Hello ODK members,

Thank you Deejay for making me welcome here at this wonderful site. I also thank Mr Davis, who suggested I be exposed to a potential wider audience than the great Vintage Mowers site I have posted to over many years.

I share his view that information should be shared, but I am more enamoured by the �first question� that Ty raises: �who was the first to . . . ?� and �Why is that significant?� I guess that's what animates my research. I'm not a collector.

This is the most difficult forum topic to respond to as a newbie because of the broad scope of the responses. It is my view that ODK may need a separate History forum category at some point. I don�t think these topics are simply idle chatter. Anyway, I�m not sure where to start, so I�ll just start.

I would like to challenge the Powerhouse Museum�s assessment of vintage mower history, particularly I would like at some future time to present a clarification of Lawrence Hall�s and Mervyn Victor Richardson�s contribution to it. The Powerhouse has been influential in propagating some myths of early Australian rotary mowers and probably due to no fault of its own. That will have to be another post.

Ty�s mention of the British Rotoscythe is a story in itself and close to my vintage mower heart. Under-appreciated for its advanced design, it remains largely an untold story. Ty�s note that the machine was �not highly manoeuvrable� is so true. It lacked differential action on the roller. Had Power Specialities (and then Shay Limited) realized the significance of their accessory rear side wheels (and removed the rear roller), we could have had a machine as advanced as the VC Victas of the 1970s � high arch, rear catcher, cowled engine.

On that point, the 1928 Miller Patent shows two versions of the cutting arrangement � figures 4 and 5. The Rotoscythe patent of a few years� later used the figure 5 arrangement (the blades were discs mounted on a blade holder). The figure 4 arrangement is essentially the same as is most commonly found on USA machines today � the bar blade.

Note how the bar blade in figure 4 is, in its essence, at the heart of any definition of a rotary mower - It is one piece, but has two opposed scythe blades! In my view, the rotary mower was not revolutionary in its inception � it was a hand scythe that rotated at a fast speed. In other words, it was an invention �waiting to happen�. Nonetheless, its happening caused a revolution in sales.

Likewise, Budding�s reel mower was not revolutionary in its inception. Other �real� heroes would be John Lewis and John Ferrabee in that tale. Nonetheless, its happening caused a revolution.

I found Deejay�s finding of the Beazley Patent a great piece of research, but the more stunning find was the court case between Beazley and his former employee Pearce.

This case represents for me the complexity of determining who invented the rotary mower. That case was won by the defendant because the plaintiff, Beazley, could not establish the third element he asserted was central to his 1929 patent: the fan or air deflecting device.

Today we would define a rotary by two of Beazley�s elements: (1) the horizontally disposed rotatable blade type cutter; (2) the housing having the characteristic of a confined air space open at the bottom adjacent to the ground. The third element, the �deflecting device�, was commonly a part of blade design itself � and that was Beazley�s downfall in the case.

What constitutes a rotary mower is primarily definitional. Below is an example of one I found from 1907. It has Beazley�s first element: (1) the horizontally disposed rotatable blade type cutter. It does not have the second element of an enclosed housing.

[Linked Image]

Is it a rotary mower? No, it 'cuts' grass rather than slashes it. When one reads the detail one realises that this mower cuts by contra-rotating sickle blades. It is a straight sickle bar mower that has been curved! We have been told that rotaries slash grass, they don�t cut it � only reel mowers do that! So the 1928 Miller 'Pioneer' is the earliest machine I have found to conform to the modern definition I believe constitutes a rotary: horizontal cutter; enclosure; scything or slashing action.

Arguably, Mervyn Richardson's prototype was not a rotary because it lacked an enclosure! He quickly added one though and the Victa rotary mower was born.

I would now like to address Ty�s comments about the importance of timelines. I share Ty�s curiosity about �when certain improvements came about.� I think that is the essence of what animates a vintage mower researcher.

All very thought provoking.
---------------------------------------------
JACK