Delestatius or Rankin?

A while back, I picked up an old set of leg irons. In researching them, I’m rather confused. Maybe some folks out there can help.

Joe, I trust in advance it's okay to use your pictures in the galleries for illustrative purposes.

The irons bear a patent date of December 10, 1861 and the name A. Rankin Philadelphia; they appear identical to these
.
which is identified as a Rankin leg iron. In doing patent research, I find that U.S. Patent 33,917 was issued on that date to Alfred Delestatius, of Philadelphia, who assigned the patent to Andrew Rankin, of Philadelphia. The patent is for “improvements to manacles and shackles” relating to the locking mechanism.

On February 20, 1866, Andrew Rankin was issued patent 52,725 for “improved manacles” (not shackles; that is, leg irons). Rather than having cuffs of a circular construction, as depicted in the earlier patent, Mr. Rankin created a cuff with a half-circular top portion and a hinged, flat bottom portion with a small half loop to allow insertion of a finger to pull the cuffs open when unlocked, like this:
.
Although the locking mechanism constituted “no portion of my invention” one was depicted and appears virtually identical to Mr. Delestatius’ type of lock.

In his patent description, Mr. Rankin noted that with the fully circular design (such as shown in the Delestatius patent), a prisoner could break the lock open by striking them in a particular fashion; his modification, with a flat rather than curved bow reduced that possibility due to the “straight portion fitting close to the wrist, so that it [the hinged flat bow] cannot be bent inward without causing such injury and pain to the prisoner as will induce him to desist in his attempt to break the same.”

Okay, where I start getting confused is in looking at pictures of “Delestatius handcuffs, “Rankin handcuffs,” and “Rankin leg irons,” both in the galleries at this Forum and at other collectors’ websites. All three of these seem to use the same locking mechanism. However, as typically described, a Delestatius handcuff is fully circular, like this
.
a Rankin handcuff is semicircular with the flat bow and finger loop, but the Rankin leg iron is fully circular; I’ve yet to see a Rankin leg iron of the same design as the Rankin handcuff with the flat bow or any leg iron that is identified as a Delestatius. Unfortunately, none of the photographs are detailed enough to show any stampings.

In his book, Handcuff Secrets, Harry Houdini states that “n 1861 A. Delestatius brought out a cuff that looks somewhat like the A. Rankin’s, but Rankin did not patent his cuff, with a few improvements, until 1862.” Well, there’s a bit of a problem with that statement since no such patent was issued in 1862. Later on in the book, Houdini shows a picture of the Guiteau cuff, clearly patterned on Rankin’s 1866 patent with its flat bow, and notes it was made by A. Rankin of Philadelphia. Elsewhere, in an illustration of a modified set of leg irons, Houdini notes they are the “’A. Rankin,’ Philadelphia pattern;” those leg irons are fully circular. Well, if the fully circular design for leg irons qualifies those as an "A. Rankin, Philadelphia pattern" then wouldn't handcuffs of the same design also be a Rankin rather than Delestatius?

Going solely by the patents, I'm inclined to say fully circular = Delestatius while flat bow = Rankin. However, the stampings thereon may override this, just as we call a Peerless handcuff a "Peerless" since it was manufactured by them but was invented by George Carney.

So, not having a set handy to inspect, is a Delestatius handcuff marked “Delestatius” with the 1861 patent date or no markings at all? Or, are they also marked “A. Rankin?” with the 1861 patent date?

In examining the two patents, a couple of other things struck me. First, due to the nuances of the lettering, it seems the same draftsman was used for both the 1861 and 1866 patent drawings, and also the same patent attorney. With the 1861 patent already having been assigned to Mr. Rankin at the time of issuance, it seems logical it was intended for him to be the manufacturer for Delestatius, particularly in view of his later work.

So, just what is a Delestatius (manacle or leg iron) as opposed to a Rankin (manacle or leg iron)? Is the distinguishing feature the stampings thereon or the design of the cuff body (circular = Delestatius, flat bow = Rankin)?

If those of you out there who have some of these rascals, Delestatious and Rankin, both handcuffs and leg irons, would dig them out and let me know what the stampings thereon are, I’d very much appreciate it.

Thanks,

Franklin

Click to expand...

A while back, I picked up an old set of leg irons. In researching them, I’m rather confused. Maybe some folks out there can help.

Joe, I trust in advance it's okay to use your pictures in the galleries for illustrative purposes.

The irons bear a patent date of December 10, 1861 and the name A. Rankin Philadelphia; they appear identical to these
.
which is identified as a Rankin leg iron. In doing patent research, I find that U.S. Patent 33,917 was issued on that date to Alfred Delestatius, of Philadelphia, who assigned the patent to Andrew Rankin, of Philadelphia. The patent is for “improvements to manacles and shackles” relating to the locking mechanism.

On February 20, 1866, Andrew Rankin was issued patent 52,725 for “improved manacles” (not shackles; that is, leg irons). Rather than having cuffs of a circular construction, as depicted in the earlier patent, Mr. Rankin created a cuff with a half-circular top portion and a hinged, flat bottom portion with a small half loop to allow insertion of a finger to pull the cuffs open when unlocked, like this:
.
Although the locking mechanism constituted “no portion of my invention” one was depicted and appears virtually identical to Mr. Delestatius’ type of lock.

