George Walter Pratt

George W. Pratt received patents in 1916 and 1932 for handcuff/nipper combinations. These are two of the most interesting handcuffs you are likely to encounter. Pratt was born on March 17, 1886 in California.  By 1900 he was living in San Francisco and was a messenger boy. By 1910 he had become a blacksmith and on April 15, 1913 joined the Oakland Police Department. He was promoted to sergeant on May 9, 1927, to lieutenant on January 1, 1933 and retired from the department on May 4, 1943. He died on March 9, 1955. Both his 1916 design (1,203,778) and his 1932 design (1,856,427) were manufactured and sold. Pratt received a third patent on February 20, 1917 (1,216,491) for a third combination, but this had a handcuff on one end and a fixed nipper that did not convert into a handcuff on the other end. I have never encountered one and do not know if they were ever manufactured. In 2017 a first model Pratt was auctioned off on EBAY and the description included, "Inside the swing through is marked 'Made By Adams-Campbell Co. Los Angeles' " Adams-Campbell was established in 1909 and I believe the company still exists. When it was formed it was a Tool and Die shop that produced metal stampings and novelty products. During its first 60 years it was primarily in the metal stamping business and was located in Los Angeles until 1981 when it moved to City of Industry, CA. The two first model Pratts in my collection do not have any maker information stamped on them. If any of you have this stamping I would like to know about it.

Matt

Matt, as always great information.  I just checked my Model 1, S/N 1767 and it does have the Adams-Cambell markings near the hinge.

Managed to get a good picture of the markings.

Thanks Ron

Matt

Ron

I was wrong and looking in the wrong place. Both of mine are stamped Adams Campbell

Matt

I just checked my Pratt no. 1 and it does have the stamping.

Spencer

My Model 1 Has a serial number of 1847 and also has the stamping inside of the bows, near the hinge.
-Richard Knip-

Mine have the stamping too! I never would’ve thought to have looked and wonder how many people went running to check their Pratts when they read your post!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Matt:

Mine also has the stamping.

Thank you for bringing this to my/our attention!

My first model 1917 has the stamping. They are nickel plated number 1861.
My second model 1932 does not have the stamping- because double bow sides are not flat, they are stamped into a concave profile. This model is chrome plated number 3552.
Paul

Somewhere (I believe it was on the Handcuff Forum) someone stated that there were 1,500 of each the 1916 and 1932 models made. Contributions to this topic yield the following serial numbers:
Model 1916
Matt Forte 1468 and 1808
Ron Spitz 1767
Richard Knip 1847
Paul Davies 1861

Model 1932
Paul Davies 2552
Matt Forte 3643

If serial numbering began at number 1 then it appears there were more than 1,500 made of the 1916 model. If 1932 serial numbers began after the 1916 numbers then there looks like there might have been more than 1,500 of those. To help answer this question would those of you who have Pratt handcuffs please indicate the model and serial number of what you have.

Matt

I have a model no. 1 (1916) serial no. 1111

Spencer

I have a model one 1916 S/N 1118 and it also has the adams stamping !

Matt

I just wanted to clarify a point about the Pratt come along.

In “Manacles of the World” Gross stated that the original production run of the Pratt (1916) there was to be 1500 units made but in actuality only about 750 were made and the remainder, at least the lower portion with the cuff were used to produce the second model. One would think that there would be an equal number showing up but in reality the second model is hardly ever encountered.

Spencer

I have a Model 1932 s/n 3669 and another Model 1916 that I can't read anything on them.

Mine are from 1916, and the serial number is 1541.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Spencer

I agree with you that the 2nd model is less frequently seen. I have been tracking the number of 1916 models that come up on EBAY from 2,000 to 2020 and there have been 27 of them. I have also tracked the 1932 model and there have been 10 of these.

Matt

Matt, I very much like your research!

My Pratt 1916 has the number 1362 and the Pratt 1932 has the number 3808
Only the Pratt 1916 has the stampings inside the bow.

Lars

So far, thanks for your help, I have serial numbers for 12 Model 1916 and 5 model 1932 Pratt cuffs. 
1916:    10xx, 1111, 1118, 1243, 1298, 1362, 1468, 1541, 1767, 1808, 1847, 1861
1932:    3552, 3643, 3669, 3801, 3808

It seems to me that the numbering for the 1916 models started at 1,000, not 1. If that is so then so far it looks like 861 were made. 

Matt

Now that we are on the topic of George W. Pratt, we should look at Alfred James Howe. Howe was born on May 16, 1889. In 1910 he worked in a sign shop. In 1917 he was a riveter. Howe received three patents for handcuffs. The first (2,516,878) was issued on August 1, 1950, the second (2,772,553) was issued on December 4, 1956, and the third (2,948,139) was issued on August 9, 1960. All three were very similar and all look very much like Pratt's cuffs. How odd? Actually both Pratt and Howe lived in the same state, California. They also lived in the same city, Oakland. Might there be a connection between them? Well yes there was. Both were police officers... in the same department (Oakland PD), both held the rank of sergeant in 1930. The chance that they did not know each other is slim at best. Howe's designs were clearly based on those of Pratt, but don't seem to have ever been manufactured.

Matt

My 1916 Pratt:    Serial  #1434.

I have two 1st model Pratt's
One is conventional #1121

The other is an oddball.  It was never plated and it has an "unfinished" look to it.
It does not have a serial number. Instead the Pratt's Combination trade mark is found on both sides, meaning that the place where you normally find the serial number is occupied by the second trade mark.   It may have

My 2nd model is number 3627

Joe

Joe, can you post pics of your oddball 1st model Pratt? I'm sure that we'd all be interested in seeing it.
 
The serial numbers for both my 1st & 2nd models fall in the middle of what we already have. 
1916:  #1818   &   1932:  #3687.

I have both 1916 and 1932 models, serial numbers are 1020 (it has the stampings on the inner surface by the hinge) and serial number on the 1932 is 3557. Photo attached with original box.
I have been in touch with Jake from The Doncaster Restraint Museum. He has 2 of the 1916 pattern with serial numbers 1193 and 1988 which I think is the highest we know of?

Based on additional contributions of Forum members this is the updated list of serial numbers:

1916:   10xx, 1020, 1111, 1118, 1121, 1193, 1243, 1298, 1362, 1434, 1468, 1541, 1767, 1808, 1818, 1847, 1861, 1988 (for a total of 18 cuffs) So far it looks like at least 988 of this model were made.

1932:   3552, 3557, 3627, 3643, 3669, 3687, 3801, 3808 (for a total of 8 cuffs) Although the sample is small, the data suggests the first serial number of this model may have been 3500. If so then so far about 300 might have been made.

More data will help refine these calculations.

Matt

My  1st model Pratt's is number #1117

and it does have the Adams-Cambell markings.

Ok, here goes a try with photo. My 1932 bears the serial # 2008. As an aside, do I remember reading that some of the 1932 models (the chunkier t-handle) used leftover parts from the earlier production models? I'll see if I can find the reference.

Another try at a photo

Sorry to bring up an old topic, but my Pratt 1916 model has no Adam Campbell Co stamp. Nor does it have a serial number or the hole on the backside of the stem. Could I have a very early in production cuff/nipper or possibly one that was made after they did away with the serial number and the hole in the stem? Thanks for any input in advance. Ron J

Ron

That is unusual to say the least. Every example of this cuff that I’ve encountered has a four digit serial number on it.

Spencer

Spencer, have you ever seen one that didn’t have the hole in the stem as well? Ron J

Ron I would have to say that I have not.