Pt. 1. "Hawkes, among several others, primarily used photographs [in his patent applications]".
FACT: Prior to 1889 Hawkes used photographs. Beginning in 1889 (with the Brazilian pattern and the two Briggs' patents which are often listed along with the Hawkes patents) T. G. Hawkes & Company used only drawings. As a result, only six of the Hawkes patent applications have photographs while the other 18 have drawings; there are three times as many drawings as photographs.
Pt. 2. According to Revi (1965, p. 161): "[George Edwin] Gaylord described the flower as a 'rambler rose' in his patent enumerations, and the pattern was sold under this name for many years." Howe has changed the name of this Enterprise pattern to "Rambling Rose".
Pt. 3. [Howe] . . . presented not so familiar and previously unpublished patterns . . . [including] William Leighton's 'Maltese Cross' and 'Bow-knot' patterns . . ."
FACT: 'Maltese Cross' was patented by John E. Miller. 'Bow-knot' was patented by William Leighton, Jr. Daniel published the latter pattern more than fifty years ago (Daniel 1950, pp. 195-196). Because both patents are for pressed glass, not cut glass, this point is moot. In this paragraph Sinclaire is misspelled.
Pt. 4. ". . . [T]he 'Russian' pattern patented in 1882 by Philip McDonald (sic) and assigned to Hawkes."
FACT: The Russian pattern was never patented, by MacDonald or by anyone else (see the russian1.htm file in Part 1).
Pt. 5. "The description accompanying the photograph [of the MacDonald patent] states [that the] 'Russian' can have either plain or starred facets . . ."
FACT: The statement refers to MacDonald's patent which is for a pattern that is entirely different from Russian. It is, logically, called the "MacDonald" pattern pending discovery of Hawkes' name for it (see the russian2.htm file in Part 1).
Updated 13 Dec 2002