Show your vintage Bridgeport tools!

[Private Lugnutz]

Ok, gotta dig into the hard copy library.

Thanks! The Seminole! I like it!

 

[LesserSon]

That doesn't quite fit with it being in the crate tool line

I was thinking it could be used as a fencing tool. A hook to rip down vines growing up the posts.

catalogue #23, 1925: Cutter for opening corrugated paper cartons and cases.

Cool!

it is a reprint.

Bummer!

 

[Private Lugnutz]

I was thinking it could be used as a fencing tool. A hook to rip down vines growing up the posts.

Makes sense. I thought bush hook was a crafty guess. But BHM wasn't in any outdoorsy markets, as far as I know, and all their variants in this line - pulling, prying, hammering and chopping, were warehouse tools. Dealing with the boxes and crates of shipping. That was the only source of my doubt about your speculation. With that in mind, I was thinking grappling hook, like stevedores used, but the shape is not right. I should've thought about a cutter, because they did make a box cutter they advertised in the same line as the crate tools and they went crazy with combinations there for awhile.

I am of two minds on what to do with the Seminole. On one hand, it has earned its well-used looks. On the other, it's just begging for me to shape up both the cutter and the hatchet edges. If I do that, I'd have to take more extreme measures on the box rot marring the appearance of the steel on those, the claw pry and the shank.

 

[Debcrow]

Found a Bridgeport 'X' wrench, 1/2 x 9/16. Marked 'ALLOY STEEL'. These are pretty simple wrenches with no plating that I can see and a lot of it is still crude casting with no polish. I do like the looks though.
I see there are just a few of these in this thread with the 'ALLOY STEEL' stamp. This one has a variation in the markings from the others on here. The markings are on the opposite ends of the other ones I saw.

 

[Ricky Joe]

Found a Bridgeport 'X' wrench, 1/2 x 9/16. Marked 'ALLOY STEEL'. These are pretty simple wrenches with no plating that I can see and a lot of it is still crude casting with no polish. I do like the looks though.
I see there are just a few of these in this thread with the 'ALLOY STEEL' stamp. This one has a variation in the markings from the others on here. The markings are on the opposite ends of the other ones I saw.

I have a couple marked Nickel Molybdenum instead of Alloy Steel.

 

[d42jeep]

My experience with Bridgeport wrenches is that the Nickel Molybdenum marked wrenches are prewar and Alloy Steel came into play during WW2 metal restrictions. All of my X wrenches are Nickel Molybdenum.
—Don

 

[four.cycle]

Bridgeport Hardware Mfg. Corp., Bridgeport, CT - "Nickel Molybdenum" SAE Open-End Wrench

* the patent referenced on the center unit (D97325) is a design patent for the design on the shank.

 

[four.cycle]

Bridgeport model 53 "Hy-Power" 6 piece SAE Open End Wrench Set w/ Original Holder Clip

manufactured by the Bridgeport Hardware Mfg. Corp., Bridgeport, Connecticut U.S.A.

this set includes:

723 3/8" x 7/16" * (* marked 9mm and 11mm on reverse side *)
725B 1/2" x 9/16" * (* marked 12mm and 14mm on reverse side *)
27 5/8" x 11/16" * (* marked 15mm and 18mm on reverse side *)
729 5/8" x 3/4" * (* marked 16mm and 19mm on reverse side *)
31 25/32" x 7/8" * (* marked 20mm and 22mm on reverse side *)
33C 15/16" x 1" * (* marked 23mm and 25mm on reverse side *)

* All wrenches are marked with part number and "DROP FORGED MADE IN U.S.A."
* The patent number stamped on the holder refers to Arthur I. Platt's design for the holder clip, patent 1809450, issued June 9, 1931

 

[four.cycle]

Bridgeport 475 3 piece "Radio-Lectric" End Wrench Set w/ Original Leather Holder

manufactured by Bridgeport Hardware Mfg. Corp., Bridgeport, Connecticut U.S.A

this set includes:

