Maxwell 1905 Production per B. Briscoe

[Guest pknighton]

In the Maxwell Co-Operator Vol. 2 No. 22 (June 21, 1909) an article by Benjamin Briscoe entitled "A Bit of Retrospection", at page 1252 he list the first production as follows:

Date H L

November, 1904 3 1

December, 1904 2 4

January, 1905 7 6

February, 1905 7 17

March, 1905 17 34

April, 1905 37 55

May, 1905 65 57

June, 1905 57 64

July, 1905 37 62

He stated: "Altogether that year we sold 232 H cars and 300 L cars."

He later notes: "In 1905-1906 we made 3000 cars'; in 1906-1907 4000; in 1907-1908 5000; and at the end of the present season we will have made 9000 cars."

He notes "Our product for 1909-1910 will be close to 20,000 automobiles."

Too bad we don't have any better listing for 1906-1909 models with the specificity of the 1905 production figures cited.

[JO BO]

How are you? I have always struggled reading that report as the figures presented in my understanding are simply sales records and not production numbers. It stated production began in late June 1904 with 25 H models and was followed by the L in a month or two. Material for 500 L's was purchased and the material order for H's was "INCREASED to 300" My understanding then is there were 800 total 05' Maxwells made with 532 of these sold before the next model year introduction with the balance sold within this current new model run..... similar to what occurs in our car market of today. Give me your thoughts back on this please. Thanks JO BO

[Guest pknighton]

All I know is what John Maxwell and Benjamin Briscoe said in speeches in 1909 (and these will shortly be posted on the Maxwell Messenger site). If you read some of Briscoe's hype in the early years he was optimistic to the max...so to speak. But the figures were quite specific published in the Co-Operator in 1909, for each of the production months of the 1905 model production run...month by month. Then Briscoe related the 1906, 07, 08, 09 production figures in round thousands. Once again generalizing like his materials order statements. Even if they ordered enough materials for 800 cars, it would not appear that they produced and sold that many. I would think that in the 1906 sales booklet I have (and one is posted in pdf format on the Maxwell Messenger site) that the changes were so small between the 1905 and 1906, if it were me, I'd sell the leftovers as the 1906 models. The problem dating these early L models is partly that they dropped the unique oak frames in mid production and there were no ID plates, only the stamped number on the engine covers...most of which broke...and on the rear ends. I am hoping someone also has found their serial numbers on the rear ends like my 1910 AA and the 1905 L both have.

Glad there's some interest out there in this question. I wouldn't have cared much until I got my 1905 L and suspected it really was a 1906 originally because it had the pressed steel channel frame instead of the wood frame like Tom Thoburn's. And I had an obviously later engine cover plate on an equally obviously earlier engine. Tom had told me he thought they gave up on the oak frame early in the production year. He guessed about at 80 or so L's were made with the oak frame. The horrible twisting those frames must have taken given the rough roads, probably tore the sheet metal body up that wrapped around the oak frame. I think Tom was right but he said he was kind of guessing.

So, when I found number 245 stamped on my rear end housing...both sides, in about the same place my 1910 AA is stamped, plus the 1909 Briscoe and Maxwell speeches about the production for 1905...I felt safe in calling mine a 1905. Doesn't make much difference except for one's vanity and it being titled as a 1905 way back in its history.

One other thing I did was check the part number in the December, 1906 parts book, for the rear end housings and there are two numbers because they are mirror images of each other, and different numbers from the 245 stamped on each side. So, I have at least a good argument for my serial number I guess.

[JO BO]

Phil; Thanks for your comments. I really enjoy debating this topic to see how others feel. I have always given thought to the material order of 500 L's and wondered if they staggered the order so changes could be adopted or? I thought the same thing as you in "Make the small changes and sell them as 1906's. Car number 261 still exists but it has an oak armored frame as does car #210. I wish an example from between 300 and 500 would surface so we may determine just how far they did go with the oak (Perhaps all the way to 500 as some have argued which would confirm the the order stats). Some have stated they would never make such a dramatic change mid stream...but if you have a problem..well you have a problem. Do you have a pic to post of your 05'? Thanks JO BO

[Guest pknighton]

email me at pknighton@cox.net and I'll send some pictures. I wonder if Maxwell numbered the cars sequentially or in model series before they started putting the model letters in front of the serial numbers. I also would like to know if the serial numbers on the other cars you mention are on the top engine plates and if they have ribs like the later plates. Tom said most of the originals broke and had to be replaced which would explain the different plate on my engine and his. Still one of life's little mysteries. Tom's had no numbers on the car anywhere else, except a 33 stamped on the front frame member inside and upside down, punched in with a center punch in "dots".

