About the Research

Sources, Method and Scope

Purpose of This Project

This project was initiated to document the technological and industrial origins of the permanent wave using primary historical sources.

Many summaries of early hair waving rely on repeated narratives. The aim here is different: to reconstruct development based on verifiable documentation.

The focus is on evidence.

Primary Sources

The research is based on publicly accessible and archival material, including:

International patent filings (United Kingdom, United States, France, Austria, Switzerland, Germany)
Priority dates confirming chronological development
London incorporation records (Board of Trade, BT 31 series)
Later industrial filings under the Nestle Lemur Company

Where available, patent family data was used to trace cross-border protection and technical progression.

Chronological Scope

The documented period currently covers:

1902 – Early cosmetic and hair-related patents
1909 – Priority filings for permanent waving processes
1912 – London incorporation of Nestle and Company Ltd.
1926–1950 – Industrial expansion and electrical integration phase

The emphasis lies on technological development and industrial scaling rather than anecdotal biography.

Methodology

All referenced patents are traceable through international patent databases.

Archival company records are held by The National Archives (UK) and are cited by reference number where applicable.

Dates are derived from priority filings to ensure accurate chronological sequencing.

No speculative claims have been included.

Ongoing Research

Archival research remains ongoing. As additional documentation becomes available, the timeline and references will be updated accordingly.

This platform is intended as a structured and evolving documentation of the industrial development of the permanent wave.

Clarification

The “Nestle” and “Nestle-Lemur Company” references in this project relate exclusively to historical manufacturers of hair waving equipment and are unrelated to Nestlé S.A., the Swiss food corporation.

Corporate Structure – The Nestle-Lemur Company (1930)

In addition to advertising material and product packaging, archival corporate documents confirm the formal incorporation of The Nestle-Lemur Company in the United States.

A stock certificate dated April 2, 1930 states that the company was incorporated under the laws of the State of Ohio. The document lists:

440,000 authorized shares
200,000 Class A shares
240,000 Class B shares
Shares issued without par value

The certificate also notes that transfers could be registered either in Cleveland, Ohio or in New York, N.Y., indicating operational activity across both locations.

This structure suggests that The Nestle-Lemur Company was not a small local salon enterprise, but a formally organised corporation with a defined capital structure and multi-state presence.

The 1930 incorporation date places the company in the middle of the interwar period, following earlier advertising references to Nestle permanent waving systems and preceding the licensed salon network promoted in the mid-1930s.

Together with contemporary advertisements and product packaging, the stock certificate provides documented evidence of a structured corporate entity operating under the Nestle-Lemur name in the American haircare industry.

Further archival research is required to determine the full corporate continuity between earlier entities using the Nestle name and this Ohio-incorporated company.

Archival Evidence – Nestle Haircare in the United States

Research into the history of the Nestle name in American haircare goes beyond permanent wave machines and patents.

A bottle of “Nestle Mother’s Darling Shampoo” is preserved today in the collection of the
National Museum of American History in Washington, D.C.

The product was marketed as a gentle, soap-free shampoo that would not irritate the eyes. It was produced in New York and labelled “Nestle Inc., NY.”

This museum record shows that the Nestle name was used in the United States not only for permanent waving systems in the 1920s and 1930s, but also for consumer haircare products in the mid-20th century.

While further research is needed to fully understand the corporate connections between the different companies operating under the Nestle name, the Smithsonian object provides clear historical evidence that the brand was active in the American haircare market.

This forms part of the broader investigation into the development of permanent waving and related haircare technologies during the twentieth century.

A Permanent Wave in Court – New York, 1922

By the early 1920s, permanent waving was already established enough to become a matter for legal dispute.

On May 25, 1922, The New York Times reported on a case heard at the Fourth District Municipal Court in New York. A woman named Miss Elsie Knox sued a salon owner for a refund of $20, arguing that her “permanent” wave, completed on April 19, had completely disappeared by May 1.

After examining her hair in court and finding no visible wave, the judge ruled in her favor.

The case illustrates how quickly the permanent wave became not merely a technical innovation, but a commercial service with clear expectations of durability and quality.

Source:
The New York Times, “Her Permanent Wave: Plaintiff Shows Blonde Locks to Court Who Orders Refund,” May 25, 1922.
https://www.nytimes.com/1922/05/25/archives/her-permanent-wave-plaintiff-shows-blonde-locks-to-court-who-orders.html

1925: The Beauty Industry in Numbers (New York Times, 1926)

In a report presented at the Master Hairdressers’ Association of America convention, Charles Nessler quantified the size of the beauty industry in the United States.

According to The New York Times (March 9, 1926), approximately 60 million women and children patronized beauty parlors in the U.S. during the previous year, spending an estimated $390,000,000 in total.

Delegates at the convention came from across the United States, as well as from Canada, New Zealand and Europe, representing more than 170,000 men and women in the industry.

Nessler, serving as President of the Master Hairdressers’ Association of America, stated:

“The manufacture of beauty is a combination of science and art.”

He noted that eleven states had enacted laws regulating beauty parlors, requiring licensing and exams that included technical knowledge of:

first aid
chemistry
anatomy
use of electrical apparatus

At the time, there were 135 training schools producing thousands of graduates annually, reflecting the growing professionalisation of the field.

Source: The New York Times, “Beauty Shops Took in $390,000,000 in 1925, Had 60,000,000 Customers, Says Nessler,” March 9, 1926.
🔗 https://www.nytimes.com/1926/03/09/archives/beauty-shops-took-in-390000000-in-1925-had-60000000-customers-says.html