Music Trade Review

Music Trade Review -- © mbsi.org, arcade-museum.com -- digitized with support from namm.org
March 20th, 1881.
THE MUSICAL CRITIC AND TRADE REVIEW.
A MODEL AGENCY.
y
removal of Messrs. Vinton Brothers, general agents for the Standard
JL Organ, manufactured by Peloubet & Company, from their former place
of business, No. 39 East Thirteenth Street, to their beautiful new office and
warerooms, No. 14 East Fourteenth Street, this city, gives us an opportunity
to make some facts known to the public which have not heretofore appeared
in print.
Messrs. Vinton Bros, have been engaged for many years in putting
before the public the merits of the Standard Organ, and in the course of
their traveling on its account have made a thorough canvass, not only of the
United States but of nearly every part of Europe, and the equitable business
methods which they have employed for so many years have born their fruits,
BO that to-day theirs may well be called a " model agency."
It is an unusual thing to find an agency, the results of which have been so
satisfactory for so long a period, for both manufacturer and agent, and it
can only be accounted for by the correct business methods employed and
the care with which the business is conducted. This may be inferred from
the fact that although the manufacturer receives more for his goods than he
would if he was transacting the business on his own account, yet this agency,
in spite of severe competition, can afford to pay for the goods purchased
from the manufacturer within twenty-four hours after delivery, and to dis-
pose of them profitably over a large extent of territory.
As Mr. Jar vis Peloubet said when questioned on the subject: "They
have a chronic tendency against allowing any bills against them to
remain unpaid more than twenty-four hours, and when they take
certain territory they are not contented with skimming the cream of the
buyers, but they plant the country full of organs."
These results are accomplished by doing business with ample capital of
their own, and such a careful supervision of their trade that their bad debts
are practically nothing, thus enabling them to do business on a smaller
margin than others, and yet make it perfectly satisfactory, not only for
themselves but for both the manufacturer and the buyer as well.
This is the way an agency should be conducted, and we think that the
organ trade would be benefited by more of the same sort.
THE LATEST PUT-UP JOB ON THE PIANOFORTE MANUFACTURERS.
O
NE of our representatives called on Mr. William Steinway one day last
week to procure the bottom facts in the case of the law suit against
Steinway & Sons and every other manufacturer of upright pianos, which is
threatened by one Greener, of Elmira, N. Y., who claims to hold a patent for
a soft pedal, which he asserts Messrs. Steinway & Sons have been infringing
by using the same in their instruments.
Our representative found Mr. Steinway in complete possession of all the
facts and documents bearing on this case, and they were arranged with the
order and precision that the well known executive ability of this house would
have led us to expect. The beginning of the matter was a circular from the
aforesaid Greener, which we reprint in full. It reads as follows:
ELMIRA, N. Y
18
To Dealers in Musical Instruments, and the Public.
I desire to call your attention to the fact that within the past few years
numerous pianoforte manufacturers have placed upon the market instruments
infringing on my patent, No. 86,747, and I hereby notify you that I shall here-
after hold you responsible for all sales you make without my consent.
The patent above mentioned is for a soft pedal attachment to pianofortes.
Its general adoption by many manufacturers has made it a necessity in all
instruments for which a speedy sale is desired.
It may briefly be described as a soft pedal, by which the entire hammers
are brought nearer to the strings by the means of a rail or rod by the pedal
action, thus reducing the stroke of the hammers at the pleasure of the per-
former, and by this method causing a diminution of the vibrations of the strings
without changing the character of the sound. The performer can, by a slight
and almost imperceptible motion of the foot, operate the pedal so as to increase
or diminish the sound in such a graceful and harmonious manner as to produce
the most perfect crescendo and diminuendo.
The validity of the patent, which was granted in the year 1869, February
9th, has been acknowledged by numerous pianoforte manufacturers, and the
shop right for the use of this patent has been purchased by several well-known
manufacturers, among whom I would mention E. Gabler, of New York, and H.
F. Miller, of Boston, Mass.; A. Weber, New York; Haines, Hazelton & Brother,
William Knabe, Baltimore; Decker & Son, New York.
