J.J. Richardson's Ratchet Wasn't the First!

[AntiqueBen]

I thought this would make for interesting discussion. History tells us that J.J. Richardson’s ratchet was the first. Richardson’s patent #38,914 was granted on June 16, 1863. With that said, there is an interesting story about D.M. Moore’s ratchet patent #45,334 that was granted on December 6, 1864 for the Lowell Wrench Company. According to the “Decisions of the Commissioner of Patents and of United States Courts in Patent Cases,” a court decision on a case involving Moore’s patent was decided on January 27, 1880. Listed in this court case, Moore made a working example of his ratchet in 1859, 3-4 years before Richardson’s patent in 1863. Over the next couple of years, he openly used his ratchet at his place of employment & even let a few of his friends try it out. If Moore had been honest about this at the time of filing his patent application on October 1, 1864, the date on his patent could have been dated when he initially made his ratchet in 1859. Richardson filed for his ratchet patent before Moore, so technically speaking, that is what made Richardson’s ratchet the “first.”

An interesting side note: Richardson lived in Woodstock Vermont & Moore lived in Windsor Vermont. They only lived about 16 miles apart from each other. An interesting theory would be if Moore let some of his buddies try out his ratchet, I’m sure they talked around about it. Could have Richardson caught wind of such a tool & then created one of his own? We may never know for sure, but it is a very possible scenario.

A 143 year old (1880) US Patent Court Case reveals that there was a working ratchet example in 1859 before Richardson’s patent. Richardson just beat Moore to the patent office.

The Court Case can be read here: 1880 US Patent Court Case

 

[twertsy]

This is actually not quite true. At the time, if the object of the desired patent had been in "regular use" for 2 years, you could not patent it. The court ruling you note above sided with Moore because he argued he was "testing" the implement rather than using it regularly.

 

[4xdog]

If Moore had been honest about this at the time of filing his patent application on October 1, 1864, the date on his patent could have been dated when he initially made his ratchet in 1859.

Say what? Inventors don't pick the date of their patent -- it's the date when it issues from the US Patent Office.

 

[AntiqueBen]

I just find it interesting that there was an actual working ratchet example before Richardson's ratchet. I know you can't pick the date of your patent. If Moore had gone to the patent office in 1859-60, his patent would have likely been before Richardson's.

 

[AntiqueBen]

From the US Patent Office.

 

[Mike'smeatshop]

Does anyone have one that we can see?

 

[AntiqueBen]

This is my ratchet that got me interested in finding out more about Lowell Wrench Co & Moore's patent. It is the flat handle design like in the patent drawing before they switched over to a round handle design. I just bought it & I haven't received it yet. These are the only pics I have at the moment. It's not in the best shape, but the flat handle versions are difficult to find.

 

[3baygarage]

That’s an interesting look into things, and you’re probably right. It makes me wonder though, how many others came up with the idea before them but never followed through.

 

[AntiqueBen]

It's hard to say. For some reason, specific information on the Lowell Wrench Company is difficult to find. I've gone down the rabbit hole trying to find what I can.

 

[1982fxr]

So how long were first generations of these made? As in, having something distinguishable from 2nd versions, etc?

And how many known examples of those 1st generations in the collector world?

 

[AntiqueBen]

These are all things I'm trying to figure out but specific Lowell tool information is scarce. I'm forced trying to find old ads to see when one year was a flat handle & the next year was a round handle. This would tell us the date of the handle transition. It's frustrating though. Everything I'm finding is in the 1900's. Lowell ads or info from the 1800's has eluded me so far. There has to be some somewhere. Believe it or not Lowell is still in business. I might email them & see if they can provide any information from the 1800's.

 

[AntiqueBen]

We know by patent # 349,007 in September of 1886 that Lowell had a round handle with the pawl selector knob on the bottom of the handle. There were round handles before this though with no selector knob on the bottom. It had the standard selector switch on the head. So I'm guessing the flat handle could not have been after this patent in 1886. I believe Lugz posted a picture of his round handle with the bottom selector knob example in another thread.
See 1886 Patent Here

 

[twertsy]

These are all things I'm trying to figure out but specific Lowell tool information is scarce. I'm forced trying to find old ads to see when one year was a flat handle & the next year was a round handle. This would tell us the date of the handle transition. It's frustrating though. Everything I'm finding is in the 1900's. Lowell ads or info from the 1800's has eluded me so far. There has to be some somewhere. Believe it or not Lowell is still in business. I might email them & see if they can provide any information from the 1800's.

Good luck, their website seems to think they were founded in 1869.................This exhibition review says different: https://books.google.com/books?id=9...=2ahUKEwj37KLLz8L_AhWmFFkFHR4tDmoQ6AF6BAgHEAI

 

[AntiqueBen]

I went to the link. When I scrolled up a few pages the title page was dated 1869? Are you seeing something I'm not?

 

[twertsy]

I went to the link. When I scrolled up a few pages the title page was dated 1869? Are you seeing something I'm not?

I looked at the date of the Google listing, which said 1965.........good 'ole Google.

