Dear friends and fellow international light bulb collectors,
In light of the previous posts, I wish to answer several questions, statements and queries which have come to light (pardon the pun), in order for any misleading information which has arisen from the above source.
It is without doubt and without question, that I, as an ambassador of Christie's, work to consign, sell and press all lots offered to the globe with honesty, transparency and fact so that our clients are purchasing lots with confidence, trust and knowledge.? I therefore submit the following post to answer every single question that has been asked on the posts above on this thread in detail, to straighten any corners.?
Lets put this affair under the spotlight:
(Statement #1)
- ?There is not one shred of evidence to prove that the other lamps were used in the trial.?
(Answer #1 - a)
The string tags on four specimens are handwritten by William H. Meadowcroft, Notary Public for the NY Court who signed most of the rest of the exhibit evidence for the Edison Lamp Infringement cases. b) Lamp 8, 9, and 10 each have paper labels used for marking exhibit evidence. c) The paragraph below is a statement taken from Rutgers Edison Papers. To find this on the net, search Google with, ?QD012 Rutgers? The resulting link will bring you to the following:
Litigation Series -- Printed Court Records: Edison Electric Light Co. v. U.S. Electric Lighting Co. (1885-1892)
[QD012]
This infringement suit was initiated by the Edison Electric Light Company in 1885. The Edison interests claimed that the lamp patents of William E. Sawyer and Albon Man, which had been assigned to the United States Electric Lighting Company, infringed on Edison's patent for lamp filaments (U.S. Patent No. 223,898). Most of the testimony and exhibits from the earlier patent interference proceedings (Sawyer and Man v. Edison, 1881) were subsequently entered into the record of this case. Other testimony was heard in 1889 and 1890, and the appeal was argued in 1892. Depositions and exhibits from two other cases (the McKeesport Case and the Trenton Feeder Case), which were initiated at a later date but decided while this case was still being heard, were also entered into the record. The events detailed by the testimony and exhibits all occurred between 1878 and 1882. The original bill of complaint, filed in 1885, is bound with the patent interference (see Miscellaneous Bound Interferences). The Digest of Proofs and Index, which precedes the printed court records on the microfilm, provides a comprehensive name and subject index to the case. This paragraph provides a good example of how the exhibits from several Edison lamp infringement cases became part of the title case in the Landmarks catalogue.? There is a whole lot more to the trial once explored thoroughly.
(Statement #2)
- ? Nor is there evidence that the box was the same box either.?
(Answer #2 - a)
The box is known to be in the possession of John W. Howell, the ?witness.? b) The note of provenance was written by Howell, c) A number of Tar-putty lamps are inside the box. d) The Tar-putty lamps have numerous paper court squares attached. e) A number of other lamps in the box have paper court squares used typically to mark exhibit evidence. f) A number of other lamps in the box have paper court string tags used typically to mark exhibit evidence. g) the box has a security lock. h) The box is partitioned with waxed card stock used typically to hold court records and proffered evidence. i) The box has a COURT square attached at the corner of each of the 24 partitioned compartments.
From the facts known, it is highly unlikely the box was intended for some other use.
(Statement #3)
- ? And the baloney about the eye loupes is pure speculation.?
(Answer #3 - a)
The loupes were found in the box by the Grandson of the estate. b) The box is known to be in the possession of John W. Howell, the ?witness.? c) The note of provenance was written by Howell, d) A number of Tar-putty lamps are inside the box. e) The Tar-putty lamps have numerous paper court squares attached. f) A number of other lamps in the box have paper court squares used typically to mark exhibit evidence. g) A number of other lamps in the box have paper court string tags used typically to mark exhibit evidence. h) the box has a security lock. i) The box is partitioned with waxed card stock used typically to hold court records and proffered evidence. j) The box has a COURT square attached at the corner of each of the 24 partitioned compartments.
From the facts known, it is highly unlikely the loupes were in the box are there for some other use.? The box and loupes go hand-in-hand as accompaniments.
(Statement #4)
- ?Also conspicuously missing is ([sic.] should be "are") the details of how these lamps surfaced and who has a financial interest in them.?
(Answer #4 - a)
The discovery and ownership has been documented by highly respected law firms. b) The discoverer wishes to remain private. c) The owner wishes to remain private. d) As with all consignments, the ownership remains a private financial matter.
(Statement #5)
- ?Well, I just happen to have in my library the complete transcripts of the trial. These comprise 10 volumes about 8 x 10 in size taking up 18 inches of shelf space and weighing 42 pounds (I will post a photo on Monday). Volumes 1 to 9 were printed as the trial went on for several years and the various parties involved needed copies of the testimony and the paper evidence that was presented. They comprise over 6000 pages. Volume 10 is the final closing arguments by the attorneys from both sides and comprises 854 pages. I have what appears to be the original copies as typewritten by the court stenographer. This set once belonged to one Francis Robbins Upton - remember him? They were given to his alma mater and later deaccessed. A antiquarian bookseller bought them from the school and I bought them from him. I also have the pamphlet printed by the Edison interests detailing the judge's decision and well as ongoing reports of the trial which were printed in various electrical journals.?
