Ever notice certain dimple systems stagger dimples off the centerline? That choice helps manage torque feedback and anti-bump inertia while keeping fingertip ergonomics clean; I’ve seen specs calling for a 0.3 mm offset — does anyone recall the earliest patent for that layout, possibly a late-80s Spanish design?
That 0.3 mm offset shows up in TESA’s late-80s ES filings; Kaba’s mid-80s angled-row claims might predate it, so “earliest” depends on how you define the layout. > recall the earliest patent for that layout, possibly a late-80s Spanish design? I’d check Espacenet with IPC E05B, applicant “TESA, S.A.”, 1986–1992, then filter for “dimple” in title/abstract: https://worldwide.espacenet.com/ — did MCM have one slightly earlier?
But , I’ve always figured that 0.3 mm offset also keeps enough web between opposing pin bores on skinny euro blades, which helps wear and the ‘clean’ fingertip feel you mention. If you’re chasing the earliest Spanish filing, try OEPM’s search (E05B + “alojamientos desplazados”) and filter 1987–1990; I remember a UCEM/FAC utility model citing staggered dimples to avoid intersecting bores, but I could be off. @rachelb265 does that line up with what you’ve seen, or was it more like an Astral-era drawing?
I’ve had luck tracking the Spanish origin by searching Espacenet for the claim phrase “fila desplazada” and filtering to ’86–’90; it pulls an ES family where the drawings show the stagger used to tame torque kick and bump inertia. If you count angled-row concepts as the same “layout,” some Swiss filings creep earlier, so definition matters. @OP, if you try that search on https://worldwide.espacenet.com/ and get a different hit, I’m curious which assignee pops first.