In his patent description, Mr. Rankin noted that with the fully circular design (such as shown in the Delestatius patent), a prisoner could break the lock open by striking them in a particular fashion; his modification, with a flat rather than curved bow reduced that possibility due to the “straight portion fitting close to the wrist, so that it [the hinged flat bow] cannot be bent inward without causing such injury and pain to the prisoner as will induce him to desist in his attempt to break the same.”

Okay, where I start getting confused is in looking at pictures of “Delestatius handcuffs, “Rankin handcuffs,” and “Rankin leg irons,” both in the galleries at this Forum and at other collectors’ websites. All three of these seem to use the same locking mechanism. However, as typically described, a Delestatius handcuff is fully circular, like this
.
a Rankin handcuff is semicircular with the flat bow and finger loop, but the Rankin leg iron is fully circular; I’ve yet to see a Rankin leg iron of the same design as the Rankin handcuff with the flat bow or any leg iron that is identified as a Delestatius. Unfortunately, none of the photographs are detailed enough to show any stampings.

In his book, Handcuff Secrets, Harry Houdini states that “n 1861 A. Delestatius brought out a cuff that looks somewhat like the A. Rankin’s, but Rankin did not patent his cuff, with a few improvements, until 1862.” Well, there’s a bit of a problem with that statement since no such patent was issued in 1862. Later on in the book, Houdini shows a picture of the Guiteau cuff, clearly patterned on Rankin’s 1866 patent with its flat bow, and notes it was made by A. Rankin of Philadelphia. Elsewhere, in an illustration of a modified set of leg irons, Houdini notes they are the “’A. Rankin,’ Philadelphia pattern;” those leg irons are fully circular. Well, if the fully circular design for leg irons qualifies those as an "A. Rankin, Philadelphia pattern" then wouldn't handcuffs of the same design also be a Rankin rather than Delestatius?

Going solely by the patents, I'm inclined to say fully circular = Delestatius while flat bow = Rankin. However, the stampings thereon may override this, just as we call a Peerless handcuff a "Peerless" since it was manufactured by them but was invented by George Carney.

So, not having a set handy to inspect, is a Delestatius handcuff marked “Delestatius” with the 1861 patent date or no markings at all? Or, are they also marked “A. Rankin?” with the 1861 patent date?

In examining the two patents, a couple of other things struck me. First, due to the nuances of the lettering, it seems the same draftsman was used for both the 1861 and 1866 patent drawings, and also the same patent attorney. With the 1861 patent already having been assigned to Mr. Rankin at the time of issuance, it seems logical it was intended for him to be the manufacturer for Delestatius, particularly in view of his later work.

So, just what is a Delestatius (manacle or leg iron) as opposed to a Rankin (manacle or leg iron)? Is the distinguishing feature the stampings thereon or the design of the cuff body (circular = Delestatius, flat bow = Rankin)?

If those of you out there who have some of these rascals, Delestatious and Rankin, both handcuffs and leg irons, would dig them out and let me know what the stampings thereon are, I’d very much appreciate it.

Thanks,

Franklin

Click to expand...

A while back, I picked up an old set of leg irons. In researching them, I’m rather confused. Maybe some folks out there can help.

Joe, I trust in advance it's okay to use your pictures in the galleries for illustrative purposes.

The irons bear a patent date of December 10, 1861 and the name A. Rankin Philadelphia; they appear identical to these
.
which is identified as a Rankin leg iron. In doing patent research, I find that U.S. Patent 33,917 was issued on that date to Alfred Delestatius, of Philadelphia, who assigned the patent to Andrew Rankin, of Philadelphia. The patent is for “improvements to manacles and shackles” relating to the locking mechanism.

On February 20, 1866, Andrew Rankin was issued patent 52,725 for “improved manacles” (not shackles; that is, leg irons). Rather than having cuffs of a circular construction, as depicted in the earlier patent, Mr. Rankin created a cuff with a half-circular top portion and a hinged, flat bottom portion with a small half loop to allow insertion of a finger to pull the cuffs open when unlocked, like this:
.
Although the locking mechanism constituted “no portion of my invention” one was depicted and appears virtually identical to Mr. Delestatius’ type of lock.

In his patent description, Mr. Rankin noted that with the fully circular design (such as shown in the Delestatius patent), a prisoner could break the lock open by striking them in a particular fashion; his modification, with a flat rather than curved bow reduced that possibility due to the “straight portion fitting close to the wrist, so that it [the hinged flat bow] cannot be bent inward without causing such injury and pain to the prisoner as will induce him to desist in his attempt to break the same.”

Okay, where I start getting confused is in looking at pictures of “Delestatius handcuffs, “Rankin handcuffs,” and “Rankin leg irons,” both in the galleries at this Forum and at other collectors’ websites. All three of these seem to use the same locking mechanism. However, as typically described, a Delestatius handcuff is fully circular, like this
.
a Rankin handcuff is semicircular with the flat bow and finger loop, but the Rankin leg iron is fully circular; I’ve yet to see a Rankin leg iron of the same design as the Rankin handcuff with the flat bow or any leg iron that is identified as a Delestatius. Unfortunately, none of the photographs are detailed enough to show any stampings.

