Whilst I might, on occasion, not always agree with what other people have said, I always try to be even-handed and fair.
I know some see the 1948 patent application as 'evidence' that the reel could not have been made earlier than that year, or not by very much. Others see it as being in English and therefore not relevant to goings on in France.
Two things occur to me in this regard:
Firstly the patent application in French and in English were filed at the same time. Here is a link to the stored French one:
https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publica ... cale=en_EP
Secondly, as Chris mentioned yesterday, the country was in disarray. By comparison, the biggest British tackle manufacturer, Allcock, were unable to offer an Angler's Guide ( a sort of catalogue, price list and magazine rolled into one) until 1947 and in it they write that very little is actually available as factories reverted to tackle making in place of war work. The same situation may well have occurred in France, quite possibly to a larger degree as the country had been occupied by an enemy.
It wasn't until 1947 that reelmakers J.W.Young started to offer new reels which had been designed during the war, but not made. In fact they were busy making Spitfire firing buttons and aircraft instrumentation.
So with no reels being made in Europe until then it seems reasonable that Carpano et Pons felt no need to patent their design until 1948 ...there was no real competition.
One other thought: Isn't it strange that the 1948 patent application has an illustration that shows the reel has no anti-reverse mechanism? You can view the illustration by going to the link above and selecting other pages ..there are in fact 6 there, the illustrations being the fourth page.
The 1948 patent application
Re: The 1948 patent application
Hello Bailarm,
Thank you for providing the link to the French patent application. I read French, and the description of the innovations that the Mitchell reel presented is nearly poetic. It represents a quantum leap in reel design.
As for the lack of anti-reverse: it is surprising; I wonder how common anti-reverse mechanisms were in those days. In any event, the application itself leaves the door open to improvements when it reads (p. 3):
«Il va de soi que, sans sortir du cadre de l’invention, on pourra apporter des modifications à la realization qui vient d’être décrite.»
"It goes without saying that, without exceeding the boundaries of the invention, modifications can still be applied to the concept as just described."
Yours,
Johnny.
Thank you for providing the link to the French patent application. I read French, and the description of the innovations that the Mitchell reel presented is nearly poetic. It represents a quantum leap in reel design.
As for the lack of anti-reverse: it is surprising; I wonder how common anti-reverse mechanisms were in those days. In any event, the application itself leaves the door open to improvements when it reads (p. 3):
«Il va de soi que, sans sortir du cadre de l’invention, on pourra apporter des modifications à la realization qui vient d’être décrite.»
"It goes without saying that, without exceeding the boundaries of the invention, modifications can still be applied to the concept as just described."
Yours,
Johnny.
Re: The 1948 patent application
Thank-you for the translation Johnny, patent lawyer is a language all of its own!
I can help with regard to anti-reverses.....I don't think many reels had them apart from the CAP I don't know for sure of any others. Chris might be able to help as to when the CAP got one...?
JW Youngs and Hardy both of the UK introduced them to existing reels in the early to mid Fifties, so although Carpano et Pons don't show one in their patent application they were clearly aware of them and at the cutting edge of emerging reel technology. I imagine the application was about getting those gears protected as the line lay they created was in a class of its own.
I can help with regard to anti-reverses.....I don't think many reels had them apart from the CAP I don't know for sure of any others. Chris might be able to help as to when the CAP got one...?
JW Youngs and Hardy both of the UK introduced them to existing reels in the early to mid Fifties, so although Carpano et Pons don't show one in their patent application they were clearly aware of them and at the cutting edge of emerging reel technology. I imagine the application was about getting those gears protected as the line lay they created was in a class of its own.
}<)))'> Bailarm