Phil

[Chuck Richardson]

I have posted on my Maxwell Messenger site PDF's of the J.D. Maxwell and Benjamin Briscoe articles which Phil provided. Also posted are photos of the differential and engine of his #245, which illustrate early characteristics.

[MochetVelo]

Here is something that might interest those discussing the Maxwell wood chassis frame. It's a quote from "Motor Age", Jan 19,1905 (pg. 24) in an article referring to the Maxwell-Briscoe Tourabout:

"...The main frame, which is of pressed steel side bars riveted to the cross bars..."

This would indicate that Maxwell had dropped the wooden frame by 1905, assuming Motor Age got their information correct.

Phil

[Seldenguy]

Phil, This has been bantered around for years. Sources have been in conflict against each other many times. Ben Briscoe gave a speech on June21st 1909 in which he quoted the production figures for the companys output by month for the production of both the model L and the model H. From November of 1904 when the first model L was built to July of 1905 when they made 62 cars for that month, a total of 300 model L's had been built for the '05 model year. Car #261 is in Oregon state and was built in the month of July 1905 according to Briscoes 1909 speech as was the last model L #300. I have several photos of #261 and it definitly is a wooden frame car! Another note is that the model H which was built along side of the L was a steel frame car. Also I have copies of an article from the Horseless Age December 12th 1904 that refers to the 1905 model L as an "runabout". And in 1906 refers to it as a "tourabout". I might also add that car #261 appears to still have it's original aluminum differential housings, which many '05s are missing. Just more food for thought. --Bob

Edited February 27, 2011 by Seldenguy (see edit history)

[MochetVelo]

Some questions may never be answered, Bob! Odd how the Maxwell wood frame seems to have failed, but Franklin and Stanley continued with theirs.

Phil

[Guest pknighton]

MochetVelo - Would you email me a scan of the Motor Age Jan. 19, 1905 article on the pressed steel frame for a 1905 tourabout? use pknighton@cox.net.

Thanks, PS - this forum is great for getting comments and information!

[Guest pknighton]

At request I have posted some images of my 1905 Maxwell chassis showing the aluminum rear end and my car, plus two pictures of Tom Thoburn's gorgeous 1905 L Maxwell. Note that both cars have the "S" shaped shifting lever and small Star of David round step plates. Many of the advertising images of the 1905 L cars have straight shifting levers and large square step plates. Those images are not photographs, but hand drawn which I suspect were like most of the advertising plates of the time, hand cut plates for printing. I'd postulate that these are early prototypes used for that purpose or errors by the artist or engraver.

[MochetVelo]

pknighton... I don't have the article, but copied it out in longhand when I visited the Philadelphia Free Library Automobile Collection. Each year, they have an open house during the AACA Convention. If you want a copy, contact Kim Bravo at the Library. She can scan it and email it to you using the info. from my earlier post.

Phil

P.S. I don't see your photos posted. Where are they?

Edited March 1, 2011 by MochetVelo (see edit history)

[JO BO]

MochetVelo.....It is my understanding that it wasn't that the wood frame was weak and had to be abandoned, but the way the steel body was attached to it, the metal body wrapped the frame, thus the term (Armored Oak).... this could have possibly caused the body to develop cracks/ wrinkles/tears, when the wood frame flexed due to the very poor roads back then,.....as pknighton mentioned in his second post. So no, Stanley and Franklin in my opinion didn't have superior frames, they just had differing attachment methods. Any other thoughts?

Edited March 20, 2011 by JO BO (see edit history)

[mercer09]

JO BO-I would completely agree with you. The early Maxwells weren't made of the heaviest gauge of metal.

