Peck Stowe and Wilcox

[steaks&anvils]

The perplexing thing is I can't find a record of that TM anywhere. It has to be older than 1914, which is date of first use for the PEXTO oval TM, filed in 1936. Peck, Stow, and Wilcox owned a bunch of TM's for various brands, including Worth (reg. 1935, first use 1914), and Boro, Iroquois, Tool Island, and - believe it or not, a giant asterisk symbol (which may solve a long-standing GJ mystery!), all registered in 1938, first use 1938. But nothing earlier than the 1935 registration (328,234) for Worth.

I read 1908 somewhere in all the web clicking I did during my hunt. It was used until they went with "PEXTO" in an oval.

I'll look through my history folder and see if I can find the reference.

 

[steaks&anvils]

I have a reprint of the catalog shown by S&A above, from 1910. Says its registered, but I've not had good luck searching that far back.

Pg 7 has text about the mark of the maker (here and following), which makes me agree with LesserSon also.

https://kirkhmb.smugmug.com/Mechanic-Tools/Misc-Goodies/Peck-Stow-Wilcox-Pexto/

Reading page 7, I get the impression that the rod denotes good, honest materials, the finest available. The fist represents the men who designed and made the best tools they could.

The whole logo represents the fact that they use their name proudly on their tools regardless of who sells them. That they never make a "house brand" for a client to resell.

 

[steaks&anvils]

I read 1908 somewhere in all the web clicking I did during my hunt. It was used until they went with "PEXTO" in an oval.

I'll look through my history folder and see if I can find the reference.

The reference I saw was from a Worthpoint listing:

"October of 1908 then in January of 1910 Peck Stow & Wilcox registered this trade mark..."

So my reference is just hearsay and un-validated. Maybe those dates can lead one of you to the trade mark registration?

 

[RTM]

Yeah, maybe Lugz is better at this than I am ( I believe he is a heck of a lot better TBH), but I was striking out in google Books on

1910 patent office Peck Stow

1909 was a bigger failure, then I remembered I needed something out the garage, then

SQUIRREL!!

I was done for the evening.... Maybe tomorrow.

 

[LesserSon]

Be of good cheer, gentlemen: the image will be found. Probably not by me, because I’ve got a work deadline looming that I’m not sure how to meet.
USPTO published a monthly, illustrated journal that includes ALL registered trademarks. The illustration was listed when the company applied, allowing others to challenge its use, then when any claims were settled, its confirmation was published, text only.
Sometimes one or the other announcement is easier to search, but the entire library is online. I remember when the hunt was on to find Bonney’s “ZENEL” trademark - it’s not always easy. But having the registration date narrowed to 1908-10 is a great start.
Now, where was it, again? Hathi Trust, maybe?
Here’s a breadcrumb:
Edit - oops, no. That’s just a copyright for their 1910 catalog.

 

[Private Lugnutz]

For trademarks, my first stop is the Trademark Status and Document Retrieval system at USPTO. That's where I found all the Pexto TM's I listed above. Registrants (owners of TM's) sometimes cite their other TM registration numbers as part of the proceedings. But you have to have at least one TM number to start with there. When I said I couldn't find anything before 1935 (citing 1914 as first use) for Pexto, that's what I meant. None of their later TM's cite any older TM that might be this clenched fist.

The Haithi trust is good, but inconsistent in terms of what they have in my experience. My go-to for searching for trademarks without a registration number - or unknown patents for that matter, is the Smithsonian Library. They have a PDF record of every annual Report to the Commissioner, it includes patents and trademarks, and it is searchable. If you know the year, you search by the mfgr's name. If you know the year and don't know the mfgr's name, you search by the name of the item. As you might expect, the latter is quite tedious, because you have to drill down into every item and read it to figure out if it matches the item you have in you hand. The former can also be tedious if you don't know the year. As Todd can attest, it has often taken us weeks going through these annual reports year by year to find something, even when divvying up the decades.

