Hollow Handle (Wooden, also Steel) Combination Tool and Bits

[four.cycle]

Very nice finds, Targa68

 

[four.cycle]

Outlaw -
Your "Alford's Patent" hand vise appears to have been manufactured by Millers Falls.
I am not finding a patent number for it.


1890s Dunham Carrigan & Haycen Co. catalog Alford Hand Vise pp 740

1902 John Pritzlaff Hardware Co. catalog Alford hand vise pp 198

1917 Dunham Carrigan & Hayden Co. catalog Alford hand vise pp 208

 

[four.cycle]

a recent acquisition which somewhat resembles Outlaw's example in post #22
was fortunate to find one in exceptionally good condition.

unmarked combination too (possibly Millers Falls)


Wood / (wood-handled vintage "multi tool" see: https://www.garagejournal.com/forum/threads/hollow-handle-wooden-combination-tool-and-bits.431508/ / https://www.garagejournal.com/forum/showthread.php?t=376730 / https://www.garagejournal.com/forum/threads/wood-handled-multi-tools.340031/ ) /

 

[four.cycle]

RE: Outlaw's "Alford's Patent" hand vise:

The ALFORD Hand Vise goes back well into the 19th Century -- I found an 1883 COOKE & CO full page catalog description -- pg. 227 of { https://www.google.com/books/edition/Illustrated_Catalogue_of_General_Machine/-f1YAAAAYAAJ ] & the tone of the description implies the tool was well known to potential purchasers that far back.

1883 Cooke & Co.'s Illustrated Catalogue of General Machinery and Supplies Alford's Patent Hand Vise pp 227

(* unfortunately it has yet to be ascertained exactly what patent number was issued for this unit. *)

 

[bbbarracuda]

Instant collection. Not mine.

Vintage Multi tool Lot of (6). Bridgeport, Fray, 4 unknown. 5 with bits all work | eBay

<p dir="ltr" style="margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0;">Vintage Multi tool Lot of (6). Bridgeport, Fray, 4 unknown. 5 with bits all work. </p> <p dir="ltr" style="margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0;">All of them have functioning call it and will hold the tool tightly. One of them has a custom made end...

www.ebay.com

 

[bbbarracuda]

I found another of what seems to be the same millers falls as Outlaw posted in post #22
I can’t get the end cap loose and am afraid of messing it up by trying too hard. It won’t budge at all and I don’t want to scar up the wood which is in nice condition. It doesn’t rattle so there are no extra bits in it
Does anyone know if Miller Falls made these without internal storage for bits?

 

[four.cycle]

^ did you try unscrewing the end cap wearing a pair of rubber gloves?

 

[bbbarracuda]

I've tried everything short of putting a pipe wrench on it.
Guess my next step is to try a small strap wrench.
Not sure what would cause it to be locked up tight. Maybe something or someone glued the threads tight.

 

[Private Lugnutz]

I found another of what seems to be the same millers falls as Outlaw posted in post #22

His looks much more bulbous on the end. Not saying yours doesn't have self-storage, just sayin'. Maybe it doesn't.

 

[Mintgrun]

It looks like the grain pattern lines up perfectly on both sides of the notch, which might imply that it is not the two piece style. The chance of that happening with a screw on cap seems slim.

 

[Outlawmws]

What MG said but try rapping on the end with a hammer handle a couple of timers (like a billy club...) adn see if that jaws something loose?

Will a sheet of paper slip in the groove at all anywhere?

 

[bbbarracuda]

I’m beginning to think it doesn’t have bit storage. I tried to run a knife blade around the groove in the “cap” and it really doesn’t go deep at all. I think the “cap” is just a detail carved in.
It looks like it’s a wooden handle with the 1868 patent chuck on it.

 

[Old Radar]

Which came first, the chicken or the egg? After function, embellishments were de rigueur back in the day. Some embellishments became functional--a decorative line in a handle becoming a cap for a storage compartment--but that didn't keep the decorative line from continuing as a mere embellishment.

 

[bbbarracuda]

I cleaned up the handle and with a close look, the grain does line up exactly. There is no way this is not a single piece of wood.
Glad i didn't go all Hulk on it and scar up the finish.
Now, the question is, is this before or after the Millers Falls multitool? It has the same 1868 patent date on the chuck as the multitool, but I am unable to find any pictures of non storage handles. Any Ideas?
Thanks

 

[Private Lugnutz]

Now, the question is, is this before or after the Millers Falls multitool? It has the same 1868 patent date on the chuck as the multitool, but I am unable to find any pictures of non storage handles. Any Ideas?

