. of manufacturing process, dies etc.{ Horn. Hoof. flexible shank. ]

 J.S. Manton  in conjunction with Islip T. took out a patent for  composition  buttons  No. 2907 26th Nov. 1860 there are at least two other patents associated with Manton and others:  Watts R. & Manton J.S. No. 3359 23rd dec. 1869; Manton J.S. & Manison W. No. 1360 12th Jan. 1884. There is also an A. Manton who had two patents 1886 & 1892 connection, if any,  not established.  Having read Jocelyn Howells' comments, ( see table below),  I am happy to attribute the swan on the patent example as the same as that used as a trade mark later by Buttons Limited a company whose predecessors include Manton.

Not all innovations were patented ; which is where useful design  registration comes in - I think- do bear in mind I don't have much information on this topic-  below are two examples one predating.1878  f 51 the other postdating   f 52 .  If anyone out there has one with a legible design diamond please put me out of my misery and send me an image. Anyone with registration details you found yourself you have my deepest respects;  trawling the pattern books, (the only method I am aware of of finding these),  is not to be taken lightly,  it is a mammoth task;  I searched six of these huge volumes with only three design registrations to show for it. Other registered designs in my collection are patterned / pictorial without any unique construction features and therefore, one assumes,  ornamental design registered.  

My main source for patent informaton in the UK has been the:

   Bennet Woodcroft Abridgements:  Wearing Apparel  Division IV. - Dress Fastenings & Jewellery. 1683‑1855.

  and the later abridgements:

  Fastenings, Dress.    Class 43.   1855-1928. and  Fastenings, Dress.    Group VI.  1929-1957 * 

The above reference books contain brief summaries  of the full patents giving dates, number & patentee with many illustrations; patents granted during the years of the commonwealth January 1649-May 1660 are not included; In addition they contain references, book and page, to other useful sources.  I am suspicious about the absence of button patents in the abridgements 1684-1769. The British Library Euston Road (from September 2005) holds all the old patent records & books associated with them previously held at the Science Reference Library Holborn including the foreign patent records previously held in the annexe. The National Archives Kew holds the original specifications before 1852,  (those in the British library are printed copies),  after 1853 copies of the full specification are available from the Patents Office.‘ go to either the National Archives website ( see internet resources this site)  and follow the links for research guides or the British Library website in the site search box type: patents & follow the links- you won't find any specifications online..

Prior to 1852 details of some patents were given in Journals such as:  Repertory of Arts & London Journal of Arts & Sciences.