297 So. Edison Avenue, Tampa 6, Florida, brings up these
questions which are timely and if answered would be valuable
history. The Editor.)
THE PICTURE OF THE OLD threshing rig on page 15, Jan,-Feb., 1957
issue of the ALBUM brings up a lot of questions I would like to
have you consider through the columns of the ALBUM.
First, the old engine is a full sister of the old job at
Angel’s Camp, Stockton, California, which has been definitely
identified as an Owens, Lane and Dyer and without a doubt is
correct. Every detail of the two is exactly the same, yet your
correspondent says this one is a ‘Hamilton’. I know for a
fact that O. L. & D. built engines of this exact type, canopy
and all, and were located in Hamilton, Ohio, which no doubt
accounts for the name he mentions. If the engines were named
‘Hamilton’ I never heard of it before and frankly I do not
believe they ever were.
There was a whole series of similar Company names and engines
with several of the exact same features in Hamilton but I was never
able to get it all straightened out as to who was who, but after a
lot of research I did find the following facts and I hope some of
your readers can complete the job.
Owens, Lans & Dyer built their engines with inclined
cylinder. The reverse link supported from the bottom, solid disc
balance wheel, belt pulleys across the front end, round bottom
platform water tank, and a distinctive style canopy, exactly as in
the picture in question. Without a doubt there was English blood in
the line as evidenced by the round corner platform tank and disc
balance wheel, which all English makes have.
I fired a RITCHIE & DYER built in Hamilton which had every
one of the above features, canopy and all, except the disc wheel
and the front pulleys. It occurred to me that they were the
successors to O. L. & D. but I never could verify that fact. It
so happens that Ritchie & Dyer were brought out by Reeves &
Co., Columbus, Indiana, and the first Reeves were R. & D. with
only the name changed. Some of the Ritchie & Dyer features were
continued in the Reeves to the day they quit, notably the chain and
lever arrangement to lift the spark arrester, which was never used
on any other makes.
Also in the picture around 1880 was the Hooven, Owens and Rents
cheller Co., of Hamilton, who marketed a traction engine under the
name of ‘Monarch’ which did not resemble any of the other
Hamilton makes. It was largely an ‘assembled’ job as they
had no complete factory, However, again the name ‘Owens’
shows us as does ‘Dyer’ in both the other companies. The
Hooven, Owens & Rentscheller Co. is still in existence
The roller shown on page 18 (same issue) is called
‘Buffalo-Springfield’. Was there such a make or did he mean
‘Kelly-Springfield’?
On page 19 is a picture branded ‘Russell’. I can’t
say positively it isn’t but I never saw or heard of a Russell
with a rear cylinder and a heater or left side drive. If it is a
Russell it sure is an old one. It looks as if it also had a shaft
rear axle which they never used. Is it really a Russell?
(Printers note: On the page 18 ‘Roller Question’, an
answer might be found in this issue in the ‘Classified
Ads,’ the advertisement of Mr. Robt. H. Stickler, Campbell, ?.
?., offers ‘for sale’ a Buffalo-Springfield Roller. Also
see advertisement of Roy Tidwell, Longmont, Colo., same columns, on
Kelly Springfield roller for sale.)
