 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
Button Collectors Resource Site
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 different classes, materials, for example, from which buttons have been and are constructed were entered in a different section of the abridgements as was that for electro plate. The best simile I can come up with to describe my quest is that it is like looking for a needle in three partially covered haystacks with only occasional access. The earliest patent mark, of which I am aware is worded I Alston Patent, f1, BBB attributes this , (mis-spelt), to the patent taken out by James Alston Oct. 30th 1787 . Investigation of the abridgements reveals that two years earlier on the 19th November 1785 James Alston took out a previous patent with little to differentiate the two, given their marked similarity I wouldn't be prepared to agree that the correct patent has been identified. 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, ( and in this instance on the information in an article in NBB Sept. 1959; copy anyone?), who, although skilled and kindly disposed, may not even be the slightest bit interested in what they are doing and thinking about lunch - there is no substitute for interest and enthusiasm it makes you dig further & deeper. An interesting point is that the Alston patent has the earliest mention I have found for fixing a shank without the use of solder/brazing). The shank is shaped like a standard omega but it seems to be formed of one piece with the visibly raised circular area which passes completely through the button, where it can be seen to have been riveted by the striking of the face, the legs of the shank appear to protrude slightly over the rim of the circular area. Remarkably, fixing the shank by riveting was still in use some 150 years later on Polish Army buttons which I'm told, by a Polish pilot who fought with us during WWII, are just pre war - so I took the liberty of calling it 1937 in order to round it off- in addition to which the construction is evident in late 19th early 20th century French buttons. Similar buttons just marked "Patent" are reported by a nice lady called Kareen in a post to buttonbytes, as usual if anyone has examples I would love some pictures - the lady in question didn't have a suitable camera & regretted not being able to provide pictures. Groups of similar patents tend to appear at roughly the same time; a quick glance at the display of trouser and covered buttons Above 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, ( a cautionary note is, of course, that patents are not taken out on appearances but on process another is to read what I found with regard to the H & I patent below). Other Patents are clearly improvements or minor variations either by the same inventor or a rival; the problem is very apparent when it comes to buttons used on trousers and underclothes f12 - f18 see also f 117 & f 118.. f 11 Thomas Turner Chatwin and George Seymour took out a patent No 10,484 AD 1845 21 January; The example is typical of cloth buttons used well after 1850's.and probably into the early years of the 20thC. f11 is possibly a trouser button too- flap rather than fly? Any clothing collectors know the date for the demise of the flap? It could be a cuff button but my limited experience of buttons in situ tells me that the cuff button went through an evolution of it's own in terms of size for example the coatee, (a1830-a1850), if sellers were to be believed, had smaller buttons for the cuff and /or accompanying waistcoat but on all the examples I have seen the only size variation was used on gaiters and pantaloons; later Victorian uniform, pre tunic, are pretty much the same and I have no idea when the change to smaller buttons for sleeves first occurred if indeed it ever did - doubtless some of you militaria collectors do tho' so if you would care to enlighten me please do so. f 12 I have this in a larger size too f 13 lots of Turners but the abridged patent of Charles Rowley & John Turner, AD 1842. 15 November No. 9519, caught my attention when I was reading it again the phrase, `as if a ring were let into the button', rang a bell because that's exactly what those look like particularly the improved version. f 14 & f 15 may or may not belong together only differing in the shape of the central depression but It's probably no coincidence that the Turner name appears on the f15 example because of the marked similarity of aperture with f12 & f13 . 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 on mens flys, 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. Rowley placed advertisements in the Birmingham City Directories of 1846 for a new four hole button and in that of 1854 the example at f17 is illustrated and captioned as a brace button. Charles Rowley also patented in 1846 a way of shanking horn buttons anyone seen any with a patent mark? 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 f10. I have just been investigating the connection between Edwards & Wright below and came across a patent taken out by John Edwards and one Charles Iliffe which leads me to the obvious probability that Iliffe used his rights to the patent whilst with Hardman and they called it H & I's patent - not unlike the patent Cox seems to have shared with Ingram, ( see below), which would explain why I couldn't find suitable patents in the abridgements. I Know I would have taken a photocopy, regardless of the patent details because I was already researching Iliffe & Hardman. The arm and rose on a torse, ( the heraldic term for the little line below the design), is given in Fairbairns Crests as Hardman but I am unable to associate the Stags head with any Iliffe. The shank arrangement of the button at f10 is different from that at f in as much as f10 has two holes through which the legs of the shank enter the rear whereas the second example has a slit through which a quite differently shaped & presumably fixed shank is inserted. 