Jump to content

Which Wheatstone?


JimLucas

Recommended Posts

The quoted passages below are from a post by Göran Rahm under the "In Memoriam" Topic. It's really a separate topic which deserves a Title that indicates what it's really about, so I've created one.

Every time Charles Wheatstone is remembered and honoured as *the inventor* of *the concertina* (well ....actually not literally this time since John seemingly wished to celebrate his death only...)... I get the same slightly rebellious impulse to question the role of CW in relation to the brother WW... William Wheatstone.
Göran, what you term "slightly rebellious", I would term "obsessive". Your past efforts have not so much suggested that Charles may have taken credit for work that was actually his brother's, but simply that Charles did not himself accomplish many of the innovations attributed to him. Yet you have documented nothing to substantiate such accusations.
Do we actually *know* the distribution of responsibility between the two brothers concerning the development of the concertina? Or the role of their father?
Do we actually *know* that Shakespeare's works were written by a man named "William Shakespeare", and not by Sir Francis Bacon or by Queen Elizabeth I of England? For that matter, do we actually *know* that these posts come from a real person named "Göran Rahm", and not from some internet hacker pretending to be GR? Perhaps even from Jim Lucas, who might be using them as an excuse to "respond", thus upping his number of posts in the concertina.net Forum, so that he will become the first poster to achieve four little squares next to his name?

 

Well, I know what I think (assuming that *I* am *me*), but I'll let others draw their own conclusions, though their suspicions of conspiracy and foul play in all realms may have been heightened by the latest revelation regarding Princess Diana.

What I have read is this: They inherited their uncle's enterprise together 1823 (CW 21 and WW 19 years old) and CW soon started a career as an inventor in very various fields of physics and later on an academic career as well while WW was the one who actually was in charge of the business and instrument production until his death 1862. ( Their father WW is said to have joined in the business in 1826. He died not until 1854)
Göran, what sort of documentation do you have for those parenthetical statements about Wheatstone senior? Neil Wayne's Galpin Society paper on "The Wheatstone English Concertina" states that he died in 1823, though it also mentions that Langwill records addresses for William Wheatstone's business up until 1826.
The fact that the significant patents 1829 and 1844 were granted CW does not proove anything about the possible role of WW (senior and junior) in the work.
While the patents alone "prove" nothing, neither do they in any way suggest that any of the contents were *not* the work of Charles, himself. However, other facts strongly suggest that neither the deceased nor the descendent William played a significant role in developing the ideas behind the patent, aside from the fact that without the elder William's parentage, neither son would have be alive to invent *anything*.

 

There seems to be no record that either Charles' brother or his father (if he was indeed still alive) ever disputed Charles' sole responsibility for any of the inventions claimed in his patents. And if William the father indeed died in 1823, then this would seem to be before *any* of the concertina concepts were developed. In any case, he has no reputation as an inventor, but only as a builder and seller of traditional musical instruments.

 

Young William, on the other hand, was hardly naive when it came to patents, having himself registered a patent (his first?) in 1824. Meanwhile, Charles' reputation was that he regularly gave credit to others for their work, even when he extended it with his own. (The "Wheatstone bridge" is an example. Wheatstone gives full credit to Christie as its inventor, though Christie was himself unaware of its potential for measuring resistances.) And such of William's inventions as I'm aware of (his 1824 patent modification of the pianoforte, his 'patent flute embouchure', and his 1861 patent) are limited to technical "refinements", not any substantially new concepts or designs.

