Patent Info Double Petticoat

Reprinted from "INSULATORS - Crown Jewels of the Wire", December 1971, page 17

I have just recently acquired a Boston Bottle Works insulator for my own personal collection. Mine is the CD 158, with the six sided top. And embossed on the inner skirt "Boston Bottle Works Patent applied for." I notice from Mr. Milholland's book that this particular patent is October 15, 1872.

It is well known that Samuel Oakman did not receive a patent for the inner skirt until Oct. 13, 1883, almost eleven years after the 1872 patent date appeared on the Inner skirt of the Boston Bottle Works items, thus producing quite a time lapse discrepancy. Therefore - question - How does one account for the existence of an inner skirt on these items, when some bear the embossing "Patent Applied for", leading a person to believe that they were made prior to the issue of the 1872 patent date? 
Charlie Allmon 
5506 Virginia 
Kansas City, Mo. 64110

In reply to Charlie Allmon:

Boston Bottle Works existed under that name from 1872 to 1877, approximately. The October 15, 1872, patent refers, of course, to the construction details of the press for making the segmented threads. It would seem that certainly these double petticoat Boston Bottle Works Insulators would have been made sometime during this five-year period, which would place them at least six years prior to the November 13, 1883, date.

In securing a patent on an item, it is necessary to represent a part of the construction of the item as being new and original, not previously offered for sale. Once the patent has been secured, it is up to patent attorneys and the courts to determine just what constitutes an infringement in case there is a suit filed. Now, note the wording of the 1883 "double petticoat" patent:

Starting with line 22: "In the drawings, A B C represents the body of the Insulator. This Insulator has a screw-thread D, formed on its interior, as shown in figure 2, of the ordinary style and dimensions of the standard insulators now in general use. I also form on the interior surface an annular recess C', which serves to receive a coating or body of paraffin or other moisture repellent. Immediately below the recess C' I form the annular shield E and the upwardly-projecting recess H." (In the drawing, the "annular shield E and the upwardly-projecting recess H" forms the inner skirt. )

Reading further, beginning with line 47: "Having thus described my invention, what I desire to secure by Letters Patent is-- 1. A glass Insulator, having formed within its interior a screw-thread D, recess C', shield E and recess H, all substantially as described and for the purpose set forth, 2. A glass Insulator, having formed within its interior a screw-thread D, shield E and recess H, in combination with the screw peg P, all substantially as described and for the purpose set forth."

Note that, in the first section of the summary, he specifies the "recess C"' which was to hold paraffin; while in the second section, he leaves this out, and the text is written so that it would apply to any double petticoat insulator.

Now to carry the thought a bit further: we know that many Brookfield insulators carry the November 13, 1883, date, so that evidently they acquired rights to this patent. However, stop to think about all the double-petticoat Hemingrays and other units made prior to the time the 1883 patent would have expired. So far as we know, the recess for paraffin was never used to any extent: and it seems likely that there was a Charlie Allmon living back there in the 1880's who noticed the discrepancy (There were no doubt a lot more double-petticoat Boston Bottle Works units on the lines then than now!) and decided he could make double petticoat insulators and would be able to defend his right to do so should there be a suit filed.

However, after all is said and done, Samuel Oakman does deserve credit for the double petticoat construction, as well as other ideas that were far ahead of his time.