 

[RTM]

I looked at the date of the Google listing, which said 1965.........good 'ole Google.

I see 1865, book published since 1837.

 

[AntiqueBen]

Yes, I see that now too. The Lowell reference in the book is under a section dated 1869. Kinda confusing.

 

[AntiqueBen]

My luck has been good lately. I bought this 1/2" Lowell no. 1 ratchet online today. It's the early no. 1 with the 1864 patent. It has the selector on the head with the round handle design. I would guess this to be the second version no. 1 behind the flat handle example. I believe the third version would be the one with the selector knob on the bottom of the handle. It's in great shape. Looking forward to getting this one.

 

[AntiqueBen]

I know that Lowell is known for some of the biggest ratchets ever made but they also make some odd nitch/novalty type tools. Never knew you could turn a ratchet into a pipe wrench.

 

[AntiqueBen]

The Lowell flat handle No. 1 showed up today. I've got to say, this is one of my favorite ratchets. I'm amazed by the inner workings. So simple, yet complicated at the same time. It's stamped Lowell Wrench Co Pat'd Dec 6 1864. It definitely has some pitting but in really good working order for a ratchet this old. The only way to get rid of the pitting would be to take it to the belt sander, but I would never do that. A mirror finish on something like this to me makes no since. I'm happy seeing the history on it with all it's dings & imperfections. It works properly so that's enough for me.

This particular example matches the exact design on D.M. Moore's patent drawing with the flat handle. It's 8 1/2" long. It's a 16 tooth. The selector does have a center neutral position that locks it so it can be used as a wrench. The opening is 2 different sizes. I haven't measured them yet. Based on the patent drawing & what info I've found so far, it's my guess this might be the first & earliest version that Lowell produced.

Should I clean the inner workings OR leave it alone?? Any votes?

 

[Mike'smeatshop]

That is the coolest. The stories it could tell. And to think that came just a little after the civil war. I wonder who side he was on? And still alive.

 

[AntiqueBen]

Here's two Lowell oldies reunited. My round handle showed up today. You can definitely see the improvements compared to the flat handle design. The earlier flat handle is very crude compared to this one. Someone stuck a stud in there since it's 1/2". It's in great shape with some of its original black paint. It's 9 1/2" long & very heavy. I'll post some pics of the inside when I open it up.

 

[AntiqueBen]

Here is another "pre-Richardson" story. Henry H. Packer was granted patent #20,728 on June 29, 1858 for his ratchet. According to some ads I found, his ratchets were already being offered to the public in 1858. Apparently he put in for an extension on his patent, which for some reason was denied, so he had to get a "re-issue" of his patent which didn't take place until 1866. This put him 3d on the list behind D.M. Moore & J.J. Richardson. But technically speaking, his ratchet was being sold in 1858 to the public before Richardson & Moore's ratchet.

So, here's another guy that if he had left his patent alone & not filed for an extension, his patent would have stood at 1858. What is odd is Datamp shows his patent #20,728 as granted on June 29, 1858, but then in the notes it explains about the extension denial & the re-issue patent date of Jan 2nd 1866. I bought a No. 1 Packer ratchet & I should get it sometime next week. These aren't very good pics but it's all I got until it gets here. Looks to be in great shape & is 11 1/4" long. The Datamp & ad information is very interesting. The one ad states they are the only ratchet manufacturer in the United States or possibly in the world at that time. Bold statement, but maybe they were?
Here is link to Packers Patent
Here is link to Re-issue patent

 

[AntiqueBen]

Here is another ad with some pretty bold claims about Packers ratchet made by Eagle Ratchet Company (pic below). Other than finding ads on google books, any info on Eagle Ratchet Company is basically "non-existent" online.

 

[AntiqueBen]

Help me better understand something. According to Datamp, J.J. Richardson is "11th" on the list of patented ratchet wrenches. It started with Z.W. Avery in 1847. I think 4 of the 10 before Richardson Datamp said the ratchet was "not known to exist" but there were several ratchets patented before Richardson. I'm certainly not knocking Richardson in any way. But how is Richardson considered the 1st? His patent is even titled "ratchet improvement." Some of the ratchet designs before his also had different socket options available like his too. What am I missing here?
See Datamp ratchet list here

 

[AntiqueBen]

Help me better understand something. According to Datamp, J.J. Richardson is "11th" on the list of patented ratchet wrenches. It started with Z.W. Avery in 1847. I think 4 of the 10 before Richardson Datamp said the ratchet was "not known to exist" but there were several ratchets patented before Richardson. I'm certainly not knocking Richardson in any way. But how is Richardson considered the 1st? His patent is even titled "ratchet improvement." Some of the ratchet designs before his also had different socket options available like his too. What am I missing here?
See Datamp ratchet list here

Has this stumped everyone else??

 

[rockettauto]

I imagine you've already seen this from 1877. It's not entirely clear but in the second image those both appear to be Lowell and it looks like the round handle with the lever up top and the flat handle were coexisting here.

 

[rockettauto]

Also this bit from 1861 about packer heavily implies there are other ratchets in existence but probably not being manufactured in scale at the time.