In his book, Handcuff Secrets, Harry Houdini states that “n 1861 A. Delestatius brought out a cuff that looks somewhat like the A. Rankin’s, but Rankin did not patent his cuff, with a few improvements, until 1862.” Well, there’s a bit of a problem with that statement since no such patent was issued in 1862. Later on in the book, Houdini shows a picture of the Guiteau cuff, clearly patterned on Rankin’s 1866 patent with its flat bow, and notes it was made by A. Rankin of Philadelphia. Elsewhere, in an illustration of a modified set of leg irons, Houdini notes they are the “’A. Rankin,’ Philadelphia pattern;” those leg irons are fully circular. Well, if the fully circular design for leg irons qualifies those as an "A. Rankin, Philadelphia pattern" then wouldn't handcuffs of the same design also be a Rankin rather than Delestatius?

Going solely by the patents, I'm inclined to say fully circular = Delestatius while flat bow = Rankin. However, the stampings thereon may override this, just as we call a Peerless handcuff a "Peerless" since it was manufactured by them but was invented by George Carney.

So, not having a set handy to inspect, is a Delestatius handcuff marked “Delestatius” with the 1861 patent date or no markings at all? Or, are they also marked “A. Rankin?” with the 1861 patent date?

In examining the two patents, a couple of other things struck me. First, due to the nuances of the lettering, it seems the same draftsman was used for both the 1861 and 1866 patent drawings, and also the same patent attorney. With the 1861 patent already having been assigned to Mr. Rankin at the time of issuance, it seems logical it was intended for him to be the manufacturer for Delestatius, particularly in view of his later work.

So, just what is a Delestatius (manacle or leg iron) as opposed to a Rankin (manacle or leg iron)? Is the distinguishing feature the stampings thereon or the design of the cuff body (circular = Delestatius, flat bow = Rankin)?

If those of you out there who have some of these rascals, Delestatious and Rankin, both handcuffs and leg irons, would dig them out and let me know what the stampings thereon are, I’d very much appreciate it.

Thanks,

Franklin

Click to expand...

A while back, I picked up an old set of leg irons. In researching them, I’m rather confused. Maybe some folks out there can help.

Joe, I trust in advance it's okay to use your pictures in the galleries for illustrative purposes.

The irons bear a patent date of December 10, 1861 and the name A. Rankin Philadelphia; they appear identical to these
.
which is identified as a Rankin leg iron. In doing patent research, I find that U.S. Patent 33,917 was issued on that date to Alfred Delestatius, of Philadelphia, who assigned the patent to Andrew Rankin, of Philadelphia. The patent is for “improvements to manacles and shackles” relating to the locking mechanism.

On February 20, 1866, Andrew Rankin was issued patent 52,725 for “improved manacles” (not shackles; that is, leg irons). Rather than having cuffs of a circular construction, as depicted in the earlier patent, Mr. Rankin created a cuff with a half-circular top portion and a hinged, flat bottom portion with a small half loop to allow insertion of a finger to pull the cuffs open when unlocked, like this:
.
Although the locking mechanism constituted “no portion of my invention” one was depicted and appears virtually identical to Mr. Delestatius’ type of lock.

In his patent description, Mr. Rankin noted that with the fully circular design (such as shown in the Delestatius patent), a prisoner could break the lock open by striking them in a particular fashion; his modification, with a flat rather than curved bow reduced that possibility due to the “straight portion fitting close to the wrist, so that it [the hinged flat bow] cannot be bent inward without causing such injury and pain to the prisoner as will induce him to desist in his attempt to break the same.”

Okay, where I start getting confused is in looking at pictures of “Delestatius handcuffs, “Rankin handcuffs,” and “Rankin leg irons,” both in the galleries at this Forum and at other collectors’ websites. All three of these seem to use the same locking mechanism. However, as typically described, a Delestatius handcuff is fully circular, like this
.
a Rankin handcuff is semicircular with the flat bow and finger loop, but the Rankin leg iron is fully circular; I’ve yet to see a Rankin leg iron of the same design as the Rankin handcuff with the flat bow or any leg iron that is identified as a Delestatius. Unfortunately, none of the photographs are detailed enough to show any stampings.

In his book, Handcuff Secrets, Harry Houdini states that “n 1861 A. Delestatius brought out a cuff that looks somewhat like the A. Rankin’s, but Rankin did not patent his cuff, with a few improvements, until 1862.” Well, there’s a bit of a problem with that statement since no such patent was issued in 1862. Later on in the book, Houdini shows a picture of the Guiteau cuff, clearly patterned on Rankin’s 1866 patent with its flat bow, and notes it was made by A. Rankin of Philadelphia. Elsewhere, in an illustration of a modified set of leg irons, Houdini notes they are the “’A. Rankin,’ Philadelphia pattern;” those leg irons are fully circular. Well, if the fully circular design for leg irons qualifies those as an "A. Rankin, Philadelphia pattern" then wouldn't handcuffs of the same design also be a Rankin rather than Delestatius?

Going solely by the patents, I'm inclined to say fully circular = Delestatius while flat bow = Rankin. However, the stampings thereon may override this, just as we call a Peerless handcuff a "Peerless" since it was manufactured by them but was invented by George Carney.

