Akro Sparkler Production Dates

[westcoast_dave]

Looking for some good information on production start dates for Akro Sparkler marbles. (or at least some good discussion). Particularly interested in when the injection method of marble manufacture (if thats a proper term) was introduced at Akro. Patent info, box info and any insight into these marbles is greatly appreciated.

[Steph]

I think it was early. Early enough for Master's founders to take some of the know-how with them in 1930.

Their first appearance in Akro ads of which I am aware was in 1931.

They are not in the 1929 ad I know about.

I can't remember seeing a 1930 ad, well, not a full Akro ad which listed the company line. (A 1930 advertisement from a distributor does mention Akro Tri-Color Agates ... the marbles known to some as Specials ... and I don't see Sparklers there but that doesn't mean anything.)

I still see Sparklers in an ad which I think which was printed in 1934 or later.

(I'm consulting American Machine-Made Marbles and this thread, http://marbleconnection.com/topic/10676-akro-timeline/, to refresh my memory.)

[Steph]

I suppose that was a strange use of the word "early" for a company which existed since the teens.

Akro seemed to have a revolutionary switch from its slag days to its cork days, right at 1929-1930, and so I meant that Sparklers came early in that switch.

[Steph]

*bat signal to the patent researchers*

[westcoast_dave]

[westcoast_dave]

Did some digging. The Early patent, No. 1,761,623 - filing date 3/22/1926 and publication date 6/3/1930 was the patent that Master Marble Co. was accused of infringing upon. Could that possibly be the sparkler maker?

[westcoast_dave]

Another patent related to the case by inventor John F. Early for Akro Agate is US patent 1,880,916: filing date 5/25/1928, publication date 10/4/1932. Not sure how to post a link.

[Steph]

https://www.google.com/patents/US1761623

https://www.google.com/patents/US1880916

[Steph]

https://casetext.com/case/akro-agate-co-v-master-marble-co

[Steph]

I could be wrong. I didn't read every detail. Sounds like it the lawsuit was about the rollers, not the injection method. Definitely rollers were involved. If injectors came in, I didn't see where.

Part of the "Findings of Fact":

4. That the defendants' machine was independently arrived at by their own experimentation and construction; that the defendants at one time experimented with offsetting of rolls on their machine and found that the product was imperfect, and at a later time found that misadjustments of the machine by offsetting resulted in an imperfect product (Rec. 650, 651); and I find that the defendants spent some $9,000 in independent expenditure in experimenting and producing their own type of machine which is the subject of this suit. (Rec. 506, 507.)

[Steph]

It's morning so I'm making an attempt to read again. (Was not easy last night! lol)

Method of delivering glass to rollers is mentioned, but in a way which makes it seem inconsequential:

10. That plaintiff failed on the trial to show that defendants' rolls contained the combination of features set forth in claims 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 of the Early 1932 patent, No. 1,880,916, while defendants proved on the trial, and demonstrated to the court when he visited defendants' factory, that instead of defendants' machines embodying the combination or group of devices stated in said claims of the 1932 patent, defendants' machines, as to the devices for delivering the glass gobs to the roll grooves, were of the type and construction open to the public, because old and shown in numerous patents of prior dates: Among them, Miller patent, No. 1,601,699 of 1926; Lynch patent, No. 1,531,560 of 1925; and Bingham, No. 1,125,895 of 1915; and the Miller prior use heretofore referred to. (Exhibit KK, Book Prior Patents.)

[Steph]

Oooh ... it starts to get interesting .... I think this might be getting closer to what you want ......

Go down to #17 and start reading from there:

17. The Freese patents, Nos. 1,529,948 and 1,529,947, deal respectively with an apparatus and method of mixing clear and colored glass. They are substantially identical in drawings and specification with one another; the claims in the apparatus patent No. 1,529,948 differ from the claims of the method patent No. 1,529,947. *323

The next sections talk about Freese methods and how Master's method differs from Freese methods, and what part of the technology was known before Freese.

After reading those sections, it makes it very hard to understand how Master got such nice results in their tiger-eye style Sunbursts.

[Steph]

Down near the bottom, in the Conclusions of Law section, this was interesting:

A. That the comparison to be made by the court on infringement is between the plaintiff's patent and the defendants' construction, and the comparison is not between the plaintiff's construction and the defendants' construction of its apparatus, and likewise the comparison is between the plaintiff's method patent and defendants' apparatus and methods, and not between the plaintiff's apparatus and methods and the defendants' apparatus and methods. Harvey Hubbell, Inc., v. General Electric Co. (C.C.A.2) 267 F. 564, 569, 4th Syl. and text.

Reading between the lines it sounds like it's possible that Master was doing some of the same things Akro was doing which Akro considered special ... But we can't be sure since the lawsuit wasn't about that. It was only about whether Master was involved in patent infringement.

[Steph]

The Freese method patents under discussion:

https://www.google.com/patents/US1529947

https://www.google.com/patents/US1529948

[westcoast_dave]

Thank you Steph. I think i see it now in patent 1,529,947. Early in the reading it states:

-"any desired color may be injected into the center of the flowing glass stream" -FREESE patent US1529947

[Steph]

Now I want to start a thread about what the differences between Sparklers and Sunbursts actually are. How different was the process which made them?!

How the heck could Sunbursts have been made if they weren't done with injection?

... I think I'll do that now ......

[lstmmrbls]

They are definitely done with a type of injection probably very nearly the same as Sparklers,( At least the so called Tigereye types)

[Steph]

The investigation for the Akro vs. Master lawsuit said Master didn't use the injection method.

Maybe I'm incorrect about when the nice Tiger Eye type Sunbursts were made. Maybe they weren't made as early as I thought.

[lstmmrbls]

One must also remember that many of the patents were never used. And also, what did end up actually being used quite often barely resembled what the patents actually show.

[Steph]

With the Akro v. Master case we have a unique perspective though.

"The court personally inspected this machine in the plant of the defendant in the presence of both parties, ...."

We get a pretty detailed eye witness view.

Oooh oooh oooh (channeling Arnold Horshack) ... this inspection probably happened in the mid-30's. The ruling was dated January 16, 1937.

So maybe the early sunbursts were done by injection and then by the mid-30's Master was back to the single source method the court observed.

That theory might be flawed since the court said that they didn't see any history of patent violation, and that what the plaintiff had supposedly seen and complained about was from an experimental phase at Master and the court saw no evidence that the marbles were made commercially.

But anyway ... the court was looking at relatively late marbles, so my theory about the nicest tiger eye styles being made early could still hold and the court was studying how Master made the less flashy marbles.