Machine for reproducing sculpture, by Benjamin Cheverton, 1826
This machine, designed and used by Benjamin Cheverton, is of very considerable interest in the history of the mechanical reproduction of sculpture, which subject attracted the interest of a range of notable mechanicians during the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries - including James Watt, whose workshop is dominated by the pair of sculpture-copying machines which he constructed. This machine, which owes much to Isaac Hawkins who worked with Cheverton, surpasses Watt's machines, being more able to readily produce pieces 'in the round' and to under-cut, allowing it to manufacture pieces in the round, rather than copying medallions and other relatively two-dimensional pieces. This was due in large part to its novel design, placing both follower and cutter on a rigid yet flexible pivoting pantograph, and with an ingenious flexible drive to ensure that motion was always conveyed to the rotary cutter no matter its position. The machine would most likely have been treadle-operated in a similar way to contemporary lathes, and the rotation of both original and copy by exactly similar amounts was ensured by both being placed on two index-plates engaging with a single central pinion to ensure rotation was in the same direction.
Wooden trestle to support iron bed of sculpture copying machine by Benjamin Cheverton
Wooden trestle to support iron bed of sculpture copying machine by Benjamin Cheverton
Wooden trestle to support iron bed of sculpture copying machine by Benjamin Cheverton, 1826
More
This machine, designed and used by Benjamin Cheverton, is of very considerable interest in the history of the mechanical reproduction of sculpture, which subject attracted the interest of a range of notable mechanicians during the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries - including James Watt, whose workshop is dominated by the pair of sculpture-copying machines which he constructed. This machine, which owes much to Isaac Hawkins who worked with Cheverton, surpasses Watt's machines, being more able to readily produce pieces 'in the round' and to under-cut, allowing it to manufacture pieces in the round, rather than copying medallions and other relatively two-dimensional pieces. This was due in large part to its novel design, placing both follower and cutter on a rigid yet flexible pivoting pantograph, and with an ingenious flexible drive to ensure that motion was always conveyed to the rotary cutter no matter its position. The machine would most likely have been treadle-operated in a similar way to contemporary lathes, and the rotation of both original and copy by exactly similar amounts was ensured by both being placed on two index-plates engaging with a single central pinion to ensure rotation was in the same direction.
Iron bed for sculpture copying machine by Benjamin Cheverton
Iron bed for sculpture copying machine by Benjamin Cheverton
Iron bed for sculpture copying machine by Benjamin Cheverton, 1826
More
This machine, designed and used by Benjamin Cheverton, is of very considerable interest in the history of the mechanical reproduction of sculpture, which subject attracted the interest of a range of notable mechanicians during the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries - including James Watt, whose workshop is dominated by the pair of sculpture-copying machines which he constructed. This machine, which owes much to Isaac Hawkins who worked with Cheverton, surpasses Watt's machines, being more able to readily produce pieces 'in the round' and to under-cut, allowing it to manufacture pieces in the round, rather than copying medallions and other relatively two-dimensional pieces. This was due in large part to its novel design, placing both follower and cutter on a rigid yet flexible pivoting pantograph, and with an ingenious flexible drive to ensure that motion was always conveyed to the rotary cutter no matter its position. The machine would most likely have been treadle-operated in a similar way to contemporary lathes, and the rotation of both original and copy by exactly similar amounts was ensured by both being placed on two index-plates engaging with a single central pinion to ensure rotation was in the same direction.
Workpiece spindle with click plate, chuck and wooden platen
More
This machine, designed and used by Benjamin Cheverton, is of very considerable interest in the history of the mechanical reproduction of sculpture, which subject attracted the interest of a range of notable mechanicians during the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries - including James Watt, whose workshop is dominated by the pair of sculpture-copying machines which he constructed. This machine, which owes much to Isaac Hawkins who worked with Cheverton, surpasses Watt's machines, being more able to readily produce pieces 'in the round' and to under-cut, allowing it to manufacture pieces in the round, rather than copying medallions and other relatively two-dimensional pieces. This was due in large part to its novel design, placing both follower and cutter on a rigid yet flexible pivoting pantograph, and with an ingenious flexible drive to ensure that motion was always conveyed to the rotary cutter no matter its position. The machine would most likely have been treadle-operated in a similar way to contemporary lathes, and the rotation of both original and copy by exactly similar amounts was ensured by both being placed on two index-plates engaging with a single central pinion to ensure rotation was in the same direction.