CW evidently was the 'scholar' of the two brothers and probably got quite a bit of bureaucratic experience related to his other inventions.
I'm not sure what you mean by 'scholar', but there is considerable evidence that Charles' passion for investigation, experimentation, and invention led to his association with academics, rather than any love of academia motivating his technical achievements. In fact, he was quite shy about making public presentations. On the other hand, there seems to be no evidence that his brother shared his passion. Rather, William was known as the solid businessman without whom the Wheatstone musical instrument business might have failed.
It is not unusual that patents are applied for and granted just one of two (or more) partners (with resulting long lasting personal and legal fights about division of economic results when these are unexpected good...).
While such incidents have been recorded, there appears to be no evidence of any such circumstance regarding the Wheatstone concertina, in either its general design or details of construction. William never disputed Charles' role as the originator of his patent claims, though William did claim credit for some further ideas in his own patent. On the other hand, Charles was clearly willing to share credit on a patent, as he did with Cooke on the design of a telegraphic system in 1837.
So...just as an speculative hypothesis....maybe WW (and/or WW senior) ought to be at least as much honoured for the development of the *concertina* as CW or maybe even it was to a greater part the work of WW?!?
A "speculative hypothesis", or simply an attempt to plant a slanderous rumor? With no evidence to support such a speculation, and considerable evidence of Charles' personal inventiveness, competence, thorough attention to detail, and also his integrity, it is nothing short of a defamation of Charles Wheatstone's character.
Maybe there is little speaking for this but I could well imagine a possible rivalry between the two which is somewhat hinted in the 1861 patent granted WW in which there is outspoken critics of the concertina concept described in the CW patent of 1844.
"Imagine" is certainly the appropriate word. While in his patent William does criticize some details of the standard concertina design, I see nothing at all to indicate that there is any "rivalry" involved, but merely that he feels that his modifications will make the instrument easier to play. But really, Göran, you seem to have contradicted yourself. If you are claiming that the earlier design is really William's work, then this "rivalry" you postulate would have to be with himself, rather than between himself and his brother. That would indeed be strange.
Anyway...in my eyes 'the invention of the concertina' is not prooved to be a 'one man's work'......
Not in your "eyes", but only in your *mind*, unless there is some actual *evidence* that you have *seen*. And if there is, please be so kind as to give us references that we might see for ourselves.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Firstly Jim you batter an open door....I presented a speculative hypothesis ..I have not claimed any knowledge about it but I do mean some of it is worth considering and I definitely mean that a lot is taken for granted concerning the role of CW while other persons likely having been involved may be overlooked. As long as the 'truth' is not known it actually may be precisely as speculative to assume (as commonly is done) that 'the invention of the concertina' was purely the work of CW.

 

QUOTE

GR:Every time Charles Wheatstone is remembered and honoured as *the inventor* of *the concertina* (well ....actually not literally this time since John seemingly wished to celebrate his death only...)... I get the same slightly rebellious impulse to question the role of CW in relation to the brother WW... William Wheatstone.

 

JL:Göran, what you term "slightly rebellious", I would term "obsessive". Your past efforts have not so much suggested that Charles may have taken credit for work that was actually his brother's, but simply that Charles did not himself accomplish many of the innovations attributed to him. Yet you have documented nothing to substantiate such accusations.

 

GR now:Completely wrong. Nothing has been said about "Charles may have taken credit" It is others...players,writers,historians....who have 'credited' CW and further on I have said abtolutely nothing about other inventions than "the concertina".

You follow your habits intentionally or unconsciously to misread or misinterprete others...

 

QUOTE

GR:Do we actually *know* the distribution of responsibility between the two brothers concerning the development of the concertina? Or the role of their father?

 

JL:Do we actually *know* that Shakespeare's works were written by a man named "William Shakespeare"....and so on...Diana

 

GR now:fairly irrelevant is it not?!?

 

QUOTE

GR:What I have read is this: They inherited their uncle's enterprise together 1823 (CW 21 and WW 19 years old) and CW soon started a career as an inventor in very various fields of physics and later on an academic career as well while WW was the one who actually was in charge of the business and instrument production until his death 1862. ( Their father WW is said to have joined in the business in 1826. He died not until 1854)

 

JL:Göran, what sort of documentation do you have for those parenthetical statements about Wheatstone senior? Neil Wayne's Galpin Society paper on "The Wheatstone English Concertina" states that he died in 1823, though it also mentions that Langwill records addresses for William Wheatstone's business up until 1826.

 

GR now:You are mistaken, "Neil Wayne's...." says page 118 "Family history" :

"Charles Wheatstone was the second child of William Wheatstone(1775-1854)."

It was the uncle of brothers CW and WW who died 1823 and whos business they inherited.

QUOTE

GR:So...just as an speculative hypothesis....maybe WW (and/or WW senior) ought to be at least as much honoured for the development of the *concertina* as CW or maybe even it was to a greater part the work of WW?!?

 

JL:A "speculative hypothesis", or simply an attempt to plant a slanderous rumor? With no evidence to support such a speculation, and considerable evidence of Charles' personal inventiveness, competence, thorough attention to detail, and also his integrity, it is nothing short of a defamation of Charles Wheatstone's character.

 

GR now:complete nonsense. The simple truth is that 'we' hardly have and never will have complete knowledge about these things. One thing however is certain...'history' is what is told about the past not what happened in the past

 

QUOTE

GR:Maybe there is little speaking for this but I could well imagine a possible rivalry between the two which is somewhat hinted in the 1861 patent granted WW in which there is outspoken critics of the concertina concept described in the CW patent of 1844.

 

JL:"Imagine" is certainly the appropriate word. While in his patent William does criticize some details of the standard concertina design, I see nothing at all to indicate that there is any "rivalry" involved, but merely that he feels that his modifications will make the instrument easier to play. But really, Göran, you seem to have contradicted yourself. If you are claiming that the earlier design is really William's work, then this "rivalry" you postulate would have to be with himself, rather than between himself and his brother. That would indeed be strange.