So, not having a set handy to inspect, is a Delestatius handcuff marked “Delestatius” with the 1861 patent date or no markings at all? Or, are they also marked “A. Rankin?” with the 1861 patent date?

In examining the two patents, a couple of other things struck me. First, due to the nuances of the lettering, it seems the same draftsman was used for both the 1861 and 1866 patent drawings, and also the same patent attorney. With the 1861 patent already having been assigned to Mr. Rankin at the time of issuance, it seems logical it was intended for him to be the manufacturer for Delestatius, particularly in view of his later work.

So, just what is a Delestatius (manacle or leg iron) as opposed to a Rankin (manacle or leg iron)? Is the distinguishing feature the stampings thereon or the design of the cuff body (circular = Delestatius, flat bow = Rankin)?

If those of you out there who have some of these rascals, Delestatious and Rankin, both handcuffs and leg irons, would dig them out and let me know what the stampings thereon are, I’d very much appreciate it.

Thanks,

Franklin

Click to expand...

A while back, I picked up an old set of leg irons. In researching them, I’m rather confused. Maybe some folks out there can help.

Joe, I trust in advance it's okay to use your pictures in the galleries for illustrative purposes.

The irons bear a patent date of December 10, 1861 and the name A. Rankin Philadelphia; they appear identical to these
.
which is identified as a Rankin leg iron. In doing patent research, I find that U.S. Patent 33,917 was issued on that date to Alfred Delestatius, of Philadelphia, who assigned the patent to Andrew Rankin, of Philadelphia. The patent is for “improvements to manacles and shackles” relating to the locking mechanism.

On February 20, 1866, Andrew Rankin was issued patent 52,725 for “improved manacles” (not shackles; that is, leg irons). Rather than having cuffs of a circular construction, as depicted in the earlier patent, Mr. Rankin created a cuff with a half-circular top portion and a hinged, flat bottom portion with a small half loop to allow insertion of a finger to pull the cuffs open when unlocked, like this:
.
Although the locking mechanism constituted “no portion of my invention” one was depicted and appears virtually identical to Mr. Delestatius’ type of lock.

In his patent description, Mr. Rankin noted that with the fully circular design (such as shown in the Delestatius patent), a prisoner could break the lock open by striking them in a particular fashion; his modification, with a flat rather than curved bow reduced that possibility due to the “straight portion fitting close to the wrist, so that it [the hinged flat bow] cannot be bent inward without causing such injury and pain to the prisoner as will induce him to desist in his attempt to break the same.”

Okay, where I start getting confused is in looking at pictures of “Delestatius handcuffs, “Rankin handcuffs,” and “Rankin leg irons,” both in the galleries at this Forum and at other collectors’ websites. All three of these seem to use the same locking mechanism. However, as typically described, a Delestatius handcuff is fully circular, like this
.
a Rankin handcuff is semicircular with the flat bow and finger loop, but the Rankin leg iron is fully circular; I’ve yet to see a Rankin leg iron of the same design as the Rankin handcuff with the flat bow or any leg iron that is identified as a Delestatius. Unfortunately, none of the photographs are detailed enough to show any stampings.

In his book, Handcuff Secrets, Harry Houdini states that “n 1861 A. Delestatius brought out a cuff that looks somewhat like the A. Rankin’s, but Rankin did not patent his cuff, with a few improvements, until 1862.” Well, there’s a bit of a problem with that statement since no such patent was issued in 1862. Later on in the book, Houdini shows a picture of the Guiteau cuff, clearly patterned on Rankin’s 1866 patent with its flat bow, and notes it was made by A. Rankin of Philadelphia. Elsewhere, in an illustration of a modified set of leg irons, Houdini notes they are the “’A. Rankin,’ Philadelphia pattern;” those leg irons are fully circular. Well, if the fully circular design for leg irons qualifies those as an "A. Rankin, Philadelphia pattern" then wouldn't handcuffs of the same design also be a Rankin rather than Delestatius?

Going solely by the patents, I'm inclined to say fully circular = Delestatius while flat bow = Rankin. However, the stampings thereon may override this, just as we call a Peerless handcuff a "Peerless" since it was manufactured by them but was invented by George Carney.

So, not having a set handy to inspect, is a Delestatius handcuff marked “Delestatius” with the 1861 patent date or no markings at all? Or, are they also marked “A. Rankin?” with the 1861 patent date?

In examining the two patents, a couple of other things struck me. First, due to the nuances of the lettering, it seems the same draftsman was used for both the 1861 and 1866 patent drawings, and also the same patent attorney. With the 1861 patent already having been assigned to Mr. Rankin at the time of issuance, it seems logical it was intended for him to be the manufacturer for Delestatius, particularly in view of his later work.

So, just what is a Delestatius (manacle or leg iron) as opposed to a Rankin (manacle or leg iron)? Is the distinguishing feature the stampings thereon or the design of the cuff body (circular = Delestatius, flat bow = Rankin)?

If those of you out there who have some of these rascals, Delestatious and Rankin, both handcuffs and leg irons, would dig them out and let me know what the stampings thereon are, I’d very much appreciate it.

Thanks,

Franklin

Click to expand...