This machine, designed and used by Benjamin Cheverton, is of very considerable interest in the history of the mechanical reproduction of sculpture, which subject attracted the interest of a range of notable mechanicians during the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries - including James Watt, whose workshop is dominated by the pair of sculpture-copying machines which he constructed. This machine, which owes much to Isaac Hawkins who worked with Cheverton, surpasses Watt's machines, being more able to readily produce pieces 'in the round' and to under-cut, allowing it to manufacture pieces in the round, rather than copying medallions and other relatively two-dimensional pieces. This was due in large part to its novel design, placing both follower and cutter on a rigid yet flexible pivoting pantograph, and with an ingenious flexible drive to ensure that motion was always conveyed to the rotary cutter no matter its position. The machine would most likely have been treadle-operated in a similar way to contemporary lathes, and the rotation of both original and copy by exactly similar amounts was ensured by both being placed on two index-plates engaging with a single central pinion to ensure rotation was in the same direction.
Pantograph with cutter and flexible drive and pulley frame
More
This machine, designed and used by Benjamin Cheverton, is of very considerable interest in the history of the mechanical reproduction of sculpture, which subject attracted the interest of a range of notable mechanicians during the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries - including James Watt, whose workshop is dominated by the pair of sculpture-copying machines which he constructed. This machine, which owes much to Isaac Hawkins who worked with Cheverton, surpasses Watt's machines, being more able to readily produce pieces 'in the round' and to under-cut, allowing it to manufacture pieces in the round, rather than copying medallions and other relatively two-dimensional pieces. This was due in large part to its novel design, placing both follower and cutter on a rigid yet flexible pivoting pantograph, and with an ingenious flexible drive to ensure that motion was always conveyed to the rotary cutter no matter its position. The machine would most likely have been treadle-operated in a similar way to contemporary lathes, and the rotation of both original and copy by exactly similar amounts was ensured by both being placed on two index-plates engaging with a single central pinion to ensure rotation was in the same direction.
Wooden gantry and piece of board of unknown purpose
More
This machine, designed and used by Benjamin Cheverton, is of very considerable interest in the history of the mechanical reproduction of sculpture, which subject attracted the interest of a range of notable mechanicians during the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries - including James Watt, whose workshop is dominated by the pair of sculpture-copying machines which he constructed. This machine, which owes much to Isaac Hawkins who worked with Cheverton, surpasses Watt's machines, being more able to readily produce pieces 'in the round' and to under-cut, allowing it to manufacture pieces in the round, rather than copying medallions and other relatively two-dimensional pieces. This was due in large part to its novel design, placing both follower and cutter on a rigid yet flexible pivoting pantograph, and with an ingenious flexible drive to ensure that motion was always conveyed to the rotary cutter no matter its position. The machine would most likely have been treadle-operated in a similar way to contemporary lathes, and the rotation of both original and copy by exactly similar amounts was ensured by both being placed on two index-plates engaging with a single central pinion to ensure rotation was in the same direction.