(Answer #5 - a) Great - I have access to copies too - great read.
(Statement #6)
- ?Now to examine a few facts. According to the transcripts Howell presented 26 tar putty lamps in a box. Well, the box here has only 24 compartments. I guess he must have had a bulb in each pocket too.?
(Answer #6 - a)
By way of expert witness schooled in the art, the wooden box, with all of its features is the real box. It was not originally made special for just the Tar-putty lamps. The depth of the box would have been shallower if just for the Tar-putty purpose. At its size it would easily fit the 26 Tar-putty lamps as stated in the court transcripts. It would in fact fit 48 (the expert witness easily fitting two Tar-putty lamps into one compartment). The depth of the box is I believe made for the longer 1880?s Edison lamps like 8, 9, 10, and 20.
(Statement #7)
- ?He (Howell) also presented a document outlining the electrical characteristics of the lamps. This is contained elsewhere in the transcripts. I read it; all of the 26 lamps were tar putty - no Lane Fox, no Maxim, no Menlo Park lamps.?
(Answer #7 - a)
Yes, Edison was involved in litigation with each of the inventors, Sir Joseph Swan, St. George Lane Fox, and Sir Hiram Maxim to which the lamps by those inventors were exhibit evidence.
(Statement #8)
- ?no Menlo Park lamps?
(Answer #8)
- For the Patent Interference, Edison made and sent unique unmistakable Patent model exhibits to the Patent Office. The models were unique because they were made with ?bamboo? coil filaments NOT CARBONIZED. Each coil was simply blackened by lamp black.
(Statement #9)
- ?He (Howell) testified that he made several more lamps than the 26 presented, but not many.?
(Answer #9)
- John W. Howell made his Tar-putty lamps during March and April of 1890 (source: Edison Transcript pg. 3460). He made 30 to 40 Tar-putty lamps (source: pg. 26, ?Stories for my Children? by J.W. Howell, 1930). A number were used for life tests by Charles Deshler (source: Edison Transcript pg. 3505), 26 were used as evidence exhibits (source: Edison Transcript pg. 3461).
(Statement #10)
- ?There was no mention of anyone examining the evidence or of an eye loupe.? (This is a repetition question, hence my answer.)
(Answer #10)
- (See answer #3.)
(Statement #11) - ?So, at most, only the 7 tar putty lamps were presented as evidence.?
(Answer #11)
- Seven of the 26 Tar-putty Lamps placed into evidence on July 8, 1890 in Edison Electric Light Co. v. United States Electric Lighting.?
(Statement #12)
- ?Were the tar putty lamps the evidence upon which the whole case hinged? Not by a long shot.?;... "Oh, by the way, Howell also presented the tools that he used to make the lamps."?
(Answer #12)
- John W. Howell and many involved in the case, including the Judge gave the credit to the Tar Putty lamps. John W. Howell states, ?A number of these lamps were burned on life test for 600 hours and were good lamps. Our lawyers were immensely pleased and I got a raise. Then I testified about making the lamps and stood my cross-examination well, and I got another raise. During the argument my testimony was bitterly but unsuccessfully attacked. The court sustained the Patent, and the judge said in his decision that my testimony has completely refuted the claims that the patent did not give sufficient information to enable a man schooled in the art to make the lamps. then I got another raise. Three raises for this work! I also received many congratulations for this work, some from lawyers and officers of the defeated company.? (Source: pg. 26, ?Stories for my Children? by J.W. Howell, 1930.)
(Statement #13)
- ?There was a huge amount of testimony from experts for both sides and hundreds of items introduced as evidence. Also, there was lots of paper evidence as well. Howell's testimony (direct, cross examine, redirect, recross) only filled 36 pages and there were and additional 9 pages (direct, cross) of testimony from his assistant who tested the lamps. Yes, Edison lost in England because no one schooled in the art could make the lamps according to the patent. English law is different to US law and is irrelevant in this case. The tar putty lamps were mentioned but were not prominent in the closing arguments. Edison's descriptions in the patent and the combination of his ideas were. Throughout the hearings the lawyers were trying all kinds of clever things to derail Edison's case; the tar putty lamps were just a response to this.?? (Again, a repetition of a previous statement)
(Answer #13) - (See Answer #12.)
(Statement #14)
- ?A few comments about the Edison effect bulb. What a nice piece. Unfortunately, it is not as unique as claimed. About 5 years ago I learned of a radio collector that obtained 2 of these bulbs with the copper plated filament attachment and the short Edison screw base (i.e. the same time period). They were given to the English electrician Preece and were in a UK museum. The collector, who wishes to remain anonymous, traded stuff to the museum for them. Also, about 33 years ago, I saw an Edison effect tube in a tube collector's basement. I was astounded - it was sitting on a shelf just above his lathe. It was so long ago I cannot remember any details of its construction. I haven't checked with the Smithsonian, Dearborn, or West Orange to see if they have any. I bet there are more of these around.?