1/4" x 5/16" Open-End Wrench

3/8" x 7/16" Open-End Wrench

1/2" x "Alligator" Style Open-End wrench

- Leather Pouch

* all wrenches marked with "Radio-Lectric" and the "BHM" Trademark

 

[four.cycle]

Bridgeport 485 "Radio-Lectric" Socket Wrench Set

manufactured by the Bridgeport Hardware Mfg. Corp, Bridgeport, Connecticut U.S.A.

this set includes:

1/4" Knurled Radio Socket

5/16" 6-point Socket

3/8" 6-point Socket

7/16" 6-point Socket

1/2" 6-point Socket

1/4" Hex Drive Driver Handle

* none of the piece are marked with part numbers or manufacturers name or logo
* this set uses a unique "interference fit" arrangement - there is no detent ball employed here.
* the box has been repaired to keep it intact.

 

[four.cycle]

Bridgeport 485 "Radio-Lectric" Socket Wrench Set (2 of 3)

 

[four.cycle]

Bridgeport 485 "Radio-Lectric" Socket Wrench Set (3 of 3)

 

[Private Lugnutz]

Bridgeport 475 3 piece "Radio-Lectric" End Wrench Set w/ Original Leather Holder

Awesome!

 

[geneg]

Bridgeport Hardware Mfg. Corp., Bridgeport, CT - "Nickel Molybdenum" SAE Open-End Wrench

* the patent referenced on the center unit (D97325) is a design patent for the design on the shank.

Does anyone have any catalog views of these wrenches? I have a copy of the 1940 catalog & the only nickel molybdenum wrenches are the DBE display on pg 43, not the X patent design.

So, catalogs between 1935 & 39? Thanks

 

[four.cycle]

International Tool Catalog Library is your friend.

I am not finding THAT wrench in any of the material I have.

 

[Oldtuleguy]

Coughed up 7 clams for this radiolectric stuff

 

[Private Lugnutz]

Picked up these gas burner pliers at the flea this morning. Didn't know anything about them other than I found them unusual in shape and construction (thickly stamped and folded sheet metal). Turns out they are a BHM product. Patented (627,673) by Mssrs Sperry and Hobbs, BHM assignors, April 23, 1901. The patent date markings are identical. Neither one is very legible, but I was able to make out the "APR." on one side and the "23 | 01" on the flip side.

 

[LesserSon]

Wow, those are great, Lugz!
I can’t say I’ve ever seen their like, but I bet they attracted your attention because you have Bernard (plus KD) pliers etched in your brain.

 

[Private Lugnutz]

I bet they attracted your attention because you have Bernard (plus KD) pliers etched in your brain.

You would have won that bet! As alluded to in reply to 3bay on the Gas & Burner Pliers thread where I x-linked them here.

 

[Outlawmws]

I picked this Bridgeport Crate tool today at an Estate sale. A bit different from the norm:



\

Sept 29 1908 Patent date:

 

[Private Lugnutz]

Their earliest crate tool, called the "Matchless"! Does the shank look like it may have been broken off and re-finished above the hammer? The patent diagram and other examples have the shank continuing into another pry there.

 

[Outlawmws]

I just checked and yes cut/grind marks there. Still, for barely buck...

That's two "Matchless" tools today - the Hurwood style driver, and this crate tool. Makes me wonder if BPH contracted with Stanley for the driver.

 

[LesserSon]

DATAMP says Bridgeport is the assignee for this 1930 patent.

 

[LesserSon]

DATAMP suggests this 1904 patent is the one for the “Hurwood” type (Stanley bought the Hurwood company).

 

[LesserSon]

Some “Matchless” drivers from the No25 (1930) catalog. As a prolific screwdriver manufacturer, I don’t think Bridgeport had any need to contract with Stanley. There are still other patents for wood-handled screwdrivers with a full tang and hammerable cap, so the Hurwood is by no means an exclusive type.

 

[four.cycle]

Bridgeport Matchless

 

[d42jeep]

Some “Matchless” drivers from the No25 (1930) catalog. As a prolific screwdriver manufacturer, I don’t think Bridgeport had any need to contract with Stanley. There are still other patents for wood-handled screwdrivers with a full tang and hammerable cap, so the Hurwood is by no means an exclusive type.

