![]()
|
|
American
Record Labels & Companies
The Leeds & Catlin Story By
Allan Sutton
For more than a decade, Edward F. Leeds (1874–1933) and the companies he directed openly flaunted patents, posing a serious challenge to Victor and Columbia, but in the process becoming one of America’s leading record manufacturers. Leeds
Enters the Cylinder Business After Miller returned to Edison, the company was reorganized as Walcutt & Leeds. When Edison resumed manufacture of its own enertainment cylinders in or around May 1897, the company was slow to amass a sufficient stock of records and so, for a time, they obtained many records from outside suppliers, including Walcutt & Leeds. Just prior to this arrangement, Walcutt & Leeds had been sued by the American Graphophone Company (Columbia) for illegally duplicating cylinders. 1 Although the suit was decided in Columbia’s favor, Walcutt & Leeds continued to operate as usual—the beginning of a pattern that would persist for more than a decade. American Graphophone sued Edward Leeds again in 1898, this time over his appropriation of Columbia’s floating reproducer design. 2 In June 1899, the firm of Walcutt & Leeds was reorganized as the Leeds & Catlin Company of New York, with offices at 53 E. 11th Street. With Walcutt’s departure, the directors were now Edward F. Leeds, L. Reade Catlin, James Thursby, and Louis C. Wegenfuth. The new company was incorporated on June 15, 1899, with a rather meager capitalization of $10,000. 3 Six months later, the capital stock was increased to $20,000. 4 Leeds & Catlin continued the cylinder business begun by Walcutt & Leeds, but it must have been apparent to the directors that disc records were the wave of the future. The advent of Edison’s and Columbia’s mass-produced molded cylinders in 1901–02 put Leeds at a distinct disadvantage. By 1903, when it made its last known cylinder releases, Leeds was plotting to enter the disc market through an affiliation with the Talk-O-Phone Company of Toldeo, Ohio. The Ohio Connection Talk-O-Phone was successor to the short-lived Ohio Talking Machine Company, founded in 1902 by Winant Van Zant Pearce Bradley and Albert Irish. Bradley allegedly indulged in disc-record piracy early in the century and was later found guilty of pirating Victor and Fonotipia records (see Early American Disc Record Piracy.) Bradley first registered the Talk-O-Phone trademark in his name on May 10, 1902, claiming use on phonographs (but not records) beginning January 1, 1902. 5 The Ohio Talking Machine Company’s earliest known catalog, issued in 1903, featured a poodle-and-phonograph trademark with the slogan “Familiar Voices,” an obvious imitation of Victor’s “His Master’ Voice” that never appeared on record labels. In November of that year the company filed an application for a new parrot-and-phonograph trademark, “Learning Some New Ones.” 6 The parrot’s first known appearance in print came in a December 1903 New York Times ad. 7 Ohio Talking Machine had already issued a few of its own discs, under the Monogram label, which are believed to have been recorded in Toldeo. Talk-O-Phone also issued its own discs, initially in 7" and 9" pressings, and claimed to maintain a studio in Toledo. 8 Given the obscure artists who appeared on early Talk-O-Phone discs, that was quite likely the case. Being standard lateral-cut recordings, they clearly violated Victor’s and Columbia’s basic patents. The Leeds Disc Record Also ignoring all patent restictions, Leeds had its first discs ready for sale during the Christmas season of 1903, marketed alongside its cylinders and the Talk-O-Phone machines. 9 The earliest issues were 7" pressings, crediting the Ohio Talking Machine Company and numbered in a 1000 series. By March 1904, Leeds was also producing 10", discs retailing for 75¢ each or $9 per dozen and numbered in a 4000 series. By then, Talk-O-Phone had replaced the Ohio Talking Machine label imprint.
A
December 1903 ad from the New York Times. The center panel They were truly distinctive discs, for in place of plain paper labels, they bore gold-foil seals pressed into an underlying, elaborately sculpted bas-relief with raised lettering. The early pressings were often crude, with uneven surfaces and bits of foreign matter in the shellac. Nevertheless, the pressing quality soon improved. The records were reasonably well recorded, and they featured many of the same artists as Columbia, Edison, and Victor. Within a short time, Talk-O-Phone began issuing Leeds material under its own much plainer paper label. As Leeds & Catlin’s midwestern affiliate, Talk-O-Phone would soon find itself named as co-defendent in early lawsuits filed against Leeds. The Lawsuits Begin Once again American Graphophone mounted a legal challenge to Leeds, this time claiming infringement of Columbia’s crucial Jones patent #688,739 covering lateral disc recording in wax. The trial opened in U.S. District Court in New York on May 16, 1904 10 and continued into mid-summer. Louis Hicks, who would represent Leeds & Catlin in this and the many suits that followed, filed a demurrer in which he argued, among other things, that the Jones patent was void for lack of invention, an assertion that Judge Platt dismissed as “obviously futile.” Platt overruled the demurrer and gave Leeds & Catlin ten days to respond, a deadline the company ignored. 11 When the trial resumed more than a year later, on August 14, 1905, Hicks changed his strategy, this time claiming that Columbia had no formal title to the Jones patent and therefore had no legal capacity to sue. To their dismay, the Columbia attorneys were indeed unable to produce the original Patent Office assignment, as required by law. Judge Hazel refused to allow a certified copy to be entered as evidence, and Columbia’s plea was dismissed.