A while back, I picked up an old set of leg irons. In researching them, I’m rather confused. Maybe some folks out there can help.

Joe, I trust in advance it's okay to use your pictures in the galleries for illustrative purposes.

The irons bear a patent date of December 10, 1861 and the name A. Rankin Philadelphia; they appear identical to these
.
which is identified as a Rankin leg iron. In doing patent research, I find that U.S. Patent 33,917 was issued on that date to Alfred Delestatius, of Philadelphia, who assigned the patent to Andrew Rankin, of Philadelphia. The patent is for “improvements to manacles and shackles” relating to the locking mechanism.

On February 20, 1866, Andrew Rankin was issued patent 52,725 for “improved manacles” (not shackles; that is, leg irons). Rather than having cuffs of a circular construction, as depicted in the earlier patent, Mr. Rankin created a cuff with a half-circular top portion and a hinged, flat bottom portion with a small half loop to allow insertion of a finger to pull the cuffs open when unlocked, like this:
.
Although the locking mechanism constituted “no portion of my invention” one was depicted and appears virtually identical to Mr. Delestatius’ type of lock.

In his patent description, Mr. Rankin noted that with the fully circular design (such as shown in the Delestatius patent), a prisoner could break the lock open by striking them in a particular fashion; his modification, with a flat rather than curved bow reduced that possibility due to the “straight portion fitting close to the wrist, so that it [the hinged flat bow] cannot be bent inward without causing such injury and pain to the prisoner as will induce him to desist in his attempt to break the same.”

Okay, where I start getting confused is in looking at pictures of “Delestatius handcuffs, “Rankin handcuffs,” and “Rankin leg irons,” both in the galleries at this Forum and at other collectors’ websites. All three of these seem to use the same locking mechanism. However, as typically described, a Delestatius handcuff is fully circular, like this
.
a Rankin handcuff is semicircular with the flat bow and finger loop, but the Rankin leg iron is fully circular; I’ve yet to see a Rankin leg iron of the same design as the Rankin handcuff with the flat bow or any leg iron that is identified as a Delestatius. Unfortunately, none of the photographs are detailed enough to show any stampings.

In his book, Handcuff Secrets, Harry Houdini states that “n 1861 A. Delestatius brought out a cuff that looks somewhat like the A. Rankin’s, but Rankin did not patent his cuff, with a few improvements, until 1862.” Well, there’s a bit of a problem with that statement since no such patent was issued in 1862. Later on in the book, Houdini shows a picture of the Guiteau cuff, clearly patterned on Rankin’s 1866 patent with its flat bow, and notes it was made by A. Rankin of Philadelphia. Elsewhere, in an illustration of a modified set of leg irons, Houdini notes they are the “’A. Rankin,’ Philadelphia pattern;” those leg irons are fully circular. Well, if the fully circular design for leg irons qualifies those as an "A. Rankin, Philadelphia pattern" then wouldn't handcuffs of the same design also be a Rankin rather than Delestatius?

Going solely by the patents, I'm inclined to say fully circular = Delestatius while flat bow = Rankin. However, the stampings thereon may override this, just as we call a Peerless handcuff a "Peerless" since it was manufactured by them but was invented by George Carney.

So, not having a set handy to inspect, is a Delestatius handcuff marked “Delestatius” with the 1861 patent date or no markings at all? Or, are they also marked “A. Rankin?” with the 1861 patent date?

In examining the two patents, a couple of other things struck me. First, due to the nuances of the lettering, it seems the same draftsman was used for both the 1861 and 1866 patent drawings, and also the same patent attorney. With the 1861 patent already having been assigned to Mr. Rankin at the time of issuance, it seems logical it was intended for him to be the manufacturer for Delestatius, particularly in view of his later work.

So, just what is a Delestatius (manacle or leg iron) as opposed to a Rankin (manacle or leg iron)? Is the distinguishing feature the stampings thereon or the design of the cuff body (circular = Delestatius, flat bow = Rankin)?

If those of you out there who have some of these rascals, Delestatious and Rankin, both handcuffs and leg irons, would dig them out and let me know what the stampings thereon are, I’d very much appreciate it.

Thanks,

Franklin

Click to expand...

A while back, I picked up an old set of leg irons. In researching them, I’m rather confused. Maybe some folks out there can help.

Joe, I trust in advance it's okay to use your pictures in the galleries for illustrative purposes.

The irons bear a patent date of December 10, 1861 and the name A. Rankin Philadelphia; they appear identical to these
.
which is identified as a Rankin leg iron. In doing patent research, I find that U.S. Patent 33,917 was issued on that date to Alfred Delestatius, of Philadelphia, who assigned the patent to Andrew Rankin, of Philadelphia. The patent is for “improvements to manacles and shackles” relating to the locking mechanism.

On February 20, 1866, Andrew Rankin was issued patent 52,725 for “improved manacles” (not shackles; that is, leg irons). Rather than having cuffs of a circular construction, as depicted in the earlier patent, Mr. Rankin created a cuff with a half-circular top portion and a hinged, flat bottom portion with a small half loop to allow insertion of a finger to pull the cuffs open when unlocked, like this:
.
Although the locking mechanism constituted “no portion of my invention” one was depicted and appears virtually identical to Mr. Delestatius’ type of lock.