 

GR now: Like I said: I have "claimed" nothing. Speculation and imagination remains just that. I am curious so I ask questions. You Jim have not answered any of them but you are anxious to object all the same....

Concerning possible 'rivalry'...well that of course is entirely speculative too but do you know any two brothers differing 2 years in age not more or less suffering from rivalry? :-) Anyway, one thing that puzzles me is that the very significant, fairly revolutionary, ideas brought forward by WW in the 1861 patent seemingly were completely aborted. WW died 1862 and CW is said to have entered the business after that and stayed in charge until he died 1875. It would not be surprising would it (if the 'original concertina as we assume was CWs idea) if CW was not particularly keen on reforming the whole concept according to the suggestions by WW. (and again...what could the role of their father have been...?)

 

QUOTE

GR:Anyway...in my eyes 'the invention of the concertina' is not prooved to be a 'one man's work'......

 

JL:Not in your "eyes", but only in your *mind*, unless there is some actual *evidence* that you have *seen*. And if there is, please be so kind as to give us references that we might see for ourselves.

 

GR now:There is quite a lot of various inventions coming from CW, quite a few musical ones and instrument suggestions of various kinds. The only musical instruments as far as I know that were put into 'production' ....the Symphonium and the Concertina...were in practise produced by others and those 'others' may well have had considerable influence on the actual construction. Do we *know*?

According to Tommy Williams (interview by Neil Wayne) CW first commissioned louis Lachenal to make the instruments. "Sir Charles Wheatstone...He wasn't really involved with the business premises at all..."

 

Goran Rahm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I presented a speculative hypothesis ..I have not claimed any knowledge about it but I do mean some of it is worth considering...

And I mean that the only thing worth considering why you would be motivated to raise a question with no evidentiary antecedents.

...and I definitely mean that a lot is taken for granted concerning the role of CW...
I admit that if a person files a patent for a design *and no one contests his claim* of invention, then I take for granted that he was indeed the inventor.
JL:...(you) suggested that Charles may have taken credit for work that was actually his brother's,...

 

GR now:Completely wrong. Nothing has been said about "Charles may have taken credit"...

Of course it has. The patent was mentioned, and patenting a design is a very strong form of "taking credit" for the design.
It is others...players,writers,historians....who have 'credited' CW...
Such credit to Charles by others is based at least in part on his own claims, in the form of his patents.
...and further on I have said abtolutely nothing about other inventions than "the concertina".
Nor have I.
GR:Do we actually *know* the distribution of responsibility between the two brothers concerning the development of the concertina? Or the role of their father?

 

JL:Do we actually *know* that Shakespeare's works were written by a man named "William Shakespeare"....and so on...Diana

 

GR now:fairly irrelevant is it not?!?

Precisely my reaction to your own original question. One could as well speculate that Michael Faraday or some other non-family member shared responsibility for development of the concertina. But absent any historical claim or other evidence, any such speculation is pure fantasy.
JL:Göran, what sort of documentation do you have for those parenthetical statements about Wheatstone senior? Neil Wayne's Galpin Society paper on "The Wheatstone English Concertina" states that he died in 1823, though it also mentions that Langwill records addresses for William Wheatstone's business up until 1826.

 

GR now:You are mistaken,... It was the uncle of brothers CW and WW who died 1823 and whos business they inherited.

You are right on this point, and I apologize for my careless reading and consequent misstatement.
"Neil Wayne's...." says page 118 "Family history" :"Charles Wheatstone was the second child of William Wheatstone(1775-1854)."
However, I haven't been able to find this detail -- nor any 'page 118' -- in my copy of the Neil Wayne paper. Is that from a different document, or do I have a in incomplete copy?
GR now:...The simple truth is that 'we' hardly have and never will have complete knowledge about these things. One thing however is certain...'history' is what is told about the past not what happened in the past
And it appears that you are attempting to rewrite history, by suggesting a scenario for which there is no evidence, while there is substantial evidence to support the commonly accepted alternative.
GR now: Like I said: I have "claimed" nothing.
Indeed you haven't. You have instead *implied* that there is a reasonable basis for suspecting that William was in fact responsible for a significant part of the design of the concertina, while in fact there is no such basis.
Speculation and imagination remains just that. I am curious so I ask questions.
But your speculations and questions are not completely random. E.g., you don't ask whether nuclear power is safe,.whether Elvis is still alive, or even whether Sweden will withdraw from the EU. The particular questions you ask imply that you have unstated reasons for doubting the commonly accepted answers.
You Jim have not answered any of them but you are anxious to object all the same....
I have not answered your questions with a yes or no, because I claim that they do not deserve even to be considered unless and until there is at least one piece of actual evidence to support the scenario you raise.
Concerning possible 'rivalry'...well that of course is entirely speculative too but do you know any two brothers differing 2 years in age not more or less suffering from rivalry? :-)
Yes, very many.
Anyway, one thing that puzzles me is that the very significant, fairly revolutionary, ideas brought forward by WW in the 1861 patent seemingly were completely aborted.
I, for one, don't find the ideas in William's 1861 patent to be either revolutionary or very significant. Perhaps Charles and/or his customer base held similar opinions?
WW died 1862 and CW is said to have entered the business after that and stayed in charge until he died 1875. It would not be surprising would it (if the 'original concertina as we assume was CWs idea) if CW was not particularly keen on reforming the whole concept according to the suggestions by WW.
Certainly not if he was not convinced of their value.
(and again...what could the role of their father have been...?)
If he died 7 years before brother William's patent, presumably none.
GR:Anyway...in my eyes 'the invention of the concertina' is not prooved to be a 'one man's work'......
Well, neither is the opposite "proved", nor does there even seem to be *any* evidence for such a contrary scenario.

