Springfield Vermont Wood Doll Manufacturers

( Please ntoe that I will add photos of many of these interesting dolls when I can figure out how to do so!)

Although the wooden dolls made by the 19th century Springfield Vermont dollmakers cannot claim the same degree of variety in the sculptural portrayals of their doll heads, such as Schoenhut in the later years was able, they are nonetheless superb examples of commercial doll making, and illustrate the fine Yankee ingenuity and ability to combine expertise in creativity and use of available excellent quality resources.

Joel Ellis created a doll whose face is indeed a portrait of the traditional New England model of graceful simplicity – a quiet composed and simple beauty that now transports us to a long ago time.

Yet we may forget the technological challenges and triumphs so benignly represented in this little rendition of humanity.


Joel Addison Hartley Ellis is the originator of America’s first commercial wooden doll, and he had one of the first commercial doll manufacturing companies in America, the Co-operative Manufacturing Company, whose work was done on the premises of the Vermont Novelty Goods Company. As a young man. he bought a timber tract on the Black River, near Springfield, and entered into a partnership in 1856 with Rodney G. Britton and Ellis M. Eaton (possibly a relative) to make children’s go-carts, violin cases, and other toys in a woodworking concern. He had a genius for invention, patented 13 different articles, among them a steam shovel, a baby carriage or cab, for which he was nicknamed Cab Ellis, and the Joel Ellis doll.

The 1869 price list of Ellis, Britton and Eaton advertised that their toys were manufactured in Springfield Vermont and distributed by Ellis (another relative?) and Jaquays in New York City. They list flat top china doll heads and the precursor of the Vermont doll- an “imitation china head with wooden limbs”, which resembles the later all- wood Co-operative Manufacturing Co. heads. Of these imitation china heads, the larger has 6 sew holes and the smaller 4. Garters with bows were painted on the wooden legs.

After a disastrous flood in 1869, a new Ellis company was started and soon turned to the manufacture of wooden dolls. The first Ellis dolls of 1871 had pewter heads and feet. There was only one style of head and body available.

The doll embodies many technical innovations. Its unique mortise and tenon construction allow a complete range of movement. Molded of rock hard rock maple, an extinct type of hardwood prevalent in New England at that time, molding and finishing must have demanded great skill. The design and construction proves excellent technical skill. Not only ingeniously built, it is well proportioned and gracefully elegant. The articulated joints work with uncommon ease. The metal hands and feet are gracefully shaped. It is a most sophisticated doll figure.

On February 21, 1873, Joel A.H. Ellis of Springfield Vermont, filed application for a patent of Doll Joints, which was granted May 20, 1873. Joel Ellis operated the Co-Operative Manufacturing Company in Springfield Vermont from 1873 to 1874. He employed about 60 people, most of whom were women. The features, eyes, and hair were painted by the women, notably by 2 cousins of Joel Ellis, the Misses Woodbury, who became painters of miniatures. The assembly of the dolls and much other work was also done by women.

The heads and bodies of the Joel Ellis Dolls were of hard green rock maple wood, steamed until softened. First cut into cubes of end-of-the-grain rock maple, then steamed til softened, the heads were compressed and shaped in a hydraulic press with steel dyes to form the features, and the bodies were turned on a lathe. The hairdo was a prim 1860’s style, and painted either black or blond. They were available in 12, 15 and 18” sizes. They were sold undressed, and often were played with in that way. This acceptance of a naked female form as an approved vehicle for children’s play was certainly unique in Victorian mores. It has been noted that they were originally available for 75 cents- an expensive doll at that time. Wholesale prices were dependent upon size, 9.00, 10.50 and 13.50 dozen. The dolls were displayed at the 1873 Vienna Exhibition.

In the 1873 depression, Ellis dolls were not ordered in sufficient quantity to warrant manufacture after the fall season. Unfortunately these dolls were manufactured for only one year. In fact no more were ever made, although Ellis continued to make other toys, mainly wooden furniture items.

When Joel Ellis abandoned dollmaking, several of his friends and fellow townsmen took up the dollmaking challenge. Because the relationship between these men is complex, it is difficult to determine manufacture of a particular doll at this late point in their history.

Dexter Martin and Son Frank D. Martin owned and operated the Jointed Doll Company in North Springfield Vermont , where they were making wooden dolls as early as 1874. Martin was listed as making dolls in 1878, but the date of the company appeared in directories only from 1879-81.

In 1878, Frank D. Martin applied for a patent for ball and socket joints secured by rivets, and Martin Dolls, patent granted in April 29, 1879, are the most rare to find in their pure form.