I have shared the steps involved in this research technique before with Outlaw and others on the 'Oilers' thread, after identifying the maker of an antique oiler he and I each own, and as I told Outlaw at that time, it really belongs somewhere more generically accessible, like the Sticky; I just haven't done that yet.

Here are the steps...

(1) Google "Annual Report of the Commissioner of Patents for the Year [YYYY]"
(2) Click on the link that results and it will take you to a digital online copy of the report for that year in the Smithsonian Libraries system.
(3) Use the Search function. "Oil can", for example. In this case, "Peck, Stow, and Wilcox."
(4) Wait while it processes, which can take several minutes.
(5) Down below it will post blue teardrop-shaped bookmarks indicating the pages in the report for that year that contain the search term.
(6) Click on the blue bookmarks
(7) The search term will be highlighted on the page in yellow.

EDIT: Information (patents, designs, inventions, labels, and trademarks) is arranged alphabetically, but patents are by assignor name, and trademarks are listed by topic ("e.g., Milk, condensed") and by registrant (company name, if you know it).

EDIT: One more thing. The search function can be a bit stodgy at times. And conversely, there may be a hundred "pipe wrenches" patented in the same year (ask me how I know!), which clutters the blue bookmarks at the bottom. In these cases, you can download the PDF and use the Acrobat search function instead.

I'm going to go search 1910, then 1909 and 1908, based on RTM's tips. I was literally going to start with 1913 and work back, so this is extremely helpful.

 

[Private Lugnutz]

Got it. First use October 1908. And here's the TM itself pulled from TSDR...

 

[LesserSon]

Yay! Great search tips and documentation of your process, too! It’s too bad there isn’t a requirement to submit a verbal description of the image. That would, perhaps, shed some light on the meaning intended by the creator. But as Umberto Ecco taught, meaning lies in the mind of the interpreter, not the creator.

 

[AreBeeBee]

Leg17 —

Nice collection! I've not seen any additional sizes (mine are 3-inch through 6-inch only).

But I'm curious about the very black, shiny finish on the 3-inch shown in your images 3 through 7. It is paint? Japanning? Some other technique?

 

[Private Lugnutz]

It’s too bad there isn’t a requirement to submit a verbal description of the image. That would, perhaps, shed some light on the meaning intended...

Oh, trust me, I read page 2 (the declaration) three times for any indication. If there was any sense of meaning I got from reading it, it was a re-affirmation of our own interpretation when they stated that the trade-mark was "stamped" on the tools themselves, which is very common language in all trade-mark registrations.

 

[RTM]

Well done Lugz! I haven't even been able to hit GJ until now, and you've already solved it. I was hoping for the text to say "tool stamping" , but that was a dream.

 

[Private Lugnutz]

The only thing that gives me some pause about our collectively embraced interpretation (that it is a stamp containing the clenched fist trademark die on the end) are the Pexto tools and references to the Pexto tools with the "SOLID BAR" brand on them. That seems to be a prideful allusion to their construction (forged out of solid bars of steel), almost as if that informed their eventual trademark, with the fist clenching one. But it's a bit of a stretch.

 

[LesserSon]

Stop beating your head. Unless we knew who conceived it, and they kept an artist’s journal of their creative process, it is IMPOSSIBLE to know with certainty what the gripped cylindar is. Even if such a document comes to light, we cannot know it isn’t all a pack of lies or misundestandings. It’s been over 110 years - those involved all long dead. I think the dates of application and granted are WAY more significant than the potential referent of six line segments in a representational drawing.
If it were a five-pointed star, we could argue endlessly which star it was supposed to represent, but even if we came to a consensus, we still wouldn’t KNOW.
I’m just really happy you did the research and got the finder’s glory, Lugz, and that I have resolved my workload issues today! Woo-hoo! Free man again!

