CCCXXXVII.

STANDARDS.

BY JAMES W. SEE, HAMILTON, OHIO.

(Member of the Society.)

THE watch-maker of old was really a watch-maker, because he made a watch. He made the works, and every part of the works. He made the case, and every part of the case. He made the watch as a thing by itself without regard to any other watch which he might have made in the past, or might be making at present, or might make in the future, and, above all, without regard to any watch which any one else might make. His work was well done, or at least we of to-day must say so.

There were lots of screws in this old watch. Each screw was made by itself, and fitted to its hole, and marked to correspond with that hole, and damage would be done if attempt would be made to put the wrong screw in the wrong hole. These remarks refer to those screws which were substantially alike; screws which differed from each other did so for no particular reason except the lack of apparent necessity for making them uniform. The same analysis would apply to any of those small details of the watch which might be found substantially in duplicate or triplicate.

When the old watch-maker made his next watch it also stood upon its own bottom. It was as good as the first one, and probably a trifle better, or perhaps worse. It was bound to be different for the simple reason that in those times no thought had been given to processes for duplicating good things.

As the watch-maker gave no thought to making all of the similar screws of one watch uniform, it can readily be understood that he was farther yet from any attempt to make the screws of all his watches uniform. The truth is, the old watch-maker had no real good way of making screws. His ways were what we would now call bad ways, and his screws were what we would now call bad screws. The methods of to-day are capable, when set into action, of making good, bad, or indifferent screws, as desired, but they are capable of securing uniformity in the product. When the methods

are adjusted to produce good screws, the production of a bad screw, that is to say, a different screw, introduces added difficulty and

expense.

One may well imagine that the old watch-maker had a reputation, and that this reputation was based, say, on the perfection of the details of his watches. We may even assume that his reputation was based on the perfection of the screws in his watches. This meant simply that while his screws were good, or we will say bad, the screws of other watch-makers were worse. Under such circumstances we would not necessarily call this old watch-maker a good manufacturer, or a good watch-maker. We should call him simply a good screw-maker. To-day, looking at him as a mere screwmaker, we would criticise his screws because they would not interchange with each other in a given lot of apparently uniform watches, or even in one watch. This criticism would then have been met by the statement that no difficulty could arise in view of the fact that each screw was marked to correspond with its hole. Our ancient watch-maker, discussing the matter to-day, would probably say: Your modern screws are no better than my screws were; they are simply cheaper. You have schemed up all manner of devices for making them, and now you produce a thousand screws as good as the best of mine, and costing not more, perhaps, than one of mine. The fault in his argument becomes apparent when he uses the word "best." Of the seven screws in one of his watches, one was the best of the lot, and as all were different, six screws were therefore not the best. He would, therefore, be compelled to acknowledge that the modern thousand screws are good, and uniform, and therefore uniformly good, and the conclusion must follow that uniformity applied to goodness is itself an element of goodness.

There was another quality in the old watch, reflected from the old watch-maker. A given screw, without any idea of adding to its merits, was designed especially to differ from any other screw that had been produced by man, or by any other man rather. The same was true with other unimportant details of the watch. The idea was that the repairs to this one watch should bring grist to the mill of its maker, and not to any one else's mill. This selfish feature of trade was really a matter of pride and effort with the old watchmaker. The fallacy of this business theory has now been exploded, and the watch-maker of to-day understands that, other things being equal, he whose watch is the most readily repaired, has a

distinct advantage in sales. He would seek by all means possible to avoid the use of a screw which could not be produced by stranger called on to repair the watch. Should he discover that twenty of his fellow-manufacturers were making watches requiring a particular screw, and that they were supplying such screws for repair purposes to watch-repairers generally, he would quickly modify his own watch so that the repairer could use these screws.

Carrying this idea far enough it will be apparent that many watch manufacturers will be making the same kind of screws, and many watch-repairers buying such screws. We shall further see some enterprising screw-maker setting up in business for himself, and making these screws for supplying the entire demand. Here we have the first sub-division of manufacture. The sub-division must be based upon two facts, viz.: First, that there is a large demand, from several different sources, for identically the same screw; and, second, that a screw-maker can make all these screws better and cheaper than his several patrons could in small lots. The first fact finds many illustrations in the arts to-day, and grows out of the recognition of the new business principle which the old watch-maker combated. The second fact is a firmly established one. There are two further facts growing out of the new system. One is the fact that the watch-maker's product is none the worse because some of the details employed are identical with the excellent details found in the product of a competing manufacturer. The other is the fact that the modern watches are easily and properly repaired.