 

(I'm replying to your last comments in a separate post, as I feel they constitute a separate sub-topic.)

Edited by JimLucas
Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to Tommy Williams (interview by Neil Wayne) CW first commissioned louis Lachenal to make the instruments. "Sir Charles Wheatstone...He wasn't really involved with the business premises at all..."
Thanks for the reference. Has the interview been published anywhere besides the original "Concertina Newsletter"? I found a bibliographical reference, but I don't have copies of the issues with the interview, and I'd like to read it.

 

However, I think Mr. Williams' comments must be taken in the context of dates. In his Galpin Society paper, Neil Wayne says that CW first met Lachenal in 1847, i.e., 3 years after the 1844 patent, and therefore *at least* 3 years after all the major elements of the design of the concertina were established. Lachenal was originally employed by Wheatstone as a craftsman, though "rapidly rising to become manager of the concertina manufactory." The period Williams refers to must be between 1847 and when Lachenal left the Wheatstone firm (1850?). When did the interview take place and how old was Williams at the time? It was published in 1972, more than 120 years after Lachenal left Wheatstones' employ and 128 years after the 1844 patent which establishes the concertina's design. Williams was a Lachenal employee, but I find no mention that he ever worked for Wheatstone, so he must be repeating something he was told, not something he experienced first hand. In fact, it seems doubtful that Williams had even been born before Lachenal left Wheatstone. Note that I am *not* saying that what Williams said is incorrect, only that it must refer to a particular period and cannot be based on his personal experience.

 

NW's Galpin Society paper indicates Charles' active involvement up until 1847, at which point he officially left the firm and his name was removed from the firm's name. It was apparently this same year that the firm first took on an outside employee, specifically Mr. Lachenal, though some tasks were contracted out prior to that time (e.g., fretwork by a Mr. Taylor). But before 1847 the brothers' business apparently consisted of only the two brothers, and both were actively involved.

GR now:There is quite a lot of various inventions coming from CW, quite a few musical ones and instrument suggestions of various kinds. The only musical instruments as far as I know that were put into 'production' ....the Symphonium and the Concertina...were in practise produced by others...
Not so. I don't think there is any evidence to suggest that anyone besides the two brothers was ever involved in production of the Symphonium, and the low total production suggests to me that even William probably didn't need to get involved. At the time, Symphonium production would have been a minor sideline in a much broader musical trade. I would guess the same to be true of concertinas in the early years, though by 1842, when the brothers' business was first listed as "Concertina Makers", it *seems likely* that William was also actively involved in construction.
Charles and William and those 'others' may well have had considerable influence on the actual construction.
Well, all the historical evidence I'm aware of gives Charles responsibility for the design. Since William was present during the design period, it is not impossible that he had some influence, but I know of no first-hand -- or even second-hand -- accounts that suggest that he made any contribution to the design of the concertina, much less a substantial contribution. As for "those 'others'," I know of no evidence that there were any 'others' prior to the publication of the 1844 patent. Direct involvement of anyone other than the brothers was a relatively late development.
Do we *know*?
Of course, it's not possible to know *anything* *historical* to a mathematical certainty. But the evidence is such that any present-day court suit alleging that either William or someone else deserved credit or even co-credit for the design of the concertina and its methods of construction would be found to be without basis. I.e., while we don't *know* that others contributed, we do *know* that there is no actual evidence that they did.

 

The one thing that is clear is that *you*, Göran, *don't* know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(Göran Rahm)

According to Tommy Williams (interview by Neil Wayne) CW first commissioned louis Lachenal to make the instruments. "Sir Charles Wheatstone...He wasn't really involved with the business premises at all..."