 

[AntiqueBen]

Nice find on the 1877 pics. I hadn't seen that one yet. Yes, Packer makes some bold claims about their ratchet. But clearly there were other ratchets already being manufactured before Richardson. Not sure how he's considered the first? Packer did make a nice ratchet.

 

[rockettauto]

Best I can tell is the caveat there is the first ratcheting socket wrench. Designed to be used with interchangeable sockets.

While the lowells lend themselves to it because it so happens they were available in female square sizes that would fit later socket if you use a lug, it's clear from the catalog they were intended to have the whole gear swapped for different applications.

 

[AntiqueBen]

I believe Richardson's came with two interchangeable socket gears (heads). Packer offered the same thing earlier.

 

[AntiqueBen]

Even Avery's patent in 1847 had interchangeable socket heads in different sizes (as listed in the notes of the patent).
See Avery's Patent here

 

[rockettauto]

I believe Richardson's came with two interchangeable socket gears (heads). Packer offered the same thing earlier.

Yeah, small technicality but packer is swapping from wrench, to drill with insertable bits while Richardson's is just a wrench, with two "sockets" that are basically just reducers...giving you three square ratcheting wrenches.

Idk, it's the best I can come up with...seems to be the distinction.

 

[rockettauto]

Even Avery's patent in 1847 had interchangeable socket heads in different sizes (as listed in the notes of the patent).
See Avery's Patent here

Yep , but there again, changing the whole gear.

It's a pretty arbitrary distinction IMO but I think it's what it is.


A bit like, Edison invented theight bulb.....well no not really....just the low power , long lasting incandescent that made it the first one able to be surpass a few different hurdles in order to be mass marketed.

Although in this case even that example has a much more significant distinction.

 

[AntiqueBen]

I think your right on the "socket" distinction. Datamp's Richardson patent description calls them a socket in one sentence & interchangeable socket heads in another. I guess they are considered a socket since your not changing out the gear. The Packer ad I just listed above pictures what looks to be a removable square socket from the head of the ratchet.

 

[rockettauto]

I think your right on the "socket" distinction. Datamp's Richardson patent description calls them a socket in one sentence & interchangeable socket heads in another. I guess they are considered a socket since your not changing out the gear. The Packer ad I just listed above pictures what looks to be a removable square socket from the head of the ratchet.

Yeah, that's why I thought it was a bit arbitrary. It would be comparable to having an impact that took hex drill bits, and a single nut driver vs. several nut drivers so the latter is the first interchangeable impact wrench.

One additional nut driver and the distinction would sway to the former

 

[AntiqueBen]

Good analogy. So, technically speaking, Richardson was the first to patent removable sockets but not the first to patent a ratchet.

 

[rockettauto]

Good analogy. So, technically speaking, Richardson was the first to patent removable sockets but not the first to patent a ratchet.

My best guess anyhow.

 

[AntiqueBen]

That's probably why Richardson's patent is titled "ratchet improvement." Improvement being removable sockets.
I believe this is the best logical explanation

 

[Private Lugnutz]

I'm certainly not knocking Richardson in any way. But how is Richardson considered the 1st?

Has this stumped everyone else??

I knew that Richardson was not the first ever wrench capable of ratcheting. See my post from back in 2017 on the mega 'Ratchets' thread, here instructing another collector how to use DATAMP to explore that line of ratchet wrench history, and tracing it back to 1847 (Avery).

But I have never considered Avery, Packer, any of the designs that never got produced after that, or Richardson to be the first detachable socket set "ratchet" in the way most collectors would think that refers to.

As a fellow early Mossberg collector, you know, Ben, that I have often referred to Camille Contal of Paris, France, in that respect. The reversible ratchet, detachable pressed steel sockets, universal joint and extension in his Auto Cle set was the first set of tools designed, built and sold with automotive maintenance as its explicit purpose.

So I wasn't stumped so much as wondering where you got this ("History tells us that J.J. Richardson’s ratchet was the first") from, where you were going with this whole line of inquiry and, admittedly, why neither Richardson or his predecessors, as the case may be, would roll out of my head as "first" in any post or in any conversations with Todd (@twertsy) or others about ratchet history.

I think use case was at subconscious work here for me, for right or wrong. Despite the use of the word "socket" in these pre-Automobile Age ratchet wrench patents, I have never thought of them as analogous to the dozens of handy shiny chromed pieces with 6- and 12-point hex openings lined up in our rollers and top boxes from 3/16" or so to 1-1/16" or so. I always thought of them in these antique patents as functioning more like adapters. (Or "reducers," as @rockettauto referred to them above.) So the ratcheting wrench could fit various square head nuts and bolts on railroad engines, steel buildings, bridges, trellises, and such, or for drilling holes in big pipes, which was always the industrial use case for the ubiquitous Lowell ratchets, throughout the last century.

Agnostically, Richardson and Packer et al obviously deserve credit, [EDIT: probably more than we, collectively, have been giving them] as your thread here is sussing out.

I suspect most people, though, including AA, approach it with automotive maintenance as the context, and trace modern socket sets back to Mossberg - which is actually Contal.