Edison’s First Patented Phonograph of October 1877

[Starkton]

Generations of researchers the world over have been racking their brains without success to solve the mystery of the title of Edison’s U.S. patent 200,521, “Improvement in Phonograph or Speaking Machine”, applied for on 24 December 1877, which was unanimously regarded as his first phonograph patent. The matter seemed obvious, but what does “improvement” relate to?
[Allen, see his answer below, pointed out "that it was just a legal requirement (a formality) at the time and had NO specific reference to the document being (literally) an "improvement" over a specific prior patent (Edison's or anyone else)". I therefore correct my post.]

I found a now completely forgotten phonograph part in Edison's Canadian telephone patent, patented on 20 October 1877. Three earlier forms of the phonograph were integral part of that patent. Only months afterwards the invention gained the appearance that we all know, the tinfoil phonograph.

History books do not have to be rewritten after my discovery, but one thing is for sure: Edison's Canadian patent 8026 must be regarded as the founding patent of the phonograph. From now on it occupies a prominent place in the patent history of Edison’s phonograph.

I posted a revised version of my article first published in: The Antique Phonograph, Vol. 30, No. 4, Victorville, CA, USA, December 2012, pp. 3-6. You can read the full article here: http://grammophon-platten.de/e107_plugi ... 37054.last

*Edited for accuracy*

[AllenKoe]

Hi Stephan,

It is good to see this transitional Canadian patent get some publicity after all these years. Well done!

But I am somewhat puzzled. Aren't your illustrations shown from Oct 1877 (in Canada) actually the SAME as published months earlier in the FIRST Edison British Provisional Patent 2909, dated July 30, 1877 (on Sheet Two)? Wasn't THIS 2909 the first legal response to Edison's handwritten insight of July 18, 1877 ("store up & reproduce the human voice perfectly")?

The history of 2909 is complicated as you know, but doesn't it pre-date ("a record of the atmospheric sound waves") the Canadian Patent (8026)? Isn't it really the first, by several months?

Since Edison did not want to jeopardize the main telephonic portion of 2909, he would later WITHDRAW the phonographic section of 2909 (in Aug 1882).

Perhaps I have misunderstood your emphasis in this sequence of phonographic imagery and invention, but it seems to me that the drawings in the Oct 1877 Canadian patent are taken by TAE's lawyers FROM the earlier 2909 (July 30).

Ray Wile shows the relevant contents of 2909 in his famous article in the 1977 Royal Scottish Phonograph Symposium, p. 17. When Edison applied for three Speaking Telegraph Patents in 1877 (in the US, via Serrell), he listed the Canadian patent (8026) AFTER the one in England (2909). The strip phono is first shown in Brit 2909 (July 1877), isn't it?

Best
Allen

[AllenKoe]

Hi again,

I should have responded to this in my previous email:

"solve the mystery of the title of Edison’s U.S. patent 200,521, “Improvement in Phonograph or Speaking Machine”, applied for on 24 December 1877,"

Alas, there is no mystery here and no one has been racking their brains over the actual title of the patent. I too was, ahem, puzzled by the use of the word "Improvement" when I brought together my phono patent research over 25 years ago ('The Patent History of the Phonograph'). The nice people at the US Patent Office explained to me that it was just a legal requirement (a formality) at the time and had NO specific reference to the document being (literally) an "improvement" over a specific prior patent (Edison's or anyone else). As a matter of fact, the original documentation shows that when the Edison application was filed in Dec 1877, it was placed by the Examiners into a Section called "Measuring Instruments" (since there wasn't yet an actual "phonograph" equivalent).

As to whether the Canadian patent 8026 was the First, see my previous comments - it wasn't. Your revised article also seems to have a typo of 8056 for 8026.

It is still very good to have this earlier period of invention investigated and reconsidered. Much thanks.

Best
Allen

[Edisone]

Another failed effort to discredit TAE , I am glad to see. At least it wasn't the usual Edison vs Tesla nonsense.

[Starkton]

Hallo Allen, thank you for opening the discussion about the contents of my article. It is nice to receive response for the first time after the publishing in 2012.

But I am somewhat puzzled. Aren't your illustrations shown from Oct 1877 (in Canada) actually the SAME as published months earlier in the FIRST Edison British Provisional Patent 2909, dated July 30, 1877 (on Sheet Two)? Wasn't THIS 2909 the first legal response to Edison's handwritten insight of July 18, 1877 ("store up & reproduce the human voice perfectly")?

You may not mix up the provisional specification, dated July 30, 1877, with the final specification, dated January 30, 1878 of Edison's British patent. There were no such drawings in July 1877. The illustrations of British patent 2909 you mention were published in 1878, months after the Canadian patent.

The history of 2909 is complicated as you know, but doesn't it pre-date ("a record of the atmospheric sound waves") the Canadian Patent (8026)? Isn't it really the first, by several months?

The reproducing part of the phonograph is missing in the provisional specification of 2909. Therefore, the Canadian patent is first.

Since Edison did not want to jeopardize the main telephonic portion of 2909, he would later WITHDRAW the phonographic section of 2909 (in Aug 1882).

Yes, but this is irrelevant when we discuss about the first patented phonograph.