 

[Private Lugnutz]

That's not head beating. Just my natural bloodhoundedness. I hate unanswered questions. I don't lose sleep over them, but I don't let go easy. Unanswered questions, and grudges. Haha.

 

[leg17]

Leg17 —
.....But I'm curious about the very black, shiny finish on the 3-inch shown in your images 3 through 7. It is paint? Japanning? Some other technique?/QUOTE]

When I found it it was bent severely and very rusty.
Normally I try to maintain the original condition, but it was so far gone I cleaned it up and sprayed it with black lacquer then clear. Just playing around with the worst one.
I really prefer to clean them as found and restore functionally to good working condition. Thanks for asking.

 

[RTM]

I don’t know about any missing sizes up to No.10. I seem to recall seeing something about a No.12, but, I seem to recall something about a lot of things anymore.

Anyone know of other sizes?

By the odd curve to the spine, I would guess they are carriagemakers clamps

https://archive.org/details/PeckStowWilcoxCoCatalogNo10/page/n284/mode/1up


We can let you tell us of any gaps you have.

 

[leg17]

By the odd curve to the spine, I would guess they are carriagemakers clamps

https://archive.org/details/PeckStowWilcoxCoCatalogNo10/page/n284/mode/1up


We can let you tell us of any gaps you have.

Thanks a lot.

 

[AreBeeBee]

The two bit-braces shown below are PS&W's model 102, which has a 10-inch sweep. The one on the left came to me from my mother's father. He worked as a handyman in boatyards north of Boston after World War I.

He must have been bought the brace second-hand because it was made around the time he was born, which would be the late 1880s; the patent date is December 30, 1884. The link below gives more details and shows that PSW soon changed the ratchet selector from two pins to the now-standard collar design (which is easier and faster for switching ratchet directions one-handed).

http://www.sydnassloot.com/Brace/PSW.htm

Besides standard augers, I have several screwdriver bits with auger tangs. Most common are ones for various sizes of slotted screws, but I also have two Phillips-head bits as well. Stanley made most of the bits, but I also have a few Irwin, Millers Falls, and no-name ones (perhaps shop made).

Not long ago, I bought a second model 102 (ebay) because it was available and I like the design. It's practical, too. Recently in building trellises for the house, I found myself with a countersink bit chucked in one brace and a Phillips head driver in the other — having both ready to use saved swapping the bits in and out.

The brace from my grandfather is, I think, the oldest tool I own and I always get a kick out of using it on a project. Despite being 130+ years old, it works perfectly. Collecting old tools for the sake of oldness doesn't interest me much, but when they can be used to meet a need in the shop, I'm delighted to work with them.

 

[RTM]

You obviously need a few more, one for the drill, one for the .....

I only have about 10, and 2-3 in use on several projects was not unusual. Get the Lee Valley square tang to hex adapter, and nothing is out of reach.

 

[AreBeeBee]

Good idea, RTM — just ordered one!

I've been haunting ebay and even etsy for more Phillips-head driver bits with square tangs. The smaller PH bit has slightly worn flutes and can be tricky in use; I've been looking for a replacement.

As background, for driving screws that need more than ordinary hand strength, I dislike using a powered drill or driver. Too fast, too prone to cam out and chew up the workpiece. The brace provides lots of power but in a slow, controllable way.

Thanks for the tip.

 

[RTM]

I especially like them for for screws I don't want to foul up, lots of downward force possible, with very slow rotation possible.

 

[LesserSon]

I see bitbraces every weekend. The price varies considerably, $1 to $20+. I’ve bought a few in the $2-$5 range.
I have a Worth that was my grandfather’s. The rest are miscellanneous rescues: Stanley, MF, Fulton, one Japan. I stopped when I ran out of space to hang them.
There are a few guys buying them up cheap who weld horseshoes and other detritus onto them, transforming them into “dog” scuptures for flower gardens. You see one, it’s “oh, neat idea,” you see a couple dozen, it’s “there oughtta be a law.”
I saw an interesting square tang bit Saturday that terminated in a horizontal loop. I was thinking it could be used for stirring something, but the shank was too short. Should have bought it.