Leeds'
Connecticut factory complex, occupying 100,000 square feet In the wake of Columbia’s sustained attacks, a shift in strategy was apparent at Leeds & Catlin by late 1905. In October, the company opened a massive new factory and pressing plant in Middletown, Connecticut. 12 Rumors that Leeds planned to resume production of cylinders sent Edison informants scuttling to investigate the situation, 13 but no cylinders were forthcoming. Instead, Leeds built its disc business aggressively. The Leeds Record brand, with its old-fashioned, gaudy foil label, was slowly phased out. In its place came the Imperial brand, sporting ordinary paper labels that, perhaps tellingly, were devoid of any mention of Leeds. For a time, both brands were produced, with Imperial simply adding 40000 to the corresponding Leeds catalog numbers (e.g., Leeds 4490 = Imperial 44490). Imperial’s 40000 numerical series continued uninterrupted after the Leeds label was discontinued.
The
Imperial label, introduced in 1905, eventually replaced the foil-label
discs as Leeds' flagship label. A classical and operatic series, launched
in 1906, used imported masters. No doubt anticipating challenges from the Victor Talking Machine Company, Leeds and its Talk-O-Phone affiliate next turned their attention to circumventing Victor’s key Berliner patent #534,543, which specified that the reproducer be propelled by a laterally modulated groove of constant depth. Leeds’ solution, announced in 1906, was to propel the reproducer by means of a feed-screw device. Leeds pressings of the period bear stickers warning that the records were sold only for use on mechanical-feed machines, or as replacements for broken or worn records. In
fact, very few mechanical-feed machines seem to have been produced. 14
Those that were made had tonearms that pivoted to such a degree, they
were still found by the courts to infringe the Berliner patent. In addition,
the Leeds discs obviously could be played on any standard disc phonograph,
with or without a mechanical feed, and there were no controls in place
to ensure that the records would be sold strictly as replacements. None of these
ploys prevented Victor from finally bringing suit against Leeds &
Catlin in April 1906, 15 claiming infringement of Victor’s
Berliner patent. Hicks mounted an elaborately convoluted defense for Leeds,
claiming among other things that the Berliner patent had expired by reason
of the expiration of prior Berliner patents in Germany, France, and England.
Furthermore, Hicks argued, the Berliner patent had been anticipated by
Edison and Suess. Judge Townsend rejected all of Hicks’ arguments
and granted a preliminary injunction that was upheld on appeal on October
12, 1906. 16
Many
of Leeds' custom and client labels were works of art. Century is among
the rarest. Leeds
also launched a series of Imperial operatic records in 1906, featuring
Oscar Braun, Florencio Constantino, Jean Note, Nino Piccaluga, and other
notable Europeans, announcing them in an issue of the Talking Machine
World. The records, which are extremely rare today, were pressed
from Favorite masters recorded in Europe. As might be expected, the series
did not go unchallenged. In the 1907 case of American Graphophone
Company v. Leeds & Catlin Co. there is mention of “the
making of duplicate copies of fully finished commercial foreign-made records.”
Judge Lacombe, however, did not find this action to be an infringement.
18
No aid would be forthcoming from Bell. Edward Leeds and George Rumpf made a final attempt to skirt the Berliner patent in January 1908, filing a patent application on a phonograph with stationary reproducer and traveling turntable, 23 to no avail. The company even introduced double-sided pressings for several of its client labels, including Busy Bee, National, and D&R, but by 1909 its days were clearly numbered.
By 1909 Leeds had followed Columbia's and Victor's lead and was making double-sided pressings. They appeared on several client labels and are rare today. Leeds in Bankruptcy The final blow to Leeds & Catlin came in April 1909, with an adverse ruling in American Graphophone Co. v. Leeds & Catlin Co. et al. 24 In the same month, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against Leeds in Leeds & Catlin Co., Petitioner, v. Victor Talking Machine Co. and United States Gramophone Co. 25 On June 21, 1909, a petition in bankruptcy was filed against Leeds & Catlin. 26 The Times reported that “wages of employees remain unpaid, rent has not been paid, and disposses proceedings are threatened.” Louis Bronner, attorney for the creditors, noted that large quantities of Leeds pressings had been sold, but that the buyers would not pay for them now, for fear of being involved in litigation. Bronner characterized Leeds’ remaining inventory as “practically valueless.” 27 On June 22,
Judge Learned Hand appointed Theodore Taft as receiver for the company.