The patent calls for “improvement in dolls” and proves to be an invention whereby “the upper part of the arms that fit into the socket of the shoulder is held in place position by means of an elastic or spiral spring passing transversely through the top of the trunk from shoulder to shoulder”. The patent illustrates the improvement clearly. Some sources say this doll had an immovable head, however, Coleman’s notes the dolls- in 12” size was advertised as having jointed neck, shoulders, and elbows, hips and knees. Dolls were usually 12”, but are known to have been made as large as 18”. The painting of the head was “warranted” not to wash off; they were priced $7.00 dozen wholesale for the 12” size. They also advertised a jointed doll with an elastic body designed to fit all heads of American manufacture.

A doll reportedly of this company has a black band around the waist inscribed with “Improved jointed Doll patent April 29, 79, Dec. 7, 80, and November 7, 82.” the 1880 Us patent was obtained by George W. Sanders and the 1882 patent by Charles C. Johnson. The Johnson patent was for a head of molded “plastic” (composition) material over a wooden core – which is similar to the 1881 patent of Mason and Taylor dolls.


On November 1, 1880 George Sanders also of Springfield Vermont, who apparently took over the Ellis factory, evidence pointing toward the suspension of doll making there in 1874, applied for a patent for the improvement of the joining of the Ellis doll.

Sanders changed the joint and made it less expensive to manufacture, although just as firm. From that time on, it seems all these dolls have Sanders joints. It is interesting to note that the Sanders patent calls only for a “joint for doll”.

Still another doll in the Springfield Vermont consortium or group classification is the one known as the Mason-Taylor doll.

Henry Hubbard Mason became a partner in D.M. Smith and Co. in 1852. About 1879, the D.M. Smith Co began to make jointed wooden dolls. probably Mason was the member of this firm who was most interested in the manufacturing of dolls.

The patent was taken out on May 31, 1881 by H. H. Mason and Luke W. Taylor. This patent was for an improvement in the “construction of dolls’, for their head and neck joint. The head was made of molded “plastic” , (composition) over a wooden base.

One type was the so-called witch or wizard doll, which had a three pronged rotary member in the neck which engages with a slotted piece in the head. When a knife is passed through the joint, the engaging prong is pushed around, disappearing into the lower half of the neck, and a second prong springs up, engaging the head before the first prong is released. the knife follows the first prong and precedes the following prong as it passes through the head. The heads were Johnson type, and had Asian features, jointed only at the shoulders and hips, with metal feet of molded flat, turned –up-toed slippers in the oriental style. 10”. It was clothed in a simple robe kimono-robe. Most of these dolls were exported to Japan, where the decapitation feature was a successful novelty. This was the only doll sold clothed of all of the Springfield Vermont dolls.

The Mason and Taylor dolls were made of poplar instead of hard maple, and the bodies were turned on a lathe which the two men invented.

The arms and legs were of rock maple or beech, and evidently attached by dowel pins or wire. The interesting feature of this patent is that it calls for a “composition head that revolves, and a modern cylindrical device to unite the head with no added outside neck or collar , through the shoulders, fixed with a pin, so that it revolves”. The hands and feet, with molded shoes were of lead or pewter, except for a very few early ones having wooden spoon carved hands. Earlier dolls had wooden pins to fasten the hip joints, but later ones had steel screws. A few china or papier mache heads may have been tried prior to the composition ones being used.

The composition heads were of a doughy paste of glue, rosin, plaster of paris, etc., molded in a two-part mold. The feet were painted blue usually, and the head and shoulders were dipped in light flesh colored paint, with some black dolls being made. Only size 12” have been reported.

No hard proof has yet come to light of any business ties between the Mason dolls and those of the Jointed Doll Company, other than the great similarity of construction. The Mason and Taylor dolls appear to have been made on the premises of D.M. Smith and Co.
Around 1885, Mason may have severed connections with D.M. Smith and CO. as both were listed as doll makers in that year. Smith was not listed as a dollmaker after 1886, but H.H. Mason continued with a doll listing through 1893.

On November 7, 1882, C.C. Johnson of the same town, took out a patent for “an improvement in doll’s heads”. This improvement calls for a head to be constructed on a wooden foundation and then covered with a material from which the facial features could be molded, thus making a light and inexpensive doll’s head. A distinguishing feature from the Ellis doll, is this doll’s comparatively long neck.