 

[AreBeeBee]

....I saw an interesting square tang bit Saturday that terminated in a horizontal loop. I was thinking it could be used for stirring something, but the shank was too short. Should have bought it.

Perhaps a winder for something rubber-powered? Or string/yarn/wire??

 

[RTM]

Peck, Stow, and Wilcox owned a bunch of TM's for various brands, including Worth (reg. 1935, first use 1914), and Boro, Iroquois, Tool Island, and - believe it or not, a giant asterisk symbol (which may solve a long-standing GJ mystery!), all registered in 1938, first use 1938. But nothing earlier than the 1935 registration (328,234) for Worth.

Hey gang, while trawling Archive.org, I found this ad, claims it a 1935. The only thing with that name in the International Tool Catalog Library.

https://archive.org/details/worth-brand-tools

 

[Mintgrun]

These WORTH pliers are in that catalog listing. The nickel plating has held up well. Especially compared to the bare steel pair. I suspect those were made by WORTH as well, but can no longer read the logo.

 

[MisterEd]

As is usually the case, my Sig O found another interesting rusty tool; a Coes-style Wrench from Peck, Stow, & Wilcox, but pre PEXTO which became their trademark in 1914/15. It appears to pre-date their more common "Solid Bar" design and our investigation strongly suggests this is a fully functional tool from the late 1800s or early 1900s, which is better than I am at only 75 years!

It's marked "P. S. & W. Co, Southington CT." where the three merged companies set up shop in 1870.

 

[Private Lugnutz]

Peck, Stow, and Wilcox owned a bunch of TM's for various brands, including...[ ]....believe it or not, a giant asterisk symbol (which may solve a long-standing GJ mystery!)

Hey guys,
I guess I should've emphasized this emboldened part more when I posted this last summer, or followed it up with more information. It recently popped up again in the bumping of one of its many whatzit threads, but I thought I would close the loop here as well where it rightfully belongs to be closed. Here is the TM (Pic 1) and an example of slip-joint pliers that I own with the mark (Pics 2 & 3). Strangely, the pliers do not have some of the characteristics of other Peck, Stow, and Wilcox slip-joints that I own, which have a hex-nut on the back of the slip joint pin (see Pic 7) and knurling on the handles (see Pic 6). Maybe they had someone else make them. Or maybe they went away from the hex nut and the knurling later. The other pliers are much older.

EDIT: Note: Credit where credit is due, woody had a major crack in this case back in 2017 in a thread that included a scan of a 1951 magazine ad showing the asterisk logo, the WORTH tools logo, and the Peck, Stow, and Wilcox name together. That thread obviously got missed by everyone who still considered the asterisk a puzzle years later, including me, and woody obviously missed all the threads asking about it, including the one that just got bumped.

 

[d42jeep]

Here are some examples of Pexto style screwdrivers with the asterisk marking. The last two pictures are from an eBay listing.
-Don

 

[Private Lugnutz]

That marking, with fatter radiations having square-ish corners and no discernible center, looks more like the version that is often found with tools that also bear their "WORTH" TM. See Pic 1.

Oddly, it has to be said that it doesn't look much like the TM, which has a pronounced circle at the center with skinnier radiations that are distinctively lobular in shape. The larger version of the marking that appears solo on pliers, as in my example above, is identical to the actual TM.

Having said that, there is no little to no doubt it my mind that the smaller symbol with little to no center and fatter, sharper-cornered rays belongs to Peck, Stow, and Wilcox, due to the examples of it accompanying the "WORTH" TM.

When it appears in print (see ad in Pic 2) it looks like the TM itself.

My hunch is they figured that almost any stamp that looked like a six-rayed asterisk would be covered by the symbol they trademarked.