And in the same interview (which can be heard on Tommy's LP, and I'll send you a transcription, Jim) he says Chidley was the one responsible for the initial development - which, of course, Göran fails to quote since it goes against his speculation. But Tommy's words (born c.1900) need to be taken in the right context - he repeated what he had heard from others and only had first hand knowledge from the 1900s onwards.

 

JL:Lachenal was originally employed by Wheatstone as a craftsman, though "rapidly rising to become manager of the concertina manufactory."

Not proven, but widely repeated! In my opinion the best description of Lachenal's relationship to Wheatstone is sub-contractor. Statements about Lachenal 'joining' and 'leaving' therefore don't apply.

 

George Jones's contemporary account does allow this interpretation (my emphasis) -

'... This brings me to the firm of Lachenal and Co. When Mr. Lachenal had completed the vast machinery there was no one but him and his staff who understood the working of the tools..."

 

- which is a much better description of events than Tommy's, who claimed that Lachenal left Wheatstone taking a set of concertina making tools with him!

 

An 1850 directory entry backs this up:

Lachenal, Louis. Machinist, iron planer, small screw & piano rivet

manufacturer. George Yard, Princes Street, Soho.

 

Jones's account also mentions that Lachenal was earlier involved with the manufacture of gas meters, and Neil Wayne notes a directory entry from 1840 with more or less the same trade description for Lachenal as above.

Lachenal had already applied for a patent in 1841 for 'Machinery for Cutting Corks'

(4 Sept. No. 9066).

 

Later Lachenal advertising confirms (eg Post Office London directory 1888):

'20 years makers to the late Wm Wheatstone & Co'

- that Lachenal continued to sub-contract for a long time.

 

JL:Göran, what sort of documentation do you have for those parenthetical statements...

It seems to me that Göran publicly speculates far too much without any evidence. And, as Jim says, far too much of this gets taken as accepted truth. However, everyone else is required to provide 'chapter and verse' for even the simplest statement. From the data above its obvious that far too much doubtful information is already accepted truth, and the only way forward is to throughly investigate ALL statements as far as you can before using them.

Edited by wes williams
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't place much credence in the Tommy Williams interview. He is reporting events that happened nearly 60 years before he could have gone to work at Wheatstone. I've had converstaions with current employees of a firm I worked for in the 1970's and their accounts of people and events have already entered the realm of folklore rather than fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Firstly reply to Jim:

 

JL:"And I mean that the only thing worth considering why you would be motivated to raise a question with no evidentiary antecedents."

 

GR now: To provoke some afterthought and to open the eyes for the uncertainty in one of many established historic 'facts'.

 

JL:"I admit that if a person files a patent for a design *and no one contests his claim* of invention, then I take for granted that he was indeed the inventor."

 

GR now: I definitely do NOT take that for granted but *I* admit that we mostly have no better way to define 'an objective inventor' UNLESS there IS some other evidence speaking against. Sadly enough there quite often is...Today at least in Sweden (and I am pretty sure mostly elsewhere..) the majority of patents are not registred on 'the true inventor(s)' but on some other kind of contractor or exploiter even when the registration may be individual. The 'invention' has been sold one way or other before there is a 'patent' registred on it. This certainly often has been the case earlier too so you always have reason to be very sceptic concerning who the 'true inventor' is/was. The fact that no formal protest or legal action has been taken does not say much about the matter.

 

QUOTE

GR:...and further on I have said abtolutely nothing about other inventions than "the concertina".

JL:"Nor have I."

 

GR now:Yes you did...but never mind...

 

JL:" One could as well speculate that Michael Faraday or some other non-family member shared responsibility for development of the concertina. But absent any historical claim or other evidence, any such speculation is pure fantasy."

 

GR now: a bit more remote is it not? Search among the known closest 'others' ...apart from family (father,brother,sisters!.. ) you have the Chidleys and Lachenal...

 

JL:".."Neil Wayne's...." says page 118 "Family history" :"Charles Wheatstone was the second child of William Wheatstone(1775-1854)."

 

However, I haven't been able to find this detail -- nor any 'page 118' -- in my copy of the Neil Wayne paper. Is that from a different document, or do I have a in incomplete copy?

 

GR now:The 'document' very much looks like the original publication to me...

 

JL:"And it appears that you are attempting to rewrite history, by suggesting a scenario for which there is no evidence, while there is substantial evidence to support the commonly accepted alternative."

 

GR now: Right for a start...but as said there are mostly good reasons to question "the commonly accepted alternative" .....

'History' is continuously "re-written" in most fields.....

 

QUOTE

GR now: Like I said: I have "claimed" nothing.

 

JL:"I, for one, don't find the ideas in William's 1861 patent to be either revolutionary or very significant. Perhaps Charles and/or his customer base held similar opinions?"

