1883 



GLEANINGS IN BEE CULTUEE. 



523 



patent, which was applied for in January, was issued. 

 These hives were 14^8 inches from front to rear, and 

 181^ from side to side. Early in 1853 my hives were 

 made in Greenfield, Mass., and the first edition of 

 my book on the " Hive and Honey-Bee " was pub- 

 lished in May of that year. The present size of 

 hives, 18 Jb from front to rear, 14)8 from side to side, 

 and 10 inches deep, was then adopted. The dimen- 

 BioDS, 18^^ from front to rear, and 10 inches deep, 

 have never been changed; but that from side to 

 side may vary according to the number of frames, 

 some preferring 8, some 10, and some even more. I 

 am correctly quoted as having said, in the American 

 Bee Journal, in reply to an inquiry, "Considering the 

 accuracy which may be obtained in making the 

 frames stiff and perfectly square, I prefer the Root 

 and Newman measurements." What I meant was, 

 that frames could be made so stiff and square as to 

 allow of their being 14 of an inch longer than the old 

 standard size, and that the % inch (instead of Pg) still 

 left between the uprights of the frames and the 

 front and rear walls of the hive, gave all the room 

 needed for their proper manipulation. It never oc- 

 curred to me that any one could possibly suppose 

 that I meant that my frames could be improveO in 

 squareness or stiffness by making them only Jith of 

 an inch longer! I then thought that it was quite a 

 desirable point to gain this J^th inch, as in ten frames 

 It gave an increase of comb surface enough for rear- 

 ing over 1100 bees. 



As such large operators as fleddon. Root, and 

 Baldridge, insist that % of an inch space between 

 uprights of frames and hive is the least that can be 

 safely allowed; and as hives are not unfrequently 

 made, even by good workmen, which vary a little 

 from the true dimensions, and further, as some 

 kinds of lumber are badly affected by variations in 

 the weather, I am now of opinion that % is better 

 then Mth. 



Considering the frequency and severity of my at- 

 tacks of head troubles, which not only prevent me 

 from taking any interest in bee matters, but which 

 render any thought upon such subjects both painful 

 and dangerous, it will not seem surprising that it is 

 only within a few weeks that I have learned that the 

 change in the size of the standard L. frame was 

 made to carry with it a chmuje in the size of the 

 standard L. hive! I have no recollection of ever 

 having read the article to which Mr. Baldridge 

 thinks I ought to have responded, until I saw his 

 reference to it in the A. B. J. of August 8th, or I 

 should before this not only have corrected his mis. 

 understanding of the reason I gave for preferring 

 that extra >4 inch, but should have expressed my 

 deep regret that the size of the standard L. hive had 

 been changed; not that slight changes in frame and 

 hive are of any special importance, except as they 

 interfere to any extent with the cardinal principle, 

 that any L. frame ought to fit in every L. hive. 

 Even after I ceased to;. use the double glass walls, 

 the fractional 's was retained to prevent confusion 

 by departing even to so small an extent from the 

 size then so widely disseminated. It is, however, 

 very easy to exaggerate the inconveniences which 

 have resulted from these slight variations. One 

 will contend that the standard L. frame can not be 

 used in the Root and Newman L. hive, and many 

 will actually prefer that size of hive for them, as 

 giving more room for the safe and rapid handling of 

 frames. If both hives and frames are very carefully 

 made, I find np trouble in using the R, and N. f ram e 



in the standard L. hive. The great length of the 

 top-bar of the L. frame enables me, after removing 

 one frame from the hive, to take out the others with 



great ease, thus: When ; 1 



frame (1) is lifted out, 

 the end (C) of frame (3) is p 

 drawn toward the opera- "' 

 tor, without any lifting, until the angle is largo 

 enough to remove it without danger of hitting the 

 sides of the hive; so in replacing it the end (3) is first 

 put on the rabbet, and (C) can then be moved readily 

 to its place. The long leverage of the L. frames 

 greatly favors such manipulations. I would say 

 here, that a variation of only H from front to rear, 

 if It is on the side of making the hive smaller (say 

 only 18 inches), is, for divers reasons, a much more 

 serious matter than the extra ^ inch; for in such 

 hives it is well nigh impossible to have any free 

 manipulation of the longer frames. I am using in 

 my own apiary the Root size of frame in the stand- 

 ard L. hive, and find no trouble at all in doing so. I 

 would even prefer, with hives and frames made as 

 accurately as they should be, Ji inch space, manipu- 

 lating in the manner above described, to V2 inch, if 

 the frames had to be squarely lifted out. 



The conclusion of the whole matter seems to me 

 to be this: The standard L. hive is ISis inches from 

 front to rear, and ten inches deep, all in the clear, 

 and the standard L. frame is 17?$, and not 17%; and 

 I advise all who make new hives, if they can do so 

 without too much loss, not to vary at all from these 

 measurements. I certainly h»ve no right to de- 

 mand that the parties who are using the extra hi 

 inch, both for hive and frame, should return to the 

 old standard; but I hope that, instead of calling 

 their hives the standard L. hives, they will call them 

 the Root L. hives, as Mr. Root first used the extra J4 

 inch. I presume that Messrs. Root and Newman, 

 and other hive-makers, if not willing to return to 

 the standard L., will have no objections to filling or- 

 ders for Simplicity, chaff, or other styles of hives of 

 the L. standard size. 



Intending in another article to give in detail my 

 reasons for adopting my standard size of frame, I 

 will close by saying that I no more claim perfection 

 for it now than I did in 1853. when in the full gush of 

 enthusiasm over an invention which I hoped would 

 revolutionize practical bee-keeping. 



L. L. Langstroth. 



Oxford, Ohio, August, 1883. 



Many thanks, friend L., for the valuable 

 facts you give us in the above. I suppose 

 our friends will, of course, give us credit for 

 having good sense enough in this matter to 

 avoid oeing tenacious of any peculiar views 

 and opinions we may have in regard to the 

 size of hives and frames. So far as I am 

 concerned, I would just as soon the frame 

 should be 17| as 17| with the exception of 

 this matter of having the standard frame 

 contain 8 one-pound boxes. Aside from 

 that, I know of no objections to a change, 

 except the number of hives and frames al- 

 ready in use, made to pretty exact measure- 

 ments. In 1873 it seemed to me too bad that 

 we should have such a sea of differences in 

 sizes of frames and hives, with no two alike. 

 And in order to try to start a system of reg- 

 ular sizes, I made the five illustrations which 

 you all doubtless remember have been in our 

 price list all these years. Before deciding 

 on the size of a Langstroth frame, I sent to 