My 12' Buick is far sturdier then my 07' Maxwell. It would seem to make sense that the metal would tear, especially in the method of connection you describe.

[Seldenguy]

I have just about all of the original sheetmetal from my 1905 L. There are NO rips tears or stress cracks visible. And believe me that my cars early life was abused. The original owners grandsons whom are in their early ninetys told me many stories about my car. We are in rural western New York and the roads here in the early part of the century did not receive any triple AAA awards. My sheetmetal measures at #19 gauge. This was well within the parameters of all automotive production of that period. All this metal that was attached to the oak 1 1/4" X 4" main frame rails was nailed from underneath. In contrast to the fact all metal above the frame was riveted and then covered with cast aluminum moldings. All bodies of this era were sheetmetal nailed over a wood frame. Yes, JO-BO the method of attachment was a major point of their failure. My front frame rails were deflected downward considerably from the weight of the engine. I cut 1/8" sheet plate and inlet it into the new oak frame rails to support the engine mounts. This was extended to include the two front fender mounting irons. And I think that production could be speeded up by just setting a body on a frame like Henry did in 1913? All the old pictures show the bodies being built in separate area's from the running gears. I feel this is what Maxwell and Briscoe did at the start of the 1906 model year,as they had their sucessful model H on a frame to go by. --Bob

[JO BO]

Seldenguy,

I was pondering it over once again why the switch from wood to metal,... the time between the first wood framed L's rolling out of the plant, until the first steel framed L's were produced was very short , in other words ,there was not much time for road testing and customer complaints to come in, thus moving the company to take action .... (known as a recall today)..... ( it makes me rethink my position) did one of the plant workmen simply say to his boss.. why are we doing it this way on our runabouts when we have our touring cars this way?... it is easier to simply set a body on a frame than to wrap it around and nail it. Or did it come down to simple economics ?, perhaps in the beginning Mr maxwell thought he would be saving money by using wood, however the bottom line might have proven otherwise. Who knows one would have to have been there.

One comment you made thou ...you stated all metal above the frame was riveted and then had cast aluminum moldings placed on the seams ....I understood the early maxwells to have pressed steel panels /moldings within?

Edited March 20, 2011 by JO BO (see edit history)

[Seldenguy]

JO-BO--Briscoe was noted for his sheet metal manufacturing and radiator fabrication. So it is no wonder that all the flat Maxwell L panels had stamped moldings,including the side oval under the seat, per your observation.On the curved seat panels the beads/molding were rolled in, as were the fender beads. Where the side panels then met the horizontal panel i.e. the rear deck, these seams were riveted together. To cover or dress up this riveted joint an aluminum casting was made such as a corner molding to finish this area off. Also at the step through to enter the car the tin is nailed to the body wood. This was also covered with an aluminum casting and used to screw the brass sill plate to. When I fabricated all my sheet metal I rolled all the beads. And because of pattern and foundry costs I fabricated the aluminum castings from stock available and welded the pieces together and finish shaped them as the originals on the car. It could well be that a worker brought the idea to the boss, things like that have happened before and usually the worker gets no credit--- Bob

Edited March 21, 2011 by Seldenguy (see edit history)

[JO BO]

Thanks Seldenguy ,

Your comments help those who aren't familiar with how the early Maxwell bodies were manufactured. Maxwell was ahead of his time with his pressed steel panels, compared to other manufacturers who were using cast aluminum and wood for their ornamental body lines.

I was doing some research and found two articles, one dated Oct 12, 1904 , it states both models are using a pressed steel frame, and another article dated Nov 12, 1904 also brings attention to the frame on the l was at that time pressed steel..... My parts book dated dec 1906 shows all replacement sheet metal pieces as being 20 guage , differential housing replacements are cast iron, frame rail replacements are available for the H and are pressed steel (as from the beginning) however one thing I found perplexing is the parts list I have for the L model shows no side frame rail pieces available ....Odd

Was wondering did they make all the wood frame L's before Oct 1904 , how many did they make ? all 300 like reports claim or 80 or less as Tom thought?????

P.S. I agree with you the low man on the totum pole usually gets no credit thou he is usually the one who comes up improvment ideas since he is more hands on.

Edited March 23, 2011 by JO BO (see edit history)