Collection of small items including weights and chuck plate
Small items: small chuck plate; two lead weights; boxwood probe broken into 3 pieces; steel tube (purpose unknown); alabaster workpiece
More
This machine, designed and used by Benjamin Cheverton, is of very considerable interest in the history of the mechanical reproduction of sculpture, which subject attracted the interest of a range of notable mechanicians during the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries - including James Watt, whose workshop is dominated by the pair of sculpture-copying machines which he constructed. This machine, which owes much to Isaac Hawkins who worked with Cheverton, surpasses Watt's machines, being more able to readily produce pieces 'in the round' and to under-cut, allowing it to manufacture pieces in the round, rather than copying medallions and other relatively two-dimensional pieces. This was due in large part to its novel design, placing both follower and cutter on a rigid yet flexible pivoting pantograph, and with an ingenious flexible drive to ensure that motion was always conveyed to the rotary cutter no matter its position. The machine would most likely have been treadle-operated in a similar way to contemporary lathes, and the rotation of both original and copy by exactly similar amounts was ensured by both being placed on two index-plates engaging with a single central pinion to ensure rotation was in the same direction.
Large plaster bust of Diomedes and small reproduction on alabaster rock and wooden chucking piece
More
This machine, designed and used by Benjamin Cheverton, is of very considerable interest in the history of the mechanical reproduction of sculpture, which subject attracted the interest of a range of notable mechanicians during the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries - including James Watt, whose workshop is dominated by the pair of sculpture-copying machines which he constructed. This machine, which owes much to Isaac Hawkins who worked with Cheverton, surpasses Watt's machines, being more able to readily produce pieces 'in the round' and to under-cut, allowing it to manufacture pieces in the round, rather than copying medallions and other relatively two-dimensional pieces. This was due in large part to its novel design, placing both follower and cutter on a rigid yet flexible pivoting pantograph, and with an ingenious flexible drive to ensure that motion was always conveyed to the rotary cutter no matter its position. The machine would most likely have been treadle-operated in a similar way to contemporary lathes, and the rotation of both original and copy by exactly similar amounts was ensured by both being placed on two index-plates engaging with a single central pinion to ensure rotation was in the same direction.
Vertical wooden machine support with one steel bracket (connects to /1 trestle). Probably not original
More
This machine, designed and used by Benjamin Cheverton, is of very considerable interest in the history of the mechanical reproduction of sculpture, which subject attracted the interest of a range of notable mechanicians during the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries - including James Watt, whose workshop is dominated by the pair of sculpture-copying machines which he constructed. This machine, which owes much to Isaac Hawkins who worked with Cheverton, surpasses Watt's machines, being more able to readily produce pieces 'in the round' and to under-cut, allowing it to manufacture pieces in the round, rather than copying medallions and other relatively two-dimensional pieces. This was due in large part to its novel design, placing both follower and cutter on a rigid yet flexible pivoting pantograph, and with an ingenious flexible drive to ensure that motion was always conveyed to the rotary cutter no matter its position. The machine would most likely have been treadle-operated in a similar way to contemporary lathes, and the rotation of both original and copy by exactly similar amounts was ensured by both being placed on two index-plates engaging with a single central pinion to ensure rotation was in the same direction.
Cutters, feeler probes for tracing on master sculpture and spanners for machine assembly and adjustment
Cutters, feeler probes for tracing on master sculpture and spanners for machine assembly and adjustment, mounted in fitment tray
More
This machine, designed and used by Benjamin Cheverton, is of very considerable interest in the history of the mechanical reproduction of sculpture, which subject attracted the interest of a range of notable mechanicians during the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries - including James Watt, whose workshop is dominated by the pair of sculpture-copying machines which he constructed. This machine, which owes much to Isaac Hawkins who worked with Cheverton, surpasses Watt's machines, being more able to readily produce pieces 'in the round' and to under-cut, allowing it to manufacture pieces in the round, rather than copying medallions and other relatively two-dimensional pieces. This was due in large part to its novel design, placing both follower and cutter on a rigid yet flexible pivoting pantograph, and with an ingenious flexible drive to ensure that motion was always conveyed to the rotary cutter no matter its position. The machine would most likely have been treadle-operated in a similar way to contemporary lathes, and the rotation of both original and copy by exactly similar amounts was ensured by both being placed on two index-plates engaging with a single central pinion to ensure rotation was in the same direction.
This image is released under a 