Normally I would agree but possibly to maximize wartime supplies, Stanley was apparently supplying Bridgeport with Phillips screwdriver shafts.

I have two Bridgeport #3 Phillips screwdrivers with Stanley shafts. The license numbers are interesting but that’s about all.
-Don

-Don

 

[Outlawmws]

Here is the BPH Matchless driver We have been discussing - 1/2" bit width - 10-1/2" OAL - 5-3/8" blade length:

 

[LesserSon]

I suppose I went too far, Don. I should have stuck to the through-shaft and end cap not positively identifying a screwdriver as a Stanley product. The same function and exterior appearance can be achieved with different internal means, which is what the patents I looked at cover.

 

[LesserSon]

Bridgeport Matchless

That 1920 advert complicates my 1930 patent argument, doesn’t it? I didn’t want to admit it, but the Matchless examples really do more resemble the Stanley patent than the Bridgeport patent. I wonder if Stanley let it expire or renewed it around 1908?

 

[LesserSon]

I meant around 1911.

 

[four.cycle]

That 1920 advert complicates my 1930 patent argument, doesn’t it?

I don't know. Sorry I wasn't really sure what the question was about these - just trying to provide some information I hoped might help.
Those are the only documents I have that mention "matchless" other than the stuff available from ITCL, which I am sure you all have.

 

[Private Lugnutz]

I'm not sure I'm following the discussion correctly, so this should not be read as me drawing any conclusions whatsoever, but, for what it's worth, two observations, for your consideration:

Firstly,

Stanley was apparently supplying Bridgeport with Phillips screwdriver shafts.

I'm thinking this situation, of a Stanley shank on a BHM branded ferrule/handle, might be something we should read as peculiar with respect to it being a Phillips point, not something that we should read as a general mode of operations across the board, i.e., BHM routinely getting all their screwdriver shanks from Stanley as a third party supplier kind of thing. As we all know, the licenses were tightly controlled, and guess who was the first licensee? Stanley. They had License No. 1. BHM had License No. 7. But it may have taken months if not a few years to arrange that, with five (5) licensees between them. In fact, unless I am mistaken, there are no Phillips license markings on that shank. Don can correct me if I am wrong, but it looks like it reads, 'STANLEY / NO. H1823 / CROSSPOINT'. That reads like a Stanley branding and part number to me. My hunch is that it precedes the whole organized practice of buying the rights to use Phillips' patented cross-recess design with licenses. In other words, there may have been a time very early on when Stanley was the only company with the rights. No need to mark it with a license number. If BHM wanted to sell a screwdriver with a new cross-recess tip, it would have to get them from Stanley, who was probably the first (and only) one making them at the time that was made. Now, if it had the typical marking that we commonly see later on Stanley cross-recess screwdrivers, i.e., "PHILLIPS LIC. No. 1," it would be much more stupefying to me, since BHM clearly made their own cross-recess screwdrivers, marked "PHILLIPS LIC. No. 7."

Secondly, FWIW, the BHM Matchless and Stanley HURWOOD heavy duty machinists' screwdriver through-shanks are not the same. I don't have a large sample size on my own, so maybe others could check theirs, but my Stanley HURWOOD has a round shank, while my BHM Matchlesses have a square shank. Perhaps more importantly, the **** end on the Stanley HURWOOD reveals two clever fins running the length of the through-shank inside the handle, that would seem to act as a stabilizing function, and, that feature is a prominent part of the patent claims. The BHM Matchlesses do not have such a feature.

 

[Outlawmws]

My matchless seems to be more hexagonal - Just to muddy yhe water a bit more! :

 

[d42jeep]

Here is the NOS electrician’s Matchless and another Matchless with the full length shaft.
Two Bridgeport Phillips screwdrivers. The #3 has a Stanley marked shank possibly made to Bridgeport specifications with the hex on the shank. The #2 driver has a Bridgeport shank.