 

GR now:The ideas in the 1861 patent papers mean a completely different way of holding the instrument, relocation of the keyboard and the thumbstrap, elimination of the finger plate, addition of a palm support and introduction of employing the 3rd and 4th fingers in button work along with a complete rearrangement of the mechanical construction. I DO find that 'revolutionary' or at least very "significant"...

If YOU don't....?!

 

QUOTE

GR:WW died 1862 and CW is said to have entered the business after that and stayed in charge until he died 1875. It would not be surprising would it (if the 'original concertina as we assume was CWs idea) if CW was not particularly keen on reforming the whole concept according to the suggestions by WW.

 

JL:Certainly not if he was not convinced of their value.

 

GR now:The value of the ergonomic changes ought to be apparent....evidently the greater part of prominent players were already aware of them and had taken steps in the same direction....the value of the mechanical propositions (in order to get wider note range into the same format) could be regarded as more dubious at least since being fairly complicated and demanding more work and costs.

 

QUOTE

GR:(and again...what could the role of their father have been...?)

 

JL:If he died 7 years before brother William's patent, presumably none.

 

GR now: 25 years after the symphonium patent.....

 

QUOTE

GR:Anyway...in my eyes 'the invention of the concertina' is not prooved to be a 'one man's work'......

 

JL:Well, neither is the opposite "proved", nor does there even seem to be *any* evidence for such a contrary scenario.

 

GR now: 'History' tells you there are good reasons to question most 'scenarios'...

 

JL:"Thanks for the reference. Has the interview been published anywhere besides the original "Concertina Newsletter"? I found a bibliographical reference, but I don't have copies of the issues with the interview, and I'd like to read it."

 

GR now:Wes already told you about the record.

Of course what Williams said has to be taken with reservations...for being 'hearsay'...but probably about one of the best available such....

 

 

JL:"The one thing that is clear is that *you*, Göran, *don't* know."

 

GR now:I never said I do.... Why wasting so much time Jim if you don't know either???:-)

 

Secondly reply to Wes:

 

QUOTE

(Göran Rahm)

According to Tommy Williams (interview by Neil Wayne) CW first commissioned louis Lachenal to make the instruments. "Sir Charles Wheatstone...He wasn't really involved with the business premises at all..."

 

Wes:"And in the same interview (which can be heard on Tommy's LP, and I'll send you a transcription, Jim) he says Chidley was the one responsible for the initial development - which, of course, Göran fails to quote since it goes against his speculation."

 

GR now: I did not "fail to quote since...." you are insinuating Wes...and it does not "go against his speculation"....it is in line with it of course....'others' sharing the 'responsibility'....

Jim wanted some referrence regarding the role of CW...

 

Wes:"But Tommy's words (born c.1900) need to be taken in the right context - he repeated what he had heard from others and only had first hand knowledge from the 1900s onwards."

 

GR now:of course....let's find other sources of close enough information.....

 

 

Wes:"George Jones's contemporary account does allow this interpretation (my emphasis) -

'... This brings me to the firm of Lachenal and Co. When Mr. Lachenal had completed the vast machinery there was no one but him and his staff who understood the working of the tools..."

 

- which is a much better description of events than Tommy's, who claimed that Lachenal left Wheatstone taking a set of concertina making tools with him!"

 

GR now:well...do we know if he didn't? :-)

 

Wes:"It seems to me that Göran publicly speculates far too much without any evidence. And, as Jim says, far too much of this gets taken as accepted truth. However, everyone else is required to provide 'chapter and verse' for even the simplest statement. From the data above its obvious that far too much doubtful information is already accepted truth, and the only way forward is to throughly investigate ALL statements as far as you can before using them."

 

GR now:If declared 'speculations' are taken for "accepted truth" the one who does is just to feel sorry for. There have been a lot of hearsay and careless speculations around in 'concertina history'. You say so Wes - and so do I. "The only way forward" is not what you say however....there are other ways....;-)

...the stimulus to know more is not to accept what you believe you 'know'.....you have to question things...and to get others to do it....also "publicly".....

 

At last,

Bruce, hearsay/folklore is always an important part of 'factual' historic documentation and evaluation of the quality/autencity is not less important when dealing with 'material' findings like various artefacts and documents....

 

Goran

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tommy's words (born c.1900) need to be taken in the right context - he repeated what he had heard from others and only had first hand knowledge from the 1900s onwards.