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. 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 another or with minor variations 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 exactly unknown historically, ( as I was told by a patent clerk at Holborn), there is no reason to suppose buttons were any different. Once numbers were issued there appears to have been no rush to use them; Edwards & Wrights' patent 1858 for example f 1 to f 9 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 GVt with a J. Edwards 77 Aldermanbury backmark was my first clue as to an 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 presumed, (naughty me), to be the Wright of Smith and Wright ; however thanks to Gerrards' example I can now state, without much fear of contradiction, that the John Edwards identified was the gentleman with John Skirrow Wright, ( previously identified as a partner in Smith & Wright ), as joint inventors of the patent. Hebbert f 1 and Tait f 2 were both suppliers not button manufacturers f & f le . 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; f8; f9 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. A Hebbert backmark without patent markings appears on identically grooved buttons with the plane of the shank laying along the groove rather than over it. So far the earliest backmark I have found actually using allocated numbers is patent R. Elsdon 2346 Jan. 29th 1884; The shank innovation of 2346 continued to be used by Firmin on buttons marked with their own name f 25 and on those they made for others f 26 without the patent number. Personally I am in partial 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, ( I should point out that a large number of those were in extremely good condition rather suggesting that they were rejected as seconds, scrapped, then found their way onto the market just as buttons and badges still do today). There are numerous PT 2346 buttons, that do not have the correct type of shank arrangement , with the patent backmark; many have obviously been used suggesting deliberate use of the backplate. Another commonly found patent button manufactured by Firmins' was by R Elsdon 8905 on 4 May 1894, ( sheet is currently awol probably filed incorrectly but as there are at least a couple of hundred ,(given my other estimates that probably means 400), pages to go through a copy may be some time), f 21- f 23 note the slot cut to recieve the shank through the backplate. I know of four further patents by Elsdon. f 36 Gerard 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...." '. the abridgement 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 but do bear in mind examples exist from Germany and France with the word Patent on them), patent markings include: f37 Patent Gold Plate, C & L note the similarity of f38 with the type of shank arrangement used by Armfields and a vague similarity with the concept of 8905. f GV ` ... a tin-back, [ it is actually a steel-back but referred to as tin because of the practice of tin plating the backs of ferrous metal buttons to make them shine and more amenable to Japanning] , 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...', (GV). As Gerard implies just because it's in English or has a design one associates with a particular country doesn't necessarily mean that the Patent is from a country speaking that language or where the design is popular; doubtless you have all seen items whose language does not match the country of origin. I seem to recall - I think it was in a book on Ceramics, many moons ago - that country of origin marks were a requirement of the McKinley Tariff Act of 1891, wherein only items marked with the country of origin could be imported into the United States; if anyone can confirm that with a source I would be very grateful. An example of which I only have a report 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. I have seen buttons where the enamelling is pooled on the reverse which looks as if that is what is securing the shank to the button. A number of non metallic buttons with patent marks exist. The name T. Cox appears on both dress and uniform clothing patent horn buttons f41; for which the patent details have not been found but a quick look at the company's available history gives a clue or two Cox and Ingram. The name Ingram also turns up on horn pictorials f42 & f 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. There is another Patent by Thomas Wells Ingram AD 1837 May 4. --No. 7360 “Improvements in the manufacture of certain descriptions 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, there is a description of cloth protruding from a metal tube to form the shank. and of the manufacturing process on horn/hoof buttons. 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. Jocelyn Howell wrote to buttonbytes , `...I have found two non-military composition buttons, one of a scallop shell and the other a highly embossed fleur-de-lis design, with the same swan pictorial back mark along with the word "PATENT"... [and ]..."PATENT" with pictorial swan on water; same swan, but in mirror image, found on a composition Confederate Navy button with this back mark: "Courtney & Tennant - Charleston SC - Manton's Patent." ' . I am happy to attribute the swan on Jocelyn's example as the same as that used as a trade mark later by Buttons Limited a company whose predecessors include Manton. Patent marked sale cards with the number 19510, [Nov. 11 1891 by Charles F. G. Richard Schwerdt; for the idea of perforating the cards to expedite the removal of limited quantities by means other than cutting said card and obviating the necessity for pasting a backing over the attaching threads], below a trade mark. Patents were also taken out in: USA No .481,832 Aug. 30 1892 & 484,677 Oct. 18 1892; France No. 217,660 Nov. 25 1891; Switzerland 4,419 