(Answer #14)
- Lamp #20 has the provenance of the handwritten note by John W. Howell that clearly states, ?Lamp #20 - lamp used by Edison in 1883 in his experiments on the Edison Effect.? By this writing, the confirmed provenance of Lamp #20 makes it the earliest known, therefore, the first. All the opinions and accusations to the contrary do not change that fact. Speaking about seeing other examples in years past. It is said in professional circle that without data its just another opinion. If those lamps speculated about are brought forth, they must come with clear confirmable earlier provenance to challenge the now known electron Holy Grail, Lamp #20.? As you may know, the common examples have a plate, not a wire Anode. (I have handled a few of these in my time too.)?
(Statement #15)
- ?Unfortunately, Christies believed some of the hype. If you examine their listing you will see that labels on the bulbs which were numbered from 1 to 22 are described as courtroom squares. . . . No folks, those labels were most probably put on years later by Howell when he made the little write-up in the lid of the box.?
(Answer #15)
- The labels placed on top of the lot of bulbs are no doubt court squares used to number the lamps in the collection. No opinion, just fact - I cannot help but see them as can everyone else.
(Statement #16)
- ?Look in particular at bulb number 22. Howell's description says it was made in 1894. So the court came out 2 years after the case was decided and placed an evidence label on a bulb that had just been made????
(Answer #16)
- Regarding Lamp #22 suggesting that it could not be a part of the trial that ended in 1892 because it was made in 1894;? ?John W. Howell wrote about this lamp in his note of provenance ". . . made about 1894," that was for good reason. The Edison lamp court cases continued up until Edison's patent expired on November 4, 1894. The fact remains the lamp is a rare specimen in amongst a box of judicial evidence exhibits. Lamp #22 is in fact a twin filament design prototype which improved on Edison's single filament lamp patent rights and was made to extend the General Electric?s lamp intellectual property rights. This lamp design came to mass production as the famous GEM (General Electric Metalized) Lamp, but not until 1905 after all the lamp litigation had well been finalized. The mass produced GEM is made of 2 single hairpin filaments (like Lamp #22) but superheated during manufacturing. The process took advantage of graphite content (like Lamp #21). The two lamps are grouped next to each other in sequence in the collection box, the older is #21 and the newer (GEM prototype) is #22. It is necessary to make a very careful reading of the entire body of lamp infringement trials from September 23, 1880 to at least of November 4, 1894 before all the judicial facts found in the Edison Trial Evidence Collection can be understood relative to the collection. And to understand the significance of Lamp #21 and Lamp # 22 it is necessary to read beyond that date all the way to the introduction of the GEM in 1905. Anything less may likely lead to misinformation, as what has occurred here. (Source excerpts:
http://home.frognet.net/~ejcov/hgoebel.html by Ed Covington.)
(Statement #17)
- ?Read his write-up - he only mentions that the 7 tar putty bulbs were made for use as evidence in the trial (he doesn't even say that they were used as evidence although most probably were).?
(Answer #17)
- Here, the wording might be construed as being twisted;? The wording of the Note Of Provenance in Howell's hand clearly represents the authenticity of the Tar-putty lamps. A careful examination of the Note reveals what John W. Howell wrote (quote), ?These lamps were made by J.W. Howell in 1890 for Exhibits in the patent suit.?
The catalogue indicates the collection has ?court squares.? This is true. The paper labels on the lamps are typical quartered court squares. There are also other court exhibit references on a number of the lamps which are paper labels and string tags. There is an additional 24 court squares. One found on each waxed card stock compartment in the box. The squares with numbers still visible each match court records.
Otherwise, the collection appears under advertised because of the fact that the other judicial proceedings in which some of these lamps appeared have not been fully exploited. Therefore, the collection is not over hyped. The Edison Trial Evidence collection is no doubt the most important collection to surface in a century with confirmed provenance on every lamp. They are all part of a collection that has significant judicial importance and one that has extraordinary historic importance. The Howell note confirms their authenticity.
I would be delighted to show anyone this breathtaking lot at King Street, prior to the sale.
I hope and trust that the above answers all questions posed, although there are a great deal more lines of proof and evidence that I can provide in addition, as it took nearly 5 months to catalogue.
I would like to thank the previous poster for providing an opportunity where I can present this well respected website forum this proof and I would also like to take this opportunity to wish you all a very happy Christmas and an illuminating new year - I might even have some more early light bulbs in my next sale, so please continue to watch our website.
With kindest regards,
Laurence Fisher
International Specialist and Head of Department, Mechanical Music, Technical and Electrical ApparatusCHRISTIE'S,? London
