3, Guildford Place, Russel Square
W.C. -
June 3d 1861
Sir,
Mr. Hogarth <1> has communicated to me your note of June 1st, <2> the contents of which - I must confess - are quite unexpected to me.
I think your objection originates only in a mistake or misunderstanding. I myself - and I am not doubted Messrs Hogarth and Dupasquier <3> also - do wish to form a Company for the purpose of working my two processes <4> for intaglio and surface printing, - or as you express yourself "to confine ourselves to that modification which I consider peculiarly my own." That there might be introduced in future some improvements and addition, appears quite naturally, but of course it is also perfectly clear, that by doing so, we are not entitled and willingly to trespass any of your patent rights. <5>
I can only join Mr. Hogarth in expressing my conviction that a personal interview would easely remove all doubts and mistakes. -
In the hopes of hearing very soon again from you, permit me to remain Sir Your obedt. Servt.
Paul Pretsch
H. Fox Talbot Esq.
Notes:
1. Joseph Hogarth (b. 1802, London printseller.
2. Not traced, but evidently in reply to Doc. No: 08409 from Hogarth and declining to join the proposed photographic-engraving company.
3. Apparently the legal adviser to the proposed company. See Doc. No: 08415.
4. Pretsch had patented a process for intaglio photographic engraving [ Producing Copper and Other Plates for Printing, No. 2373, 9 November 1854, and Application of Certain Designs Obtained on Metallic Surfaces by Photographic and Other Agencies, No. 1824, 11 August 1855], and subsequently developed a process for typographic printing - see Doc. No: 08342. [See H. J. P. Arnold, William Henry Fox Talbot: Pioneer of Photography and Man of Science (London: Hutchinson Benham, 1977), pp. 289-90].
5. Talbot considered that Pretsch's patent infringed his own [ Improvements in Photographic Engraving, of 1852] insofar as Pretsch's too used gelatine and potassium bichromate. The dispute was never resolved.