Interestingly, note that while the asterisk symbol was TM'ed separately from WORTH a few years after WORTH was TM'ed, and that it appears on tools separately from the WORTH TM, the ad uses it as a TM and as an actual asterisk, denoting a footnote, and the ad actually includes a footnote!

That footnote hasn't been discussed before.

It reads:

"For better distribution service, certain Wholesale Distributors sell these tools under their own private brands. All carry this copyrighted symbol (*) in addition to the brand name. It is your protection - look for this symbol."

 

[RTM]

Ooooohhh, so simplifying that bolder text, if you see the Asterisk, PS&W made it! Regardless of what name is there.

Nice catch.

 

[leg17]

Nice work Lugz and woody.

 

[LesserSon]

Duplicate Post

 

[LesserSon]

We should be cautious about interpreting an asterix as definitive proof that a tool was made by PS&W, especially if it was produced before 1938. The Snap-on 1931 date code is an asterix.
I am not questioning the research nor conclusions of Lugz or Woody, as regards the illustrated TM, but there are some obvious problems enforcing proprietary rights to the nonstylized symbol itself, since it has been in public domain for millenia. I’d be surprised if the Patent Office intended that. There must be some limitation upon what products it would be placed upon as a trademark. (EDIT - I see there are: Class 23 - Cutlery, etc.) I’d like to see the “five examples” they provided; I wonder how closely they stuck to the stylized asterix? I’m sure they could protect the stylized version, but I wonder if PS&W ever bothered challenging any other company for placing the standard asterix symbol on products, and how a court would rule.

Is it Barcalo that sometimes has asterixes on dbes?
Lugz, would you go so far as say PS&W made them for Barcalo, if the symbol on the wrench were a standard asterix?

 

[Private Lugnutz]

It is a very peculiar TM, LS, but there's not much to question. Hard to argue with a registered TM document. You can see the products covered in the document itself. Fairly wide and diverse in the category, everything from awls to vises, and it includes pliers and wrenches, too. As for the other asterisk mark (if it is indeed "other") in the tool world, I think of it mostly on Vlchek DBEs of the late 30s and 40s, which fits the Pexto timeline, but it also appears on later Barcalo scoop combos, and I have an SK wrench with one, too. Whether that means they were all made by Pexto, I'm not confident enough to say. The evidence suggests it, but yet it just seems odd.

 

[LesserSon]

Well, PS&W certainly did make a LOT of tools. I can certainly believe they made plenty for other manufacturers.
But symbols are tricky things. I saw a Buffum tool on eBay (maybe a hammer head) that did not have a ******** - was it never there, or did a PO remove it? I’ve seen plenty of Billings attributed to Bonney on eBay, too. An understandable error, given the B-triangle mark being confused by B-circle mark (didn’t a Craftsman OEM use that, too?), B-hex marks, etc.
The smaller or less distinctive, the easier to confuse.

 

[d42jeep]

I do not believe that the small asterisk forging marks on Barcalo tools are indications that those tools were made by Pexto. Many Barcalo wrenches have a variety of forging marks and the asterisks were used on several styles and vintages of Barcalo wrenches.
-Don

 

[PLANofMAN]

I have a nice P.S.&W Co. 10" Samson bit brace. Came with quite the pile of bits, which was part of the reason I got it. Will upload some pics once I hit my 5 post minimum.

 

[d42jeep]

Here are a pair of Peck Stowe & Wilcox monkey wrenches I received as part of my Wednesday tool haul. The markings indicate manufacture before 1915 so the condition of the wooden handles is remarkable.
-Don

 

[Shiftless]

Don:
That was an amazing haul!
Nice pair of Coes pattern wrenches. (Is that what they’re called generically?)
I can’t imagine what you had to leave behind.

 

[d42jeep]

Generically I refer to them as Monkey wrenches. This Wikipedia article dispels some common myths.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_wrench

-Don