Mrs. John M. Pierce of Springfield Vermont studied these dolls back in the 1930’s and 40’s , and published an article in the October 1942 issue of The Magazine Antique. She had been able to interview workers at the doll manufacturing works, as well as some relatives of those involved.
She noted :
“You would think the patents speak for themselves- but it so happens that the makers, none of whom , of course, ever dreamed that they were not doing the right thing for posterity, borrowed each others ideas and therefore these dolls combine patents.”

In part, the article by Mrs. Pierce noted:

“One of the puzzles which confront doll collectors is the classification of the jointed wooden dolls of Springfield, Vermont 1870-1880’s. My findings are based upon patent specifications and town history, existent annual catalogs of toy shops, reminiscences of old timers and examinations of all the old dolls we could buy or borrow.
After the fire of 1878 a number of novelty makers gathered into one large "bee-hive" a few rods down the Black River and made their various specialties . It was here that the later wooden dolls were turned out. Among these men were Henry Mason, and inventor and associate in the original company; Luke Taylor, an extraordinary craftsman, George Sanders, furniture dealer, undertaker, and cabinet maker; C.C. Johnson, who also had Yankee inventiveness, and Frank Martin, who had a little boxmaking shop in North Springfield. Each of these men later patented some feature of a wooden doll bit there is no doll which is completely Sanders or Martin or Mason-Taylor or Johnson even though all Jpel Ellis dolls are traditionally called “Mason Dolls” in Springfield.
An improvement of the half-lapped joint was patented in 1880 by G, Sanders.
All the dolls manufactured after that date have the Sanders joint improvement, which accounts for the scarcity of the Martin Joint.
In 1881 the first of the Springfield patents for a moveable head was granted Henry Martin and Luke Taylor.
A distinctive feature was a hole longitudinally bored through the dowel of the neck “for the admission of air to dry the interior of the head”. We may deduce that the heads were at least partially hollow. The composition was probably papier-mache. We have seen only one head with a bored dowel. The Johnson head soon made this unnecessary.
In 1882 C.C. Johnson was granted a patent for a doll head consisting of a layer of composition molded around a core of wood. Most of the Mason-Taylor dolls are equipped with this distinctive Johnson head.
Generally the Johnson head has a parted hairdo, with the hair springing from the part. There are some few boys and we know of 2 baby heads.
All Springfield dolls, after Ellis, left the factory with a narrow black paper band around the waist. On these bands were printed various patent dates. Comparing the dates on the bands with the patent dates themselves, it would be logical to deduce that the band dated 1879 means the doll is a Martin doll – but that method is fallible. Even if the date of the Martin patent is present in conjunction with the other dates, unless the distinctive Martin joints or the distinctive spring shoulder fastening is present, it is not a Martin Doll.”

According to the summary which Mrs. Piece gives in this highly illuminating article, the following points will prove a great aid in classification:
1- The Martin patent was for hemispherical joints and spring shoulder fastenings
2- The sanders patent was for the ball-socket mortised joints
3- The Mason -Taylor patent was for the moveable neck joint
4- The Johnson patent was for the composition head on a wooden core
5- Most of the latter dolls combine these last three features.
6- Most Joel Ellis dolls have black feet- and most others have blue- some Martin dolls had black feet.
7- Joel Ellis manufactured a black doll, which had the same features as it's white counterparts. “


Joel Ellis and the other Springfield dolls tend to age poorly. They are particularly prone to peeling and flaking of paint. Ellis used the slot-formed joint that resembles a fork, and the joints were evidently not heavy enough to withstand the torque of play, as the dolls often shed arms and legs.

As a result, collectors are very tolerant of worn or age stricken dolls, The desirability tests are the dolls design elements and historical significance rather than any artistic decoration. Values for the Joel Ellis doll are within the 1200- 2500 range, dependant upon size and relative condition.

When examining these dolls, not only is one struck by the mood of stoic acceptance which permeates the facial features (or what is left of them, in itself an example of stoic acceptance) but the contrast of that with the wonderment of the
technological evidence of the finely wrought wooden figures is true testimony to the creativity of Yankee ingenuity that withstands the test of time.


Reference Sources

1- More About Dolls by Janet Johl, published 1946
2- Still More About Dolls by Janet Johl, published 1950
3- American Doll by Ruth Freeman, pub 1952
4- The Collectors Encyclopedia of Dolls, Vols I & II, by Colemans, pub 1974, 1986
5- 200 Years of Dolls by Dawn Herlocher, pub 2002
6- “Magazine Antiques” – October 1942
7- Old Dolls by Eleanor St. George 1950