In his patent description, Mr. Rankin noted that with the fully circular design (such as shown in the Delestatius patent), a prisoner could break the lock open by striking them in a particular fashion; his modification, with a flat rather than curved bow reduced that possibility due to the “straight portion fitting close to the wrist, so that it [the hinged flat bow] cannot be bent inward without causing such injury and pain to the prisoner as will induce him to desist in his attempt to break the same.”

Okay, where I start getting confused is in looking at pictures of “Delestatius handcuffs, “Rankin handcuffs,” and “Rankin leg irons,” both in the galleries at this Forum and at other collectors’ websites. All three of these seem to use the same locking mechanism. However, as typically described, a Delestatius handcuff is fully circular, like this
.
a Rankin handcuff is semicircular with the flat bow and finger loop, but the Rankin leg iron is fully circular; I’ve yet to see a Rankin leg iron of the same design as the Rankin handcuff with the flat bow or any leg iron that is identified as a Delestatius. Unfortunately, none of the photographs are detailed enough to show any stampings.

In his book, Handcuff Secrets, Harry Houdini states that “n 1861 A. Delestatius brought out a cuff that looks somewhat like the A. Rankin’s, but Rankin did not patent his cuff, with a few improvements, until 1862.” Well, there’s a bit of a problem with that statement since no such patent was issued in 1862. Later on in the book, Houdini shows a picture of the Guiteau cuff, clearly patterned on Rankin’s 1866 patent with its flat bow, and notes it was made by A. Rankin of Philadelphia. Elsewhere, in an illustration of a modified set of leg irons, Houdini notes they are the “’A. Rankin,’ Philadelphia pattern;” those leg irons are fully circular. Well, if the fully circular design for leg irons qualifies those as an "A. Rankin, Philadelphia pattern" then wouldn't handcuffs of the same design also be a Rankin rather than Delestatius?

Going solely by the patents, I'm inclined to say fully circular = Delestatius while flat bow = Rankin. However, the stampings thereon may override this, just as we call a Peerless handcuff a "Peerless" since it was manufactured by them but was invented by George Carney.

So, not having a set handy to inspect, is a Delestatius handcuff marked “Delestatius” with the 1861 patent date or no markings at all? Or, are they also marked “A. Rankin?” with the 1861 patent date?

In examining the two patents, a couple of other things struck me. First, due to the nuances of the lettering, it seems the same draftsman was used for both the 1861 and 1866 patent drawings, and also the same patent attorney. With the 1861 patent already having been assigned to Mr. Rankin at the time of issuance, it seems logical it was intended for him to be the manufacturer for Delestatius, particularly in view of his later work.

So, just what is a Delestatius (manacle or leg iron) as opposed to a Rankin (manacle or leg iron)? Is the distinguishing feature the stampings thereon or the design of the cuff body (circular = Delestatius, flat bow = Rankin)?

If those of you out there who have some of these rascals, Delestatious and Rankin, both handcuffs and leg irons, would dig them out and let me know what the stampings thereon are, I’d very much appreciate it.

Thanks,

Franklin

Click to expand...

A while back, I picked up an old set of leg irons. In researching them, I’m rather confused. Maybe some folks out there can help.

Joe, I trust in advance it's okay to use your pictures in the galleries for illustrative purposes.

The irons bear a patent date of December 10, 1861 and the name A. Rankin Philadelphia; they appear identical to these
.
which is identified as a Rankin leg iron. In doing patent research, I find that U.S. Patent 33,917 was issued on that date to Alfred Delestatius, of Philadelphia, who assigned the patent to Andrew Rankin, of Philadelphia. The patent is for “improvements to manacles and shackles” relating to the locking mechanism.

On February 20, 1866, Andrew Rankin was issued patent 52,725 for “improved manacles” (not shackles; that is, leg irons). Rather than having cuffs of a circular construction, as depicted in the earlier patent, Mr. Rankin created a cuff with a half-circular top portion and a hinged, flat bottom portion with a small half loop to allow insertion of a finger to pull the cuffs open when unlocked, like this:
.
Although the locking mechanism constituted “no portion of my invention” one was depicted and appears virtually identical to Mr. Delestatius’ type of lock.

In his patent description, Mr. Rankin noted that with the fully circular design (such as shown in the Delestatius patent), a prisoner could break the lock open by striking them in a particular fashion; his modification, with a flat rather than curved bow reduced that possibility due to the “straight portion fitting close to the wrist, so that it [the hinged flat bow] cannot be bent inward without causing such injury and pain to the prisoner as will induce him to desist in his attempt to break the same.”

Okay, where I start getting confused is in looking at pictures of “Delestatius handcuffs, “Rankin handcuffs,” and “Rankin leg irons,” both in the galleries at this Forum and at other collectors’ websites. All three of these seem to use the same locking mechanism. However, as typically described, a Delestatius handcuff is fully circular, like this
.
a Rankin handcuff is semicircular with the flat bow and finger loop, but the Rankin leg iron is fully circular; I’ve yet to see a Rankin leg iron of the same design as the Rankin handcuff with the flat bow or any leg iron that is identified as a Delestatius. Unfortunately, none of the photographs are detailed enough to show any stampings.