I would guess his first hand knowledge didn't begin until *at least* 1915. :)

JL:Lachenal was originally employed by Wheatstone as a craftsman, though "rapidly rising to become manager of the concertina manufactory."
Not proven, but widely repeated! In my opinion the best description of Lachenal's relationship to Wheatstone is sub-contractor. Statements about Lachenal 'joining' and 'leaving' therefore don't apply.
Well, my own quote was from NW's paper. A fuller quote is, "Lachenal was also a screw cutter and metal planer, and was soon employed by Wheatstone, rapidly rising to become manager of the concertina manufactory." Now "employed" could mean "used as a supplier", instead of "hired as an in-house employee", but "become manager" would seem to have few optional interpretations. Neil is one of the foremost authorities on the history of Wheatstone and concertinas, so I wonder whether Neil got his information only from Tommy, or did he have other sources?
George Jones's contemporary account does allow this interpretation (my emphasis) -

'... This brings me to the firm of Lachenal and Co. When Mr. Lachenal had completed the vast machinery there was no one but him and his staff who  understood the working of the tools..."

 

- which is a much better description of events than Tommy's, who claimed that Lachenal left Wheatstone taking a set of concertina making tools with him!

 

An 1850 directory entry backs this  up: Lachenal, Louis. Machinist, iron planer, small screw & piano rivet manufacturer. George Yard, Princes Street, Soho.

Let me propose a slightly different scenario. I have no independent evidence for it, but I think it's consistent with all the apparently conflicting accounts:

 

Lachenal originally provided parts for Wheatstone. At some point he was hired to design and build a comprehensive set of tools for use in concertina manufacture, and to train a team of craftsmen in their use. This latter role seems reasonable, and could also provide a basis for claims that Lachenal was a "manager", though without management responsibility for the Wheatstone business as a whole. (Both the tool manufacture and the training could have taken place at either the Wheatstone premises or Lachenal's own, but that's an independent detail. The accounts which say that Lachenal worked for Wheatstone don't mention, as far as I know, whether he "worked" on the Wheatstone premises.) Maybe he took this opportunity to make two identical sets of tools, and perhaps even to train two sets of craftsmen to use them. After all, none of the reports of him taking tools and even workers with him when he "left" suggest that this caused hardship for the Wheatstone business.

 

To me it even seems reasonable that he might have done this with the foreknowledge and approval of William Wheatstone (Charles having retired from the business by this time). I'm not aware of any stories that LL's "defection" produced bad blood between Lachenal and Wheatstone. Or maybe there was only one set of tools and craftsmen, but Wheatstone was comfortable as long as Lachenal continued to supply parts on as needed? There certainly seems to have been enough consumer demand to support both makers, and more besides.

JL:Göran, what sort of documentation do you have for those parenthetical statements...
It seems to me that Göran publicly speculates far too much without any evidence.
Wes, although I agree with your general sentiment here, I think you've chosen a poor point from which to launch your criticism. In the example you quote, my question was due to my own careless misreading of Neil's paper, for which I have since apologized, and Göran did respond with specific references.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My main contention with Göran's methods of argument, and the 'accepted truth' they create can be shown from this exchange on the old discussion forum on

the name 'concertina':

 

GR:It is said that Uhlig used it from the start

(his instrument was presented 1834).

----

WW:And the opposite is also said in most modern texts.

See for instance:

http://www.chemnitz-concertina.de/de/start...rt.htm?menu=x02

 

1834 Chemnitz: Carl Friedrich Uhlig (1790-1874) stellt im "Chemnitzer Anzeiger" sein "Accordion neuer Art" vor, welches später als Deutsche Concertina bezeichnet wird.

 

For those of you unfamiliar with German this translates

roughly as:

1834 Chemnitz:Carl Friedrich Uhlig (1790-1874) advertises

in the "Chemnitzer Anzeiger" his "New Style Accordion" ,

which *later* became known as the German Concertina.

 

GR:"Most modern texts"...Wes,

a) how many of them have you investigated? and how many of them rely on each other or just one in fact?

........

 

Here we have a prime example of Göran at his worst - I am not prepared to waste time finding and listing every reference that supports my argument, and yet to anybody reading the above it appears that GR is correct (ie accepted truth) without

a single bit of evidence to back him up. If I hadn't challenged his initial statement, it would have become 'accepted truth' immediately. If Goran wants to make such statements, he could at least give even some reference to back it up. He seems to expect 'chapter and verse' from anybody who dares to challenge them!

 

Jim: Neil [Wayne] is one of the foremost authorities on the history of Wheatstone and concertinas, so I wonder whether Neil got his information only from Tommy, or did he have other sources?

 

I'd not want to belittle Neil's vastly important work in anyway, but he could, and did, make mistakes. And he had few of the advantages of todays Internet and

electronic media to help him research when he wrote in the 1970/80s. Sometimes we need to question exactly what he intended when he wrote something, and this is one of those instances. However, the 'Lachenal worked for Wheatstone' has become accepted truth, whether Neil intended it or not.

