I agree & and it is stamped identical to your no. 9. I still haven't found & ad or offering for a no. 11 yet.
I edited when I remembered I also had a No. 7. Together, we have a No. 7, No. 9, and No. 11, which is great to see.
Thanks. I don't know which group shot you saw, but all my Wakefield except the adjustable DOE wrench, which I had pulled out for another reason and forgot to put back, is in post #107.
Nice no. 7
I just noticed a big difference between mine & yours. My no. 11 has a smooth upper jaw that is flush with the handle. Your Wakefield no. 7 no. 9 & 19 have a different squared off shape around the upper jaws. First pic below is yours.
I've never found any for any of mine, but I didn't look too hard, either. These particular adjustable wrenches are pretty easy to date. Sometime between the patent date (1922) and 1930.
I don't know about "big" in the context of all the features, but yes, I see what you're referring to. I've seen the same variance with bicycle wrenches. See below.
I'm wandering if this was maybe a motorcycle wrench? I think this because it's so thin, even though it's a very sturdy made tool.
They're very thin, that's for sure, but I don't think of thin as characteristic of motorcycle adjustables, and if you look at the early ads 4.c posted, this style adjustable is listed as being for automobile, motorcycle or bicycle.
I haven't found anything anywhere for a Wakefield No. 11 either.
I've searched Google books, ITCL, eBay & other online sources & I've found nothing on a no. 11. I saw where they made a no. 100, but mine is definitely a no. 11. Kinda odd to find nothing. Could it be a prototype that never came to fruition?
I would agree that the concept of the model numbers not corresponding to the OAL's is maddening & makes no sense in the case of the no. 19. What I find more odd & interesting is the "absence" of the no. 11. No ads, no advertisements, not in any catalogs, no online mentions, not a mention or peep anywhere that can be found. eBay has plenty no. 9's, 19's & pretty much all the rest. I haven't seen one no. 11 for sale. Also the fact there is some construction differences between the no. 11 & all the other models makes it stand out from all the other models. I'm not questioning the dating or construction. Like you said, it's a noticeable design & easy to date. In my opinion, the no. 11 being "non existent" online or anywhere else is what sets it apart from all the others, regardless of the model numbers. Usually you can at least find one reference or pic somewhere. So far...nothing on a no. 11.
I have contemplated & looked very closely at this too. The second digit is not a 9. When I get home this evening I'll post better pics of this area on the wrench. At first I thought what you're thinking, which would have explained the problem, but this isn't the case.I cannot see the second digit because of the rust-eroded surface, so this is a hypothesis. The wrench in question is not a “No.11,” but a “No.19.” It is diffent from the previously-posted No19 because it is a different age, contemporary to the No9.
I don’t have the font I need to show my thought more clearly (in red), but I think you can see the 9 on the No9 fits right into what appears to me to be the bottom curve of a 9 in 19 of a “No19.”
I would have to go back & look. The earliest was 1904 & the latest was the late 20's. I was mainly looking for information from about 1920 forward since the patent date is 1922. I found several other Wakefield ads that I didn't save due to them being earlier than 1922.
I hope a pic can resolve it, but that surface is rough. In the meantime, I can’t see ruling out a “9” there.
There can't be a 9 there like on your last pic because your using the stamped parentheses as part of the 9. I realized another big difference. All no. 19 wrenches are stamped Wakefield. Mine is stamped simply Wizard. All the others I can find marked with the Wizard name is actually stamped Wizard Wrenches. The fact it's simply marked Wizard would imply that it's not a no. 19 since all other no 19's I've seen is marked Wakefield. Without hard evidence it's difficult to say for certain. Below are some clear pics of how the no. 19's are marked. Mine is clearly much different. It will be fun to try & figure this one out.I hope a pic can resolve it, but that surface is rough. In the meantime, I can’t see ruling out a “9” there.
I see the mostly straight, broken vertical line I presume you’re identifying as a “1”
but then just to the right is a “J” that to me suggests remnants of a “9”
There are Wakefield No.19 wrenches on eBay, both for sale and sold. There are no Wakefield or Wizard No.11 wrenches. If it is an 11, then it is unique, not just on the GJ thread.
Same for the No. 7 and No. 9, as far as I know. If you have ads, catalogs, etc that reference and show No. 7 and No. 9 wrenches, please post. If not, then, again, they're all in the same absent documentation boat.
Not only the absence. Don't forget it has different stamping & different forged squaring around the jaws like I pointed out before. I'll go back & look at all the Wakefield ads I found. I'll post anything I find on the no. 7 & 9.
If you mean the marking, it's the same marking as the No. 7 and the No. 9.
...which is not enough, as I pointed out before, to overcome all the other consistencies with the No. 7 and No. 9, especially because, as I have pointed out before, Wakefield shows evidence of the same variance in other otherwise identical models. Everything else is exactly the same, except for the OAL, of course, which consistently jibes with the nominal 2-inch OAL steps of the entire series of wrenches.
The one thing that gives me pause about this explanation is the OAL. @AntiqueBen reported it as 10-1/2". My No. 19 is 9", exactly as advertised, and exactly the same as my No. 9. And it does fit the nominal 2-inch OAL steps.
So, you think “No.11)” is what you’re seeing? Why would there be a single parenthesis? They usually come in pairs, except for ordered lists.
No. Mine is marked "Wizard" while all the others are marked "Wakefield."
Well, hell, I don’t know how I missed that. I’ll have to re-read those posts: I thought the controversy was that it WAS 9”!
All of the Wakefield's with the 1922 patent only has one parentheses. I have no idea why Wakefield chose to do it that way. Look at Lugz's wrenches in post #131. They are all like that just like all the pics I've seen online.
See post #121.
You are mistaken, Ben. Look at the photos of my No. 7 and No. 9 again.
Different wrenches all made prior to 1922, when the wrenches we are discussing were patented and made. When I said that my No. 7 was 7" long (EDIT: not 5-5/8" as that ad says, because it refers to an earlier, probably bicycle wrench...), did you not believe me? Trust me when I say that trying to build a consistent timeline of Wakefield adjustables is a fool's errand! They even re-used numbers.
Uh, yeah, there it is.
Boy, I missed that one too. Well Lugz, I have to say, your no. 7 & 9 marked Wizard are the only others I've seen marked Wizard other than mine. Every other no. 7 or 9 I've seen was marked Wakefield.
They were not conservative about using it. Of my sixteen (16) pieces, almost half of them are post-TM. The bicycle wrenches to the left bottom are a No. 5, No. 6, and No. 8, by the way, all 1900 patent, all pre-TM. And they are 4-1/4", 4-3/4", and 6" OAL, respectively. It was a whole 'nother scheme. That wrench on the lower right is a B-1. And if you look at the No. 19 and No. 9 on the right, you can see that while they are both 9" OAL, the housing on the No. 19 is wider.