In his book, Handcuff Secrets, Harry Houdini states that “n 1861 A. Delestatius brought out a cuff that looks somewhat like the A. Rankin’s, but Rankin did not patent his cuff, with a few improvements, until 1862.” Well, there’s a bit of a problem with that statement since no such patent was issued in 1862. Later on in the book, Houdini shows a picture of the Guiteau cuff, clearly patterned on Rankin’s 1866 patent with its flat bow, and notes it was made by A. Rankin of Philadelphia. Elsewhere, in an illustration of a modified set of leg irons, Houdini notes they are the “’A. Rankin,’ Philadelphia pattern;” those leg irons are fully circular. Well, if the fully circular design for leg irons qualifies those as an "A. Rankin, Philadelphia pattern" then wouldn't handcuffs of the same design also be a Rankin rather than Delestatius?

Going solely by the patents, I'm inclined to say fully circular = Delestatius while flat bow = Rankin. However, the stampings thereon may override this, just as we call a Peerless handcuff a "Peerless" since it was manufactured by them but was invented by George Carney.

So, not having a set handy to inspect, is a Delestatius handcuff marked “Delestatius” with the 1861 patent date or no markings at all? Or, are they also marked “A. Rankin?” with the 1861 patent date?

In examining the two patents, a couple of other things struck me. First, due to the nuances of the lettering, it seems the same draftsman was used for both the 1861 and 1866 patent drawings, and also the same patent attorney. With the 1861 patent already having been assigned to Mr. Rankin at the time of issuance, it seems logical it was intended for him to be the manufacturer for Delestatius, particularly in view of his later work.

So, just what is a Delestatius (manacle or leg iron) as opposed to a Rankin (manacle or leg iron)? Is the distinguishing feature the stampings thereon or the design of the cuff body (circular = Delestatius, flat bow = Rankin)?

If those of you out there who have some of these rascals, Delestatious and Rankin, both handcuffs and leg irons, would dig them out and let me know what the stampings thereon are, I’d very much appreciate it.

Thanks,

Franklin

Click to expand...

A while back, I picked up an old set of leg irons. In researching them, I’m rather confused. Maybe some folks out there can help.

Joe, I trust in advance it's okay to use your pictures in the galleries for illustrative purposes.

The irons bear a patent date of December 10, 1861 and the name A. Rankin Philadelphia; they appear identical to these
.
which is identified as a Rankin leg iron. In doing patent research, I find that U.S. Patent 33,917 was issued on that date to Alfred Delestatius, of Philadelphia, who assigned the patent to Andrew Rankin, of Philadelphia. The patent is for “improvements to manacles and shackles” relating to the locking mechanism.

On February 20, 1866, Andrew Rankin was issued patent 52,725 for “improved manacles” (not shackles; that is, leg irons). Rather than having cuffs of a circular construction, as depicted in the earlier patent, Mr. Rankin created a cuff with a half-circular top portion and a hinged, flat bottom portion with a small half loop to allow insertion of a finger to pull the cuffs open when unlocked, like this:
.
Although the locking mechanism constituted “no portion of my invention” one was depicted and appears virtually identical to Mr. Delestatius’ type of lock.

In his patent description, Mr. Rankin noted that with the fully circular design (such as shown in the Delestatius patent), a prisoner could break the lock open by striking them in a particular fashion; his modification, with a flat rather than curved bow reduced that possibility due to the “straight portion fitting close to the wrist, so that it [the hinged flat bow] cannot be bent inward without causing such injury and pain to the prisoner as will induce him to desist in his attempt to break the same.”

Okay, where I start getting confused is in looking at pictures of “Delestatius handcuffs, “Rankin handcuffs,” and “Rankin leg irons,” both in the galleries at this Forum and at other collectors’ websites. All three of these seem to use the same locking mechanism. However, as typically described, a Delestatius handcuff is fully circular, like this
.
a Rankin handcuff is semicircular with the flat bow and finger loop, but the Rankin leg iron is fully circular; I’ve yet to see a Rankin leg iron of the same design as the Rankin handcuff with the flat bow or any leg iron that is identified as a Delestatius. Unfortunately, none of the photographs are detailed enough to show any stampings.

In his book, Handcuff Secrets, Harry Houdini states that “n 1861 A. Delestatius brought out a cuff that looks somewhat like the A. Rankin’s, but Rankin did not patent his cuff, with a few improvements, until 1862.” Well, there’s a bit of a problem with that statement since no such patent was issued in 1862. Later on in the book, Houdini shows a picture of the Guiteau cuff, clearly patterned on Rankin’s 1866 patent with its flat bow, and notes it was made by A. Rankin of Philadelphia. Elsewhere, in an illustration of a modified set of leg irons, Houdini notes they are the “’A. Rankin,’ Philadelphia pattern;” those leg irons are fully circular. Well, if the fully circular design for leg irons qualifies those as an "A. Rankin, Philadelphia pattern" then wouldn't handcuffs of the same design also be a Rankin rather than Delestatius?

Going solely by the patents, I'm inclined to say fully circular = Delestatius while flat bow = Rankin. However, the stampings thereon may override this, just as we call a Peerless handcuff a "Peerless" since it was manufactured by them but was invented by George Carney.

