The 'first' inch dumbell

[Roark]

Thomas Inch usually indicated that his first thick

handled bell (the 140 it turns out) was a mistake

made by the foundry. Here are some lines from

H&S July 1952, written by W.A. Pullum:

Please note that I added the capital letters for

emphasis:

The context is before Inch left Scarborough to

go to London, circa the turn of the last century.

"He commissioned a local foundry to cast him a

solid THICK-HANDLED dumbell, giving HIS OWN

SPECIFICATIONS AS TO SIZE AND WEIGHT. In

due course he was informed that the job was done

and invited to come and see it. He went and was

chagrined to find that he couldn't lift it. It had run

quite a bit heavier than anticipated, which, with the

thickness of the grip, made it impossible to lift with

one hand even one inch from the ground."

Inch then suggested that the bells be made smaller

to reduce its weight, but the foundry man said that

could not very well be done, and he suggested to

reduce the diameter of the handle "...to get over the

difficulty that way, but to this he was not agreeable,

AS IT WAS EXACTLY THE THICKNESS HE WANTED."

Inch continued working with this 140 lb dumbell, and

about a year later "...he could raise the bell in one

straight pick up to 'end on' rest at top of the thigh,

from where, to take it to the shoulder was easy, and

to put it then overhead, easier still."

There was no clean involved at this point, but a

Continental was used.

The search continues.

[Tom Black]

It is perplexing that Inch would choose to be a "revisionist" on this point.  I wonder why would he state later that the handle thickness was a selection of the foundry, when he ordered the thickness himself?  I wonder if the answer may be that he was trying to lay claim to the "discovery" of thick handles as a hand strength developer.  If he had commissioned this thickness, however, it might have appeared that he was, like most of us now, merely copying the idea from someone else.   Joe, do you have an interpretation of this, or would you rather stick with the facts?  Of course, this is Pullum's retelling, perhaps he was in error.

[Roark]

Tom,

If the issue comes down to Inch's general accuracy

vs Pullum's, my money goes on Pullum.

I do not have an interpretation yet, but it seems to

me that Inch's positions regarding his dumbell change

more often than a wedding dress belonging to the

star pupil at Weight Watchers.

Pullum's reference to this is the only time I have seen

it in print, and he adds the very significant fact that

this inaugural thick handled dumbell weighed about

140 (which is what I have suspected for several weeks).

So this is the bell he brought to London, and at that

time met Saxon. Does anyone on the board believe that

Saxon could not have lifted the 140?

In fairness to Inch, although several people tried to credit

him with inventing plate barbells, he acknowledged that

he may have helped popularize them, but that he had

seen them a decade before then, and so certainly did

not invent them. So I doubt that he was trying to posi-

tion himself as the creator of thick handled bells, which

had been in use by the stage strongmen before Inch,

plus if he took that position, he would have had to rewrite

many of the stories he told about the handle size coming

from the foundry accidentally.

No wonder Inch was so good on the bent press-

he showed much flexibility, even in his story-telling.