of String Binders at Derby. 
295 
13. Weight. 
14. Cost. 
15. Adaptation for English Farms. 
16. Quality, Strength, and Cost of binding materials. 
17. Security of knot. 
18. EfiBciency in Binding Wheat. Perfection valued at 100 points. 
19. „ „ Barley. „ 100 „ 
20. „ „ Oats. „ 100 „ 
21. „ „ Beans. „ 50 „ 
It will be seen by a reference to the above, that the trial w^as 
confined to a comparison of the binding mechanism of different 
machines, whether such was a part of or separate from cutting 
machines. As a matter of fact only one separate binder was 
brought to trial out of several that were shown at Derby. The 
Judges, in making their awards, had not, therefore, to consider 
any points of merit in reference to motion and action prior to 
the delivery of the corn upon the binding platform ; a fact 
which, if it had been duly considered by those who reported for 
the newspapers, might have led them to take a less unfavourable 
view of the verdict arrived at. 
Out of the twenty machines that were exhibited at Derby, the 
following were present : — 
No. 1. Samuelson and Co., 4491. 
No. 2. W. A. Wood, 4556. 
No. 3. The Johnston Harvester Company, 4183. 
No. 4. McCormick Harvesting Machine Company, 4400. 
No. 5. J. and F. Howard, 4412. 
No. 6. Aultman and Co., 4547. 
No. 7. H. J. H. King, 4554. 
No. 8. Notts Fork and Implement Company, 4550. 
With the exception of the last, which was a solitary example 
of a binder separated from a reaping machine, the above cut 
their preliminary lots of oats in the order named. The crop 
was light, upstanding, and variable, but offering very favourable 
conditions for good work ; indeed, any mechanism that could 
not deal with such a crop in a satisfactory manner was quite 
useless for ordinary work. 
1. Samuelson. — Good delivery, clean and well separated, two stoppages 
from string breakings. Considerable loss from shedding of grain partly from 
too rapid revolution of fans and partly from undue pressure between the 
elevating aprons. Sheaves well formed, fairly uniform as to size, with good 
square butts. 
2. W. A. Wood. — Missed tying 37 sheaves in half an acre, delivery of 
sheaves occasionally assisted by attendant. 
3. Johnston Harvester Company. — Once choked. One sheaf untied, 
one sheaf helped off by attendant. Sheaves caught together three times, 
separation not quite perfect, and corn not laid quite evenly in the sheaf. 
4. McCormick. — Excellent delivery ; missed tying one sheaf in de- 
