1895 



GLEANINGS IN BEE CULTURE. 



949 



should be used in nailing the frames. I do not 

 think there is any excuse for top-bars varying 

 iu width, although I may be mistaken. But if 

 they are cut true to an accurate size, and all 

 alike, I think — in fact, I am sure — your objec- 

 tion 10 the spacer will be overcome, and you 

 would then secure both fixed distance from cen- 

 ter to center and exact space between top-bars, 

 and I believe one is about as essential as the 

 other. The price of the spacers may seem high; 

 but that will be governed by the demand some- 

 what. When they become better known, and 

 there is more of a demand for them. I have no 

 doubt they can be manufactured and sold at a 

 lower price. 



If the end-bar were widened to I^^h, the same 

 as the top-bar, as you suggest, I doubt very 

 much whether you would find it any easier to 

 nail the frames true; and if the Stephens spacer 

 were to be used, the flanges (or wings) would 

 have to be shortened ^ all around, and the 

 inside lengthened h. in order to clasp the end- 

 bar. The space between the shoulders of the 

 spacers would then be less than i^^, and the bees 

 would fill it up with propolis — a thing certainly 

 to be avoided when possible. If the end-bar 

 were made narrower than one inch, the flanges 

 of the spacer would have to be correspondingly 

 lengthened, and would be liable to bend unless 

 made of heavier material, which would add to 

 the cost. So you see I settled on inch-wide end- 

 bars advisedly. 



I certainly feel flattered that you find no 

 worse fault with the Stephens spacer, and name 

 an objection that can be so easily remedied, not- 

 withstanding the fault lies elsewhere; but if 

 you were using them on your frames to any ex- 

 tent you would then know what a pleasure it is, 

 comparatively, to handle frames in a nine- 

 frame Dovetail hive, without that superfluous 

 piece of furniture called by courtesy a follower. 



Denison, Iowa, Oct. 28, 189,5. 



[Dr. Miller replies:] 

 In some respects I think the difference be- 

 tween us is one of words rather than ideas. I 

 admit that, with frames that are made perfect 

 in every respect, the Stephens spacer will not 

 only space correctly from center to center, but 

 will also leavetop-bars apartatexactdistances. 

 I so stated on page 775. I said, "One of these 

 will secure the other if all frames were made 

 exactly true," meaning the spacing from center 

 to center and the spacing between top-bars. 



I can not agree with you that it is as impor- 

 tant to have the right distance from center to 

 center as it is to have the right distance be- 

 tween top-bars. A variation of ^ of an inch in 

 the distance between top- bars would be likely 

 to make an appreciable difference as to the 

 amount of brace-combs, while a variation of ^ 

 from center to center would hardly make an 

 appreciable difference in any direction so long 

 as the distance between top-bars is kept exact. 



But what we have to do with in actual prac- 

 tice is frames that are not true in every respect. 

 At least that's what I've always had to do 

 with. I don't think I ever yet had as many as 

 a hundred frames in one lot that would give 

 exact distances between top-bars by applying 

 Stephens spacers. I doubt whether I ever shall 

 have, and 1 suspect that I have as true frames 

 as the majority. In such cases, you may lay 

 the blame where you like; the fact remains 

 that the Stephens spacer will not make as 

 good work in pr serving an exact space be- 

 tween two top-bars as a nail driven in to the 

 proper depth. 



I doubt if any better wood than pine is likely 

 to be used, and I think you are right in believ- 

 ing that the very best should be used, and not 

 poor stuff for the sake of using up scraps of 

 lumber. 



You are probably right in settling on an end- 

 bar 1 inch wide as best for the Stephens spacer. 

 But the same reason that makes tne want the 

 small space between top-bars makes me want 

 the small space between end-bars and bottom- 

 bars, although the latter is not so important. 

 So I want a spacer that will accommodate the 

 frames rather than to have frames to accom- 

 modate the spacer. At the same time I must 

 say that, with frames to suit them. I don't 

 know that any thing better than the Stephens 

 spacer is to be desired. 



You are right in saying that, with frames 

 exactly true, the Stephens spacer will secure 

 both correct distance from center to center, and 

 also between top-bars; but any other spacer 

 will do the same with such frames. 



The matter of price I did not take into con- 

 sideration, and It is not my place to meddle 

 with your business matters; but since you have 

 mentioned it — rather the editor first mentioned 

 it — it may not be out of place for me to ques- 

 tion the policy you have adopted, that of put- 

 ting on a patented article (and I believe in 

 patents) a higher price to be paid by those who 

 are first to see its merits and help to introduce 

 it, and then a lower price to others. If I had 

 confidence that an article would become stand- 

 ard, I think I would anticipate its popularity, 

 and make it help advertise itself by selling the 

 first at as low a price as I thought would rule 

 after being well introduced— somewhat on the 

 common principle of introduction prices, which 

 is only one form of advertising. But, as I in- 

 timated before, that's none of my business, and 

 you have a right to put what price you please 

 on your own goods. C. C. Miller. 



Marengo, 111. 



[I consider the Stephens a really good spacer. 

 Perhaps in the line of metal devices it is the 

 best. Although we illustrate it on page 418, 

 May 15th issue for last year, yet for the con- 

 venience of our newer readers we reproduce the 

 cut that then appeared.— Ed.] 