 

Your interpretation is as valid as my own, and follows broadly similar lines.

 

But I've got real research to do, so this will be my last response here!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jim: Neil [Wayne] is one of the foremost authorities on the history of Wheatstone and concertinas, so I wonder whether Neil got his information only from Tommy, or did he have other sources?

I'd not want to belittle Neil's vastly important work in anyway, but he could, and did, make mistakes.

I don't doubt this. But at issue is not whether Neil made mistakes, but whether that statement was one of them. Which is why I raised the question of his source(s) for it. And I would further be quite interested as to whether he would today repeat the same statement, or say that it needs correction.

Sometimes we need to question exactly what he [NW] intended when he wrote something, and this is one of those instances.
We seem to agree.
However, the 'Lachenal worked for Wheatstone' has become accepted truth, whether Neil intended it or not.
Well, it is truth. But the English language is ambiguous. What is at issue here is not the "truth" of that statement, but the commonly accepted/understood/believed *interpretation*, specifically that a modern-day employer-employee relationship existed, including and especially that Lachenal worked *exclusively* for Wheatstone. Until recently that was my own understanding, but it is quite clear to me now that it was not the case.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wes:"My main contention with Göran's methods of argument, and the 'accepted truth' they create can be shown from this exchange on the old discussion forum on

the name 'concertina':"

 

Goran now:Are you pulling your own leg Wes?? I attack 'accepted truths' by presenting what I myself call a 'speculative hypothesis' and YOU fear that as soon as I open my mouth ( sometimes just to tease somebody a little...) whatever I say will create another 'accepted truth'....?!?.:-)

I am thrilled by my suggested potential as an oracle but I am pretty sure your

anxiety is unjustified.....

 

QUOTE (by Wes):

 

GR:It is said that Uhlig used it from the start

(his instrument was presented 1834).

----

WW:And the opposite is also said in most modern texts.

See for instance:

http://www.chemnitz-concertina.de/de/start...rt.htm?menu=x02

 

GR:"Most modern texts"...Wes,

a) how many of them have you investigated? and how many of them rely on each other or just one in fact?

........

 

Wes commenting:"Here we have a prime example of Göran at his worst - I am not prepared to waste time finding and listing every reference that supports my argument, and yet to anybody reading the above it appears that GR is correct (ie accepted truth) without a single bit of evidence to back him up".

 

Goran now:"Goran at his worst"?!? ...The normal action in any discussion is to *ask* for the reference if you are missing something instead of accusing the opponent for omitting anything or not having any substance to present.

Shall we be precise?

1) *I* said: "It is said...that Uhlig used it (the term "Konzertina") from the start"

IF you had asked me I would have told you that for that moment I referred to Walter Maurer (Austrian academic researcher and author of "Accordion".Edition Harmonia. Wien)

 

2) *You* Wes said:"Most modern texts" and you referred to *one* of them (named here). Do not be surprised when you get the consequent question according to a) above.."How many of them...."

 

3) You well understand that "modern" sources often like I mentioned suffer from quoting each other in a long sequence. What we want is the earliest original documentation. I don't know what Maurer had based his statement on but IF there exists some evidence for that Uhlig used the term "from the start" it of course needs further examination in detail. The newspaper reference given in the website you quote of course is of great interest but in no way the 'final word' on the issue.

 

For some reason or other it seems as if you Wes firstly wish to discredit me personally instead of sticking to the objective substance you evidently want to be a champion of. I don't mind a lot but it is a bit sad...I hoped that after this initial stage of arguing had passed we could enter a constructive phase of attempts to list and rank the available historic data in the matter to see what we could find out together. We have sort of agreed that there are 'established truths' that could be questioned. I sort of get the feeling that you don't like that *some* of them ARE questioned though.....This is not surprising, we may all have our idols we don't want to see belittled...

 

Wes:" If I hadn't challenged his initial statement, it would have become 'accepted truth' immediately."

 

Goran now: what accepted truth??? "It is said..."

What kind of "accepted truth" would that lead to?????

 

Wes:" If Goran wants to make such statements, he could at least give even some reference to back it up."

 

Goran now: I would have on request ..what is the nagging about? You just may need to ask me...:-)

 

Wes:"But I've got real research to do, so this will be my last response here!"

 

Goran now: We know each others sincere ambition to search knowledge on many items regarding the concertina Wes. I think the different roles and the balance of importance of the individuals involved in the early development of the 'Wheatstone concertina' is a matter that could be further investigated. Reasonably as much "real research" as anything else. I keep on questioning the traditional exclusive focusing on Charles Wheatstone as being singularly responsible for the 'concertina invention'. Was this possibly where I unintentionally stepped on some sore toe(s)...?

 

Goran

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...