Having thus directed your attention to my patent, I desire to say in closing
that I will hold all dealers selling instruments infringing on the patent, as well
as all purchasers thereof, legally responsible for a royalty of $10 on each and
every instrument, unless manufactured under my patent and with my consent,
and stamped "Manufactured under Greener Patent."
Yours truly,
J. GBEENEK.
Mr. Steinway stated that some years ago his firm received from Greener's
lawyers a letter notifying them that they were infringing Greener's patent,
and in reply had written to them the following letter:
ST. LOUIS, MO., October 12, 1878.
Messrs. McGuire & Taber, Counselors, Elmira, N. Y.
GENTS—We are in receipt of your letter of the 8th inst., stating that Jacob
Greener, of your city, has retained you to look after his interest under his
patent of a soft pedal attachment of pianos, which you say we have been and
are still using, and asking us if you can arrange amicably with us for past and
future use of this invention or whether you must resort to legal means, &c.
We presume you refer to Jacob Greener's patent, stated in the patent
reports as No. 86,747, dated February 9, 1869, for a soft pedal attachment in
square pianos, which letters patents Mr. Greener showed to the writer at our
warerooms in the spring of 1877. We can only repeat to you what we told him
personally then, viz., that this patent is worth precisely the paper on which it is
printed and no more.
Not having Mr. Greener's patent before us, we will not dwell upon the great
dissimilarity of his device for square pianos with the " graduating soft pedal "
used by us in our uprights for a number of years previous to the date of Mr.
Greener's patent, and by the French manufacturers many years previous to us.
Suffice to say, that on page 6 of the official jury reports on musical instruments,
class XVI., World's Fair, London, 1862, published very extensively and trans-
lated almost in every language of the civilized world, may be found a full
description of this graduating soft pedal and its effects, as shown on the up-
right piano exhibited by M. Montal, of Paris.
Permit us further to tell you that we have never applied this graduating
pedal in a square piano, but to all our upright pianos, which we have not only
71
sold and exhibited at our warerooms and the warerooms of our agents all over
the country, but have, in our printed catalogues and circulars and in the large
public daily and weekly papers of New York, published an exact description
of this graduating pedal and its effect for a number of years before the date of
Mr. Greener's patent.
Before plunging into a costly, annoying ligltation, which can only result
disastrously to Mr. Greener, it would rertainly seem policy on his part, or that
of his legal advisers, to satisfy themselves of the utter hopelessness of his case,
and if he will call or send some authorized person, we will afford every facility
tor examination in detail of what we have briefly stated above, and many other
salient facts.
In this connection it may not be amiss to call Mr. Greener's attention to the
fact, that the upright pianos which we are informed are made for him by J. P.
Hale, of this city, contain flagrant infringements of our tubular action frame
patent. Very respectfully,
(Signed) STEINWAY & SONS.
Nothing further occurred in the matter until March 5th of the present
year, when a young lawyer named Minrath called upon Messrs. Steinway,
ostensibly in the interest of Greener, although it was plainly to be seen that
the young lawyer was as much interested in the matter as his client, and
came to Messrs. Steinway to find out what facts they had in order to see
how far it would be safe (financially) to proceed in the case. He succeeded
in getting the facts—although they were not exactly of the kind which he
expected to find—when, to begin with, Mr. Steinway showed him Steinway's
patent of their Metallic Tubular Upright Action Frame, dated August 18,
1808, which, in its drawing and model at Washington, plainly shows this
graduating pedal, but, of course, not claimed by Steinway, it having existed
many years before this date. Greener's patent applying this graduating
pedal to a square piano is dated February 9, 1869, fully nine month*
after the Steinway patent. Then this young lawyer said solemnly, " Yes,
that is evidence!"