The idea that it was good business policy to make things that nobody else could fix has not been so very long abandoned. Twenty years ago certain locomotive builders employed in their construction an odd size for bolts, and an odd threading which made, and was intended to make, a great deal of trouble in the repair shops. No locomotive builder of to-day could live under such a system.

Modern industry, especially in metal-working, is based largely upon specialties. A manufacturer's specialty may lie in the fabrication of a certain detail of an aggregated product; or it may lie in the fabrication of a certain detail of a detail; or it may lie in the aggregation of various details produced by others, his operation being confined to the work of assembling the details, and the fabrication of certain elements of conjunction. We can readily imagine the ancient watch-maker producing every wheel and

pinion, and plate, and case, and hand, and main spring, and hair spring, and dial, and crystal of the watch which he would present as of his own manufacture. The material which he operated upon consisted of sheet metal, wire, glass, and the raw material of porcelain manufacture. The watch-maker of to-day makes few of these things, and sometimes none. We have the makers of watch cases, who may or may not make all of the parts constituting the case. The maker of movements may make every part constituting a movement, but more than likely he buys his mainsprings from a special manufacturer, hair springs from another manufacturer, pinions from another, screws from another, hands from another, and dials from another. Probably the party who supplies the dials merely configures the dials purchased from the manufacturer, who, in his turn, procured the back-plates from still another party. In this way almost all our modern industries are sub-divided into separate industries mutually dependent on each other for demand and supply. It seems the policy of the American manufacturer not to bother with a detail which he can procure of a satisfactory quality, at a cost less than that of its production in his own establishment; and it seems also the policy of the American sub-manufacturer to devote himself to such an extended manufacture of a given detail, that he can make it to the interest of the dominant manufacturers to let the manufacture of his specialty alone. It will be readily understood that a single detail of the product, receiving the entire attention, and thought, and application, and capital of the manufac turer concerned, will be more cheaply produced, and of higher quality than if the same detail was treated as a mere element in the factory engaged in the fabrication of a vast combination of ele

ments

The effect of the modern system of sub-division of product-details has been to demand that there should be a uniformity of details, that is, an interchangeability among the individuals of the same class. To secure a reliable uniformity of excellence in the general character of the purchased details of mechanical structures, constitutes one of the continued strains upon the manufacturer, and it may be said as a general fact that standards of uniformity have been most thoroughly established in those branches of trades in which the fewest numbers of parties are interested.

The manufacturer of gas-fixtures is seldom the manufacturer of gas-burners, but his fixtures must receive the burners of the market; and the burners of the market must, obviously, be so made as to fit

the fixtures obviously intended to receive them. From this necessity springs a standard gas-burner thread, acknowledged alike by makers of fixtures, and makers of burners. This standard embodies an unwritten law accepted by the very few who are interested; a law which would soon be violated and abrogated by the multitude working in ignorance or out of fellowship. The law is not of record. It does not follow that, because the burner-makers and the fixturemakers have settled on a standard size and thread, that size is the best that can be chosen. It is however certainly better that these things should be uniform, than that a few should be better and many worse, and all different. Uniformity in such case is of itself a superior merit. The mere selection of a standard is evidence that it possesses some inherent merit. The establishment of a standard does not prevent the later substitution of a better one. It is safe to assert that it is far easier to revolutionize a standard for betterment than it is to establish a standard in the first place. The difficulty in establishing a standard is generally due to differences in opinion as to what is the best, though often the matter is deferred in the hope of possibly reaching an impossible ideal. It would appear to be a much better policy to adopt something fairly satisfactory at once. Effort toward betterment would then be concentrated, and might result in something worthy of eventually being substituted for that which has been adopted.

A few years ago there was no established height for the coupling of cars. Each railroad was a law unto itself. Thirty-three inches from rail-top to draw-bar center was finally settled on for a standard. While it is being determined whether this is two or three inches too high, or three or four inches too low, we can possess the boon of uniformity.

It is certainly within the memory of many of the members when wrought-iron pipe was made of hap-hazard size by different makers, there being no uniformity of size among the different makers, or among the products from the same maker. I remember, in 1865, putting new pipes into a feed-water heater. The old pipes were what was called seven-eighths pipe, something now no longer made. There were four of these pipes in the heater, connecting with unions, etc. None of the threads were of the same size, but each pipe-end had been fitted and marked to its individual hole.

The whole gas pipe business was an unmitigated nuisance on account of the lack of system, and the necessities of the case were recognized by the limited number of manufacturers interested, and