-Don

 

[RTM]

Sept 29 1908 Patent date

US900016A - Nail-puller. - Google Patents

US Patent: 900,016 - Nail Puller

US patent 900,016 Nail Puller was issued to Willis F. Hobbs of Bridgeport, CT. It was granted on 09/29/1908. Nail puller for opening boxes with two claws (inner and outer) both projecting in the same direction and in nearly the same plane. A hammer head is al

datamp.org

Confirmed as Matchless

 

[Private Lugnutz]

The #3 has a Stanley marked shank

Is this the one you already posted with the marking I transcribed above?

The #2 driver has a Bridgeport shank.

Please transcribe the marking.

 

[Private Lugnutz]

I think I may have possibly solved part of the mystery surrounding Don's Stanley-BHM frankenstein driver.

I did some research to try to confirm my theory (see post #237) above.

As we all know, the first Phillips patents (2046837, followed quickly by an improvement, 2046840) were granted in 1936. Following suit, it makes perfect sense that the first Stanley catalog in which Phillips screwdrivers are introduced, as "new," was 1937. No mention of Phillips patent numbers or a license. The first Stanley catalog that cites the Phillips patent numbers and their license is 1940. The first BHM catalog that includes Phillips screwdrivers is 1940. No mention of Phillips patent numbers or a license.

All of that seems to jibe with my theory.

However, I am actually going to throw a 'shaggy dog barking up the wrong tree story' at you guys.

In every Stanley catalog I could find on IA/ITCL up through 1957, the part numbers for their Phillips screwdrivers are 25xx and 27xx and none of the shanks have that hex shoulder under the ferrule like Don's screwdriver, which has a different part number "H1823" and the name "CROSSPOINT". I could not find that screwdriver, by shape or by part number or name, in any Stanley catalog.

The 1940, 1953, and 1963 BHM catalogs on IA/ITCL all include Phillips screwdrivers, but none of the shanks have that hex shoulder under the ferrule.

Has anyone ever seen any vintage Phillips screwdriver without the Phillips patent numbers or at least a Phillips license number marking on the shank? All of mine - and that's dozens - either have the original patents (wartime tell!) or the occasional 1950 patent (2507231) that I couldn't read standing there at the flea market, and a license number.

Doesn't anyone else find it strange, then, that Don's screwdriver has neither marking?

The only cruciform bit screwdrivers I have without Phillips patent or license markings are Reed & Prince, which are Frearson, not Phillips. And guess what brand name they were apparently using? That's right... "CROSSPOINT"! We actually talked about it before on the Walden thread, starting here, in a bit of a fortunate mix-up that exposed the fact that Walden was selling "CROSSPOINT" cross-recess screwdrivers in the 1947 catalog, supplied by R&P.

I am thinking your shank might actually be a Frearson tip, not Phillips.

That would explain away the weirdness of BHM having to get shanks with Phillips tips from Stanley when they clearly had their own Phillips license, and might explain the part number that is not the part number Stanley used for their Phillips drivers.

It doesn't explain why BHM apparently had to get shanks with Frearson tips from Stanley, unless there was some kind of less advertised licensing scheme going on with Frearson, R&P, and Stanley (and perhaps others?) that we apparently don't know too much about.

The tip doesn't scream Frearson to me from here, though, so maybe the "CROSSPOINT" is just a coincidence in which case we'd be back to square one again.

 

[Outlawmws]

Confirmed as Matchless

Thx RTM!

 

[Private Lugnutz]

My head hurts. I can't find any use of 'Crosspoint' as a brand by anyone. Vintage technical literature abounds with this term as a synonym for 'cross-recess' or 'cruciform' without using the Phillips or Frearson name. The reference to "Crosspoint" in the 1947 Walden catalog, which is undoubtedly R&P (Frearson), and the "Crosspoint" marking on Don's co-branded Stanley/BHM screwdriver shank, might be vaguely technical/functional, not formal/proprietary, for the same reason. In which case, if it really is a Phillips design, not a Frearson, we're right back to why it doesn't bear the typical Phillips markings. Maybe it could be early, as I first speculated, in a pre-licensing juncture, before the whole licensing scheme was formalized. In either case, I am exasperated.