Jan. 22 1892; Italy LXI 127 Feb. 6 1892. Buttons are 1cm, glass, imitation cut steel, floral pattern overlay, the trade mark is as illustrated on the Sale Card below, I have also seen a similar card marked Berlin. The Spread Eagle and the contents of it's claws were registered as Trade Marks by Charles Anthony & Edward Spayer 4 January 1876 and declared their use of the mark for 10 years previously. When the Patent was registered the company was known as Spayer, Schwerdt & Co. f 46 is on a rubber button identical with examples marked Dainite which were made by The Market Harborough Button Co. Ltd. also known as The Harboro' Rubber Co. Ltd. f 47 is on a Leather button - there were several patents for leather buttons in the abridgements and I'll add more once I can find the text which has apparently vanished into the ether and the hard copies are currently in storage; unfortunately the same is true for the button cover illustrated below. Modern composition buttons similar to Artid buttons in design and material but the shank construction on the examples I have are different from Artid and the base colour is more of an off white than Artid buttons. Reportedly,( on ebay), manufactured by Artid's cousin in the late 1940's. Jocelyn Howells identifies these as Amino Resin and has an additional backmark ` EBS Ltd. Made in England Brit. and Foreign Patents'. Trims Patented f 124 and Goodman Patented f 125 which may be US or UK patented or both. I have a sale card with the same type of construction and backmark as f 124, showing suggested use on a ladies dress but most of the examples I have seen tend to be covered in material more suited to upholstery than clothing - but that may be just a reflection of my taste- the card also associates the name George Goodman Ltd., Birmingham, with Trims. I have seen pretty much identical buttons in modern wrapping marked Prim as well as Pryms in the US. The American patent for which is No. 2,513,182 1950 Jun 27, filed Jul 7 1949 by Herman Koehl & Hans A. Prym, Woodstock, Conn., assignors to Prym Engineering Company, Killingly, Conn., a partnership; once you have viewed the patent I think you'll agree that the Trims are pretty much identical. 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. As far as I am aware the first mention in the specifications of this type of retainer was Barnett George 11 July 1840 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 on dress uniforms- reportedly wooden pegs have also been found used in this way along with the twists. I'm sure many of you will recognize the description of the wire clip 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 - 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 the top three are for holding two buttons together on capes, waistcoats & great coats). 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.W. DOWLER & SONS LTD., & F. ROGERS, 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. The example at f after 35 does not have a shank at all but is kept in place by virtue of the toothed backplate which traps the material between itself and the uniform button face & held together by the clamping action of the leaves extending from the rear of the face through the backplate and folded over; it's function is doubtless to decorate a part of the uniform that does not require buttoning but usually displays buttons ie. sleeve, pocket & skirts all spring to mind. There are numerous patents in the abridgements which use buttons for purposes other than -or as well as - a clothing fastener. I have examples of only two of these one a `sweetheart brooch' and another for holding a picture inside a button which appears in the abridgements patented by F.S.Cox No. 7130 12 May 1915. 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 that topic. I suspect the sweetheart badge is a case in point the number being registered some time before 1918. I have two lists of dates and registered numbers that don't match both from the PRO. I still need to check why. The registration process was easier, cheaper & faster than the Patenting process, so it is possible they sought protection whilst their Patent application went through. The button front is backed by a purpose made plate rather than a converted button. I have just the button part from another badge which has cruciform shape formed by two channels on the reverse secured by one central stud; which I had previously thought to be a sew through type, pics. when I can find it!. See Weiss in my notes on US Page for another example of `it looks like a button'. Button identifications marked: Squire, are from Buttons a Guide for Collectors Gwen Squire. Frederick Muller Ltd. 1972. Ripley, Buttons of the British Army 1855-1970 Howard Ripley. Arms & Armour 1971 1979, 1983 Buttons of the Regular Army 1855-2000 Howard Ripley privately published 2002. Jocelyn Howells reference is from her latest book Button Materials A-Z Identification Guide. privately published 2006. 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 *Please remember that my abridgement copies are NOT COMPLETE they were put together in th 1980's when I was only creating records of metal buttons - along the way tho' I picked up quite a few that interested me for one reason or another. 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- sadly 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 both works are available in The British Library. According to the UK Patent website there were no early requirements to submit written specifications until the early 18th.C but I know of at least one where no specification was enrolled as late as 1787 but was still listed in the abridgements. |
| ||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
United Kingdom Patent Buttons.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
| ||||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
| ||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