28 Among the creditors was the O’Neill-James Company,
marketer of Busy Bee discs, which filed a claim for $35,000. 29
Thomas F. Brown, a former sheriff, was also appointed as a temporary receiver
to handle claims relating to the Middletown, Connecticut property. 30
On August 10, most of Leeds’ property was disposed of at a bankruptcy
auction in New York. Among the items listed for sale were Talk-O-Phone,
Leeds, Imperial, Sun, Nassau, Concert, Symphony, and Sir Henri discs;
cylinder masters and copper disc matrices; one disc and four cylinder-recording
machines; an intriguing “grand opera with full Metropolitan Orchestra,”
and, ironically enough, a Victor phonograph. 31 References 2 American Graphophone Co. v. Leeds et al., 87 F. 873 3 “New Corporations.” New York Times (6/16/1899), p. 11 4 “Stockholders Meeting Notice.” New York Times (1/10/1900), p. 10 5 “Talk-O-Phone.” U.S. Patent & Trademark Office: Label registration #38,668 (filed 5/10/1902). 6 “Learning Some New Ones.” U.S. Patent & Trademark Office: Trademark application #3,544 (filed November 3, 1903). 7 “The Talk-O-Phone. Leeds Records” (advertisement). New York Times (12/20/1903), p. 22. 8 “Talk-O-Phone Records” (1904 catalog). The Talk-O-Phone Co., Toledo, OH. 9 “The Talk-O-Phone. Leeds Records” (advertisement). New York Times (12/6/1903), p. 22. 10 “Court Calendars.” New York Times (5/14/1904). 11 American Graphophone Co. v. Leeds & Catlin, et al., 131 F. 281 12 “Leeds & Catlin Purchase New Factory.” The Music Trades (10/28/1905). 13 Gilmore, W.E. Letter to Frank L. Dyer (Orange, NJ: 3/30/1905). Edison National Historic Site. 14 The Talking Machine World for January 1906 featured advertising for a mechanical-feed Talk-O-Phone machine, an obvious attempt to circumvent Berliner’s patent. Most specimens that have been reported, however, lack any mechanical-feed device. 15 Victor Talking Machine Co. et al. v. Leeds & Catlin Co. Circuit Court, S.D. New York. April 26, 1906. 146 F. 534. 16 Victor Talking Machine Co. et al. v. Leeds & Catlin Co. Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. October 12, 1906. 148 F. 1022 17 The meaning of the “D” mark remains unknown. It is not a take designation. On Victor records of the same period, an identical marking was used to designate masters cut on a Dennison recording machine, but it is not known if Leeds also employed Dennison equipment. It seems unlikely, given Wilburn Dennison’s close ties to Victor. 18 Circuit Court, S.D. New York. June 11, 1907. 155 F. 427. 19 Victor Talking Machine Co. et al. v. Leeds & Catlin Co. Circuit Court, S.D. New York. January 5, 1907. 150 F. 147. 20 American Graphophone Co. v. Leeds & Catlin Co. Circuit Court, S.D. New York. June 11, 1907. 155 F. 427. 21 Victor Talking Machine Co. v. Leeds & Catlin Co. Circuit Court, N.D. New York. December 22, 1908. 165 F. 931. 22 Hicks, Louis. Letter to Alexander Graham Bell (New York: 9/13/1907). Library of Congress, Washington, DC.. 23 Leeds, Edward F., and George Rumpf: “Phonograph.” U.S. Patent & Trademark Office: Patent #897,836 (filed 1/18/1908). 24 Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. April 1, 1909. 170 F. 327. 25 Supreme Court of the United States. Argued January 18, 1909; decided April 19, 1909. 213 U.S. 325, 29 S.Ct. 503. 26 “Leeds & Catlin Co. Fails.” New York Times (6/22/1909), p. 9. 27 Ibid. 28 “Business Troubles.” New York Times (6/23/1909), p. 14. 29 “Business Troubles.” NewYork Times (7/31/1909), p. 12 30 “Receiver for Leeds & Catlin.” New York Times (6/24/1909), p. 9. 31 “Bankruptcy Sales.” New York Times (8/10/1909), p. 13. 32 Victor Talking Machine Co. v. American Graphophone Co., 178 F. 577; reversed on appeal in American Graphophone Co. v. Victor Talking Machine Co., 183 F. 580. 33 Victor Talking Machine Co. et al. v. Leeds & Catlin Co. Circuit Court, S.D. New York. June 1, 1910. 180 F. 778. 34 “Bankruptcy
Sales.” New York Times (9/23/1914), p. 14. 35 See the
FindLaw site for a transcript of Judge McKenna's 1909 ruling, as well as a list of later cases in which this ruling is cited. 36 “Edward F. Leeds” (obituary). New York Times (1/20/1933), p. 15. |
No
portion of the material on this site may be reproduced, altered, or distributed
in any form or by any means without the prior written consent of the copyright
holder(s). Unauthorized use constitutes a violation of federal and international
laws and may result in legal action.
For permission to reproduce from any Mainspring Press online or print publication,
e-mail the publisher.