Whether or not BAC were still operating in the 1960s is a matter of pure conjecture at
the moment. However, I suspect that if they were still trading by the late '60s, they
would have met with a serious impediment to their operation. In 1969 inflation was
running at 5.44% and rising; within five years it was 16%, and a year later over 24% .
Amusement machine operators were greatly assisted by decimalization in 1971, which
enabled them to more than double the price of play literally overnight. However,
vending operators would have found it impossible to vend a product whose price
increased almost monthly.
So, although we've learnt a great deal in the last month, there are still questions
to be answered : When did BAC sta11 trading? How far did their operation spread?
And when did they cease trading, and why? There is perhaps one more question: If
BAC was such a large operator, why have so few of their machines survived;
pa11icularly the early, beautifully ornate cast iron machines? I suspect the answer is
WWII. As I ' ve stated earlier, chocolate vending machines would have been rendered
redundant for over a decade due to sweet rationing, and it is more than likely they
were scrapped to help the war effort. During the war, thousands of tons of scrap iron
and steel were piled up at Woolwich Arsenal, Southeast London , waiting to be
recycled. I bet if you'd been around at the time, you could have had a rummage and
found yourself a really nice Nestles machine!
Simplex Patent
Now, do you remember the problem we had last month with the patent for the Simplex
stamper, that I suggested appeared to describe a completely different machine? Well ,
Bob Klepner has once again come up trumps and provided what appears to be the
correct patent - no. 735709 . However, this is where it gets complicated!
The patent that Greg turned up last month (no. 750432) was filed in October 1901
and finally approved in Januaty 1904 - a petiod of twenty-seven months ; whereas
patent no. 735709 was filed in May 1902 and approved in August 1903 - a period of
just fifteen months. This is only a guess, but could there have been a problem with the
01iginal patent application? I suggested last month that perhaps it infringed Roovers '
design, and in my view, it looks likely that this was indeed the case. There must surely
have been a reason for two completely different designs, although we may never know.
But we do know that the original patent application was eventually approved, which
begs the question: were machines ever produced to thi s design? Again, we ma y never
know, but if you ever encounter a metal label stamper which operates in the same wa y
as a Roovers' machine but is labelled a Simplex ..... ... .. please, please let me know!
Opposite page: Th e jirstpage ofpatent no. 735 709, which appears to be the design to
which the Simp/ex/BAC stampers were built
Page 10
•