So, not having a set handy to inspect, is a Delestatius handcuff marked “Delestatius” with the 1861 patent date or no markings at all? Or, are they also marked “A. Rankin?” with the 1861 patent date?

In examining the two patents, a couple of other things struck me. First, due to the nuances of the lettering, it seems the same draftsman was used for both the 1861 and 1866 patent drawings, and also the same patent attorney. With the 1861 patent already having been assigned to Mr. Rankin at the time of issuance, it seems logical it was intended for him to be the manufacturer for Delestatius, particularly in view of his later work.

So, just what is a Delestatius (manacle or leg iron) as opposed to a Rankin (manacle or leg iron)? Is the distinguishing feature the stampings thereon or the design of the cuff body (circular = Delestatius, flat bow = Rankin)?

If those of you out there who have some of these rascals, Delestatious and Rankin, both handcuffs and leg irons, would dig them out and let me know what the stampings thereon are, I’d very much appreciate it.

Thanks,

Franklin

Click to expand...

A while back, I picked up an old set of leg irons. In researching them, I’m rather confused. Maybe some folks out there can help.

Joe, I trust in advance it's okay to use your pictures in the galleries for illustrative purposes.

The irons bear a patent date of December 10, 1861 and the name A. Rankin Philadelphia; they appear identical to these
.
which is identified as a Rankin leg iron. In doing patent research, I find that U.S. Patent 33,917 was issued on that date to Alfred Delestatius, of Philadelphia, who assigned the patent to Andrew Rankin, of Philadelphia. The patent is for “improvements to manacles and shackles” relating to the locking mechanism.

On February 20, 1866, Andrew Rankin was issued patent 52,725 for “improved manacles” (not shackles; that is, leg irons). Rather than having cuffs of a circular construction, as depicted in the earlier patent, Mr. Rankin created a cuff with a half-circular top portion and a hinged, flat bottom portion with a small half loop to allow insertion of a finger to pull the cuffs open when unlocked, like this:
.
Although the locking mechanism constituted “no portion of my invention” one was depicted and appears virtually identical to Mr. Delestatius’ type of lock.

In his patent description, Mr. Rankin noted that with the fully circular design (such as shown in the Delestatius patent), a prisoner could break the lock open by striking them in a particular fashion; his modification, with a flat rather than curved bow reduced that possibility due to the “straight portion fitting close to the wrist, so that it [the hinged flat bow] cannot be bent inward without causing such injury and pain to the prisoner as will induce him to desist in his attempt to break the same.”

Okay, where I start getting confused is in looking at pictures of “Delestatius handcuffs, “Rankin handcuffs,” and “Rankin leg irons,” both in the galleries at this Forum and at other collectors’ websites. All three of these seem to use the same locking mechanism. However, as typically described, a Delestatius handcuff is fully circular, like this
.
a Rankin handcuff is semicircular with the flat bow and finger loop, but the Rankin leg iron is fully circular; I’ve yet to see a Rankin leg iron of the same design as the Rankin handcuff with the flat bow or any leg iron that is identified as a Delestatius. Unfortunately, none of the photographs are detailed enough to show any stampings.

In his book, Handcuff Secrets, Harry Houdini states that “n 1861 A. Delestatius brought out a cuff that looks somewhat like the A. Rankin’s, but Rankin did not patent his cuff, with a few improvements, until 1862.” Well, there’s a bit of a problem with that statement since no such patent was issued in 1862. Later on in the book, Houdini shows a picture of the Guiteau cuff, clearly patterned on Rankin’s 1866 patent with its flat bow, and notes it was made by A. Rankin of Philadelphia. Elsewhere, in an illustration of a modified set of leg irons, Houdini notes they are the “’A. Rankin,’ Philadelphia pattern;” those leg irons are fully circular. Well, if the fully circular design for leg irons qualifies those as an "A. Rankin, Philadelphia pattern" then wouldn't handcuffs of the same design also be a Rankin rather than Delestatius?

Going solely by the patents, I'm inclined to say fully circular = Delestatius while flat bow = Rankin. However, the stampings thereon may override this, just as we call a Peerless handcuff a "Peerless" since it was manufactured by them but was invented by George Carney.

So, not having a set handy to inspect, is a Delestatius handcuff marked “Delestatius” with the 1861 patent date or no markings at all? Or, are they also marked “A. Rankin?” with the 1861 patent date?

In examining the two patents, a couple of other things struck me. First, due to the nuances of the lettering, it seems the same draftsman was used for both the 1861 and 1866 patent drawings, and also the same patent attorney. With the 1861 patent already having been assigned to Mr. Rankin at the time of issuance, it seems logical it was intended for him to be the manufacturer for Delestatius, particularly in view of his later work.

So, just what is a Delestatius (manacle or leg iron) as opposed to a Rankin (manacle or leg iron)? Is the distinguishing feature the stampings thereon or the design of the cuff body (circular = Delestatius, flat bow = Rankin)?

If those of you out there who have some of these rascals, Delestatious and Rankin, both handcuffs and leg irons, would dig them out and let me know what the stampings thereon are, I’d very much appreciate it.

Thanks,

Franklin

Click to expand...