C.O.C.A. Times

Issue: 2004-July - Vol 4 Num 2

BM Davis of Chicago
by Roger P. Smith
As any collector of coin-op machines knows,
there are many instances of similarity between dif-
ferent machines. Similarities can lead to confusion
in correctly identifying a machine, or may aid in
establishing the time in which a machine was made
or used. Some times the similarities were inten-
tional, as in the "White Base" machines from
Hance. These were intended to be part of a line of
products from a single manufacturer. Some manu-
facturers made machines under different labels for
various distributors, leading to minor variations like
those seen with the "Kemaco", "Pix", and "Lion"
vendors.
Because competition for counter space and for
customer's coins was intense, machines had to be
"up-to-date" and modern. As tastes changed, the
styles of machines changed to reflect the time.
Many inadvertent similarities developed from this
...... - - - - - , cause alone. Sometimes the
similarity of features was inten-
tional but more sinister. When a
machine became popular, other
manufacturers were not above
trying to capitalize on their
competitor's success. A good
example of this is the "Star-door
Master" which employed a bla-
tant copy of the Columbus
~~.....__~---'--' thank you door (Figure 1), and
Figure 1
is said to have lead to a trade-
mark infringement suit. Another example is the
similarity between the classic Ford machine and the
copies made by Hart and H & W Machine Co.
Similarity of design can also be seen in the work
of a single designer. The most vivid example of this
type of lineage is found in the work of RD Simpson,
who's hand is evident in the progression from "The
Simpson" on to the Columbus A and beyond.
Another, little known, example of this type of simi-
larity occurs in machines that were seemingly unre-
lated; The Chicago Nut Vendor and the Advance
Match Vendor.
4
The Chicago Nut Vendor is an
elegant example of a grand and
decorated age (Figure 2). Patented
September 8, 1908, Coleman
Hardware of Chicago made this
machine. It was made in several
versions including the "Chicago",
"Sun", "Star", "Morris" (named for
the
location
of
Coleman
Hardware's foundry in Morris
Figure 2
Illinois), and "Albert Pick." These
differed only in the name on the
side and some details of the marquis above the coin
entry. This heavy cast iron machine was unique in
many ways. Its coin mecha-
nism alternated back and forth
with each successive coin,
rather that the more common
push-pull or pull-push two-
phase motion found on most
lever type machines (Figure 3).
Figure 3
The Chicago has an
unusual way of holding the
globe and top cap assembly in
place. Rather than the usual
hold down ring and center
=
=----' rod(s), the Chicago uses a set
Figure 4
of four clamps that fit over a
flange of glass at either end of the globe (Figure 4).
A second set of four clamps holds the top cap
assembly in place. This arrangement gave the
machine a very clean look and the clamps form a
decorative ring that fits well into the overall design.
As anyone who has tried to find a Grandbois
without a cracked globe can tell you, using flanges
on glass globes does not make for a durable
machine. This may explain why this system is not
seen on other machines. There is one very lovely
exception: The Advance Match Vendor.
The Advance Match Vendor was patented
February 29th, 1916, and uses a decorative ring to
hold the glass dome of the machine (Figure 5). This
may never know. We can guess
that the separation was not com-
pletely hostile because of a
March 8, 1904 Davis patent of a
"coin-detector for coin-actuated
devices" for Advance that was
very similar to the Advance
Climax machine and his later
collaboration on the Advance
Match Vendor (Figure 6). There
~~----~
Figure 6
may have been some degree of
separation from the company that allowed Davis to
work with ( or sell ideas to) Coleman Hardware, as
evidenced by his 1908 and 1909 patents on the
Chicago machine (Figures
__ _
7 & 8). Because it often
took 2 to 5 years from the
time a patent was prepared
until it was granted, it is
likely that Davis began :,t:"'..._, "~
work on the Chicago around
Figures 7 & 8
the time he left the Advance Machine Company cor-
porate roster.
B.M . Davis remained active in the
·/E ~~ design of vending machines in Chicago
r--==- Mj and by 1911 he had filed the patent
application for the Advance Match
Vendor. When the patent (#1 ,173,489)
.
was granted in 1916, the patent rights
Figure 9 were ass1gne

d b y D av1s
• to Cl arence
Travis (Figure 9). While this could suggest that
Davis was employed by Advance, the fact that
Davis also had a December 17, 1916
~:.
patent (#1,208,921, Figure 10) who's - ;;-l-,:7'"-
rights were assigned to Post-Card
;)f::1;
-~1..;._~
vending Machine Company of
Chicago, suggests that he may have -"c!;: ':,:-,, _
been more of a free-lance designer. ·-
-
There may have been some interaction Figure IO
between companies so that Davis might still have
been a valued employee of Advance at the time he
was designing the Chicago Nut Vendor. We may
never know.
Davis' designs were not only beautiful; he was an
innovator as well. We are all familiar with the
ring is a single unit but the sim-
ilarity in concept and decora-
tion seem almost too much of a
coincidence. Even though the
Advance Machine Company
was also located in Chicago,
Figure 5
this seems to be too much of a
similarity for there not to have been a connection.
The connection was the somewhat enigmatic figure,
Bethuel M. Davis of Chicago.
To explore the impact of Bethuel Davis, we must
go back to 1901 and the first time the Advance
Machine Company appears in the Chicago City
Directory. That City Directory contains the simple
entry "Advance Machine Company; CC Travis
Pres: BM Davis Sec, 194 S Clinton." The first list-
ing of the Advance Machine Company in the
Certified List of Illinois Corporations (1903) lists a
capital stock or $50,000 but curiously enough lists
A.J. Travis as the secretary. What had happened to
the founding secretary and who was A.J. Travis?
The second question is easier than the first.
Clarence C. Travis was founder and president of the
Advance Machine Company for many years. He
was president through Advance's move from its first
location at 194 S. Clinton to its permanent home at
4641-47 N. Ravenswood Ave. some time between
1905 and 1911. Clarence was variously listed as
President or President-Treasurer up through 1928-
1929, and it wasn't until 1950 that H. Gilmore
Walter (Advance's last Chicago President) was list-
ed in the corporate listings. In Advance Machine's
first corporate listing, both Clarence and A.J. Travis
listed the same home address (1123 Asbury Ave.,
Evanston, Illinois) which strongly suggests a family
relationship (brother?, son?, wife?). A.J. Travis
continued to be active in the corporate roster mov-
ing from secretary to Vice President in 1916, being
replaced by Albert E. Gilbert as Secretary. A.J.
Travis' role as Vice President continued at least until
1929.
What had happened to Bethuel Davis is , at this
point, somewhat conjectural. Has there been a
"falling out" between he and Clarence Travis? Was
this a planned phase in of a family member? We
:Jt:F
5

Download Page 6: PDF File | Image

Download Page 7 PDF File | Image

Future scanning projects are planned by the International Arcade Museum Library (IAML).

Pro Tip: You can flip pages on the issue easily by using the left and right arrow keys on your keyboard.