Page 2 Advertisements Column 2

Globe, Volume XXIV, Issue 2569, 1 July 1882, Page 2

NOT QUITE SO DECISIVE AS IT WAS BUrA KITTLE MORE OVERWHELMING. WE CHALLENGE the representative oL' the Singer Bewing Machine Company, or liny of the jurors on Sewing Maohinea at the Exhibition who voted for the report coming from that body to controvert the following atatement of faota. Messrs Meddlings, CnnnlDgton, Dale, and Kirk. w» call upon yon to defend your reporf;. H. C. FISKE & CO. Christohnrch International Exhibition, June 15th, 1882. REPORT OP COMMITTEE OF EXPERTS. | To H. C. Fiskk & Co. request, we have examined the New Davis and the New Singer Sewing Maohines, for the purpose of comparing them. In our comp&rtson we have take a into consideration— 1. The mechanical principle Involved 2. The quality of the material u red 3. The diepree of workmanship exhibited 4. The facility for doing a good aid varied i o ass of work. l After taking both machines asunder, care»ly examining every pieca, and fully testLtheir capabilities, we have no hesitation living that we consider the Davis far the lljior maohir.e of the two. Our reasons follows : *joth machines the ssme method is I, for actuating the needle bar, viz., a |h roller working in a cam. This |e Davis Machine is cut ont of a ■tof steel aud hardened, while in »is not only very much lighter, '"■"omrnon cast iron. iratus of the two machines ar. That of the Singer Is bed. The Davis has the tliar to itself. In this presser foot holds the n till the needle has oint. The pressure in ransmitted to the feed le, and material are b contrivance, moved (the required length hnttle In the Davis a eccentric at the gives motion ga turn transmits anions construe.p.rfc under the k *-ing at its end [ln the Singer Irive a verend a crank, ink moves a la seen that in the main points of & >e pivot of pal move'oint, are " to wear ompass i points heels, e two ddlog