Perhaps I have misunderstood your emphasis in this sequence of phonographic imagery and invention, but it seems to me that the drawings in the Oct 1877 Canadian patent are taken by TAE's lawyers FROM the earlier 2909 (July 30).

No. See above.

[Starkton]

Alas, there is no mystery here and no one has been racking their brains over the actual title of the patent.

Really? I doubt that very much!

The nice people at the US Patent Office explained to me that it was just a legal requirement (a formality) at the time and had NO specific reference to the document being (literally) an "improvement" over a specific prior patent (Edison's or anyone else).

I am glad that I didn't have this information which could have prevented me from searching after the founding patent.

As to whether the Canadian patent 8026 was the First, see my previous comments - it wasn't.

You are wrong, see my comments above. Edison's Canadian patent 8026 was the first and therefore occupies a prominent place in the patent history of the phonograph.

[Starkton]

Aren't your illustrations shown from Oct 1877 (in Canada) actually the SAME as published months earlier in the FIRST Edison British Provisional Patent 2909, dated July 30, 1877 (on Sheet Two)?

You failed to mention Sheet Four of Patent 2909. Figure 29 shows the tinfoil phonograph of December 1877, see below. This alone proofs that, although the document header on Sheet One says "July 30, 1877", all of these drawings for the British patent were prepared not earlier than December 1877. You can examine the drawings on the website of "The Thomas Edison Papers“ project: http://edison.rutgers.edu/NamesSearch/S ... hDoc=Enter

[Starkton]

A question to the forum:

I must say I am very surprised that the discovery of Edison's first patented phonograph didn't attract more attention. I am happy for every feedback, but please read my article before you post

[ambrola]

Another failed effort to discredit TAE , I am glad to see. At least it wasn't the usual Edison vs Tesla nonsense.

We can make it a Charles Cros vs Edison?

[phonogfp]

A question to the forum:

I must say I am very surprised that the discovery of Edison's first patented phonograph didn't attract more attention. I am happy for every feedback, but please read my article before you post

Stephan,

I suspect that nearly all writers of multiple articles (in our field at least) can commiserate with you regarding feedback. Speaking for only myself, it's a relative rarity when a reader takes the trouble to offer his/her impressions (either positive or negative) of an article I have written. On those rare occasions when it does occur, it makes up for the 8-10 previous articles when I heard nothing.

I was among the legions of your readers who did not respond directly to you regarding your article in 2012 which appeared in The Antique Phonograph. (This puts me squarely in both camps: 1) the enthusiastic writer who sometimes wonders if his efforts are entirely self-indulgent, and 2) a reader who happily laps up the published results of another's research without so much as an "attaboy" to encourage the writer.) I can assure you that your 2012 article was memorable (at least for me) and that I could have rattled off the October 17, 1877 date of the Canadian patent before you began this thread. I doubt that I was alone.

That said, it must be acknowledged that many - perhaps most - of our colleagues in this field of interest and on this forum are more casual collectors and hobbyists. The joy that some of us find in surrounding ourselves with stacks of books, period documentation, and a computer screen while finding new information or perspectives to publish is NOT shared by many. But I can assure you that a significant number of serious collectors/historians enjoy and absorb our scribblings without often expressing it. This is brought home to me oftentimes at antique phonograph shows, when someone - often unknown to me - walks by, stops, and expresses his interest or satisfaction in an article I have written. Sometimes the article had been published years ago, and to my mind forgotten. Without these casual personal encounters at shows, I would have a less sanguine view of the value of our efforts. There are probably a hundred other happy readers for every one who pauses a moment to express his approval. For me, those relative few are enough.

As for your article under discussion in this thread, several things should be borne in mind:

1) When does a "Telegraphic Repeater" become a "Phonograph?" For a serious researcher such as yourself, and perhaps for interested readers such as Yours Truly, this may be more self-evident, but for many of our friends whose interest is not so sharply focused, such blurred lines will discourage public discourse. No one wants to look foolish by displaying their limited knowledge on a particular topic - including me.

2) Without the provisional applications and published patents spread out before us, we readers lack the perspective that serious researchers such as yourself have gained. We are at your mercy when told that a certain illustration appears "here" but not "there." When a disagreement occurs - as it has in this thread - those of us who have limited knowledge of the subject are reluctant to become involved. (See the last line of #1 above.) Including the link to the Rutgers site is an excellent way to provide the reader with the ability to read and decide without any "spin."

3) Finally, it must be admitted that topics like this rise into the stratosphere of academic pursuit in our field of interest. For those of us who take pleasure in simply listening to the sounds of a lost world, played on period machinery of quartersawn oak, gleaming enamel, brightly decorated horns, polished mahogany, and nicely formed metal plated in nickel or gold, we may already be fully satisfied. I suspect we all have been comfortably positioned in this stage at some point, and goodness knows we often slip back into it for the pure pleasure it provides. Why would anyone in their right mind go further?

The answer to that is of course, insatiable curiosity, nervous energy, even (as one of my writer friends claims for himself) attention deficit disorder. To be an academic is often a lonely path, but take heart in the certain knowledge that you are not alone. Even those of us who lack your talent can appreciate your efforts, and take satisfaction from the facts you uncover. We may not acknowledge it as often as we should, but among (at least) a relatively small group of hard-core historians, your writings are much appreciated.

Keep up the good work!

George P.