" The further proofs in regard to priority of invention in this case are
very full and complete," said Mr. Steinway, " o u r agent in New Orleans,
Mr. L. Grunewald, has for the past thirty years been importing upright
' Gaveau ' pianos, containing this graduating pedal. A great number of
these pianos are now in New Orleans and could be put in evidence at any
time if necessary; but the true inventor of this soft pedal was Claude Montal,
a piano maker of Paris, whose catalogue was sent to me by his two surviving
daughters, and is now lying on this desk, before us," added Mr. Steinway
turning over the leaves of the Claude Montal catalogue (which is dated
Paris, 1857.) " I t contains a full description of this very invention which is
claimed by Greener, and the invention appears as made more than 24 years
ago, years before Mr. Greener's claim was made. The description is so full
and clear that any intelligent piano-maker could construct from it."
" At the World's Fair, in London," continued Mr. Steinway, " i n the
year 1862, Claude Montal exhibited an upright pianoforte containing the
graduating pedal, substantially as claimed by Greener, as can be seen from
the following official report of the exhibition:
FRANCE.
M. Montal (1678) exhibits a grand and an oblique upright, containing some
ingenious novelties.
The most important is a soft pedal, or, as the inventor calls it, a " pedal e
d'expression," which acts on an entirely novel principle, namely, by diminish-
ing the range of the key and the hammer. When the foot is placed on the pedal,
the keys are gradually pressed down, and the hammers gradually rise, so that
the range of motion of both is lessened in proportion. The mechanical arrange-
ment by which the motion of the keys and hammers are proportioned respect-
ively to each other, so as to preserve the perfection of the touch, has required
great ingenuity to devise and great care to carry out; but it has been effectually
accomplished. The action of the mechanism is perfect, and the effect is extra-
ordinarily beautiful, as the tone may be diminished to the faintest audible
sound, while the facilities of execution are perfectly well preserved. It is by
far the most perfect means of producing piano and graduated effects that ha&
yet been devised for the instrument.
An additional interest attaches to M. Montal's ingenious inventions, and to
his large and successful manufacture of pianos, from the fact that he is blind.
M. Montal is awarded a medal.
Theodore and Henry Steinway, Jr., were at the exhibition of 1862, and
after the return of Henry Steinway, Jr., the graduating pedal was attached
to the Steinway upiight piano in 1863, and every Steinway piano manufac-
tured since that date has had this pedal."
" On June 5th, 1866," said Mr. Steinway, " we were granted a patent
for our double iron-frame upright piano, and in our catalogues printed at
that time is a full description of our graduating pedal, as also published in
the N. Y. press in the fall of 1866. Several hundred upright pianos with
this pedal, made during the years 1863-69, were sold by me in this city, and
can be produced at any moment. I think that sufficient evidence has now
been brought forward by me to show to your pa2^er and its readers that the
claim made by Greener is absurd, priority of invention having been fully
proved."
" In this case," remarked Mr. Steinway, " should Mr. Greener be insane
enough to bring a suit against us, the result will be more for the general
benefit of the trade than for our direct interest, for, as far as we are con-
cerned, we have no direct interest in the case as it can be clearly proven that
the graduating pedal which we are using on our upright pianos bears no
resemblance to the one described in the specification of the Greener patent,
in which the claim is, for, ' an up and down movable rail when connected with
the pedal of a pianoforte for the purpose of elevating the hammer' in a square
piano; whereas the graduating pedal as applied by us and all other manu-
facturers to upright pianos moves the rail ' forward and back,' pushing the
hammers nearer the strings and not ' elevating ' the hammers at all, so that
the Greener claim in no way covers the Upright Piano Graduating Pedal,
even if the latter had not been public property many years prior to the
Greener patent in square pianos."
Our representative asked Mr. Steinway why in the light of these facts
some piano makers had allowed themselves to part with their money on such
a feeble claim.
" Well," said Mr. Steinway, " a great many people are frightened by a
lawyer's letter and would rather pay $100 than fight, but we are, as it were,
a representative house, and although we would rather pay several hundred
dollars to save the time and trouble which a childish case of this kind brings
w
ANTED—A position as Salesman with a piano or organ house either
on the road or in warerooms. Experience in both capacities. Address.
E. A. BOOTH, 7 E. 14th Street, N. Y. CITY.