What is the exact patent date marking? Outlaw couldn't read a month or day on his, just the year. His research tentatively identifying it as June 14, 1868 was based on the year and finding a patent in that year that was relevant. Note that the patent (73,279) he found was not assigned to Millers Falls and it was for a bit-stock, not a multi-tool. The description does not mention a multi-tool and the drawing looks like the little jaws inside a breast drill chuck. It may be the correct patent, if it was also applied to small tools. But it doesn't cover bits storage like many of these hollow-handle bits tool patents do, usually concerning themselves explicitly with the mechanism to secure the cap.

 

[bbbarracuda]

The patent date is January 14th 1868
It seems to be for just the chuck, not the entire tool Datamp shows it as for a brace and bit but the description at the bottom of the page mentions a tool handle.

US Patent: 73,279 - Bit-stock

US patent 73,279 Bit-stock was issued to Charles H. Amidon of Greenfield, MA. It was granted on 01/14/1868. A tool-handle with this patent is reported; the only marking is the patent date. Another is reported marked as follows: "Millers Falls, Greenfield, MA

www.datamp.org

 

[Private Lugnutz]

Roger. Thanks for confirming. I think that is the explanation for why it's on a solid handle tool. Just the chuck/bit stock.

 

[RTM]

I'm wondering if the tool bbbaracuda has was not intended as a multitool with storage, but for a multitool with separate storage. (Edit for clarity)

The 1868 patent should have been removed by 1885? My 1887 catalog (I can't send to ITCL, sorry) has 2 or 3 tool handles with storage, and this one without. Wonder if his was to go as something a part of this.

There was also a #3 in catalog #24 (date unknown), claiming a 5"long tool holder, which will hold bit 3/4" and smaller, round, or square





One still shows up in the 1904 catalog

Millers Falls Company : Catalogue B : Millers Falls Co. : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

84 p., illus., 28.2 cm (image size), trade catalog

archive.org

 

[Private Lugnutz]

It's definitely a multi-tool handle and they had to keep the other bits somewhere. I always liked the round index approach, like Starrett punches.

 

[bbbarracuda]

I'm wondering if the tool bbbaracuda has was not intended as a multitool with storage, but for a multitool with separate storage. (Edit for clarity)

The 1868 patent should have been removed by 1885? My 1887 catalog (I can't send to ITCL, sorry) has 2 or 3 tool handles with storage, and this one without. Wonder if his was to go as something a part of this.

There was also a #3 in catalog #24 (date unknown), claiming a 5"long tool holder, which will hold bit 3/4" and smaller, round, or square





One still shows up in the 1904 catalog

Millers Falls Company : Catalogue B : Millers Falls Co. : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

84 p., illus., 28.2 cm (image size), trade catalog

archive.org

I think you hit the nail on the head!
That makes sense.
Thanks

 

[kwigly]

This one is a bit different, as the hollow wood handle is not split/threaded. The knurled front ferrule has to screw off to reveal the bits stored inside. The bits (I have seven ) have "wings" to slide down the split drive shaft where they are locked in securely by the threaded ferrule. This tool holder is marked "HOLT", which my investigations (amongst numerous different Holt Manufacturing Companies) indicate likely to be G L Holt Manufacturing Co. of Hartford Conn. (est 1884) who have a hollow-handle-tool-set listing in the 1913 Hardware Dealers' Magazine

 

[Private Lugnutz]

Me likey lots!

I could be wrong, but I think it's the first of its kind on this thread.

 

[Outlawmws]

Interesting! I've seen modern bit drivers with the bits setup like that; they may not have had the cover however. Hmmm, do I still have one?

 

[four.cycle]

Thanks, kwigly!
The Holt unit is rather unique in design ... patented in 1906.
Holt made a few other rather interesting tools as well.

 

[bbbarracuda]

I found another version of this handle on Ebay.

Same patent date.
Now I have something else to look for. The complete kit that holds all the bits.
Edit: I didn't buy this, just found the picture on a listing.

 

[LeonardY]

I found this helping my godfather clean out the farm. His father bought it who knows when.

There's some markings that I can't make out.

 

[Private Lugnutz]

I found this helping my godfather clean out the farm.

I'm jealous. That's a real nice find. 'Cuda found one last year without the wrench. See page 2 post #49. His was not marked. We might could make some research progress with yours.

 

[Private Lugnutz]

Unfortunately, after looking at that the other way around, I think it might say PATENTED. Can you try chalking it? Household chalk will do. Just shave it and thumb the dust into the marking, then wipe the excess with another finger in a light, brisk motion. It will leave the chalk in the markings. You can even rub the chalk right into it hard, then wipe off lightly. Then take another photo.

 

[LeonardY]

Unfortunately, after looking at that the other way around, I think it might say PATENTED. Can you try chalking it? Household chalk will do. Just shave it and thumb the dust into the marking, then wipe the excess with another finger in a light, brisk motion. It will leave the chalk in the markings. You can even rub the chalk right into it hard, then wipe off lightly. Then take another photo.

I don't have any chalk. I can check with my neighbor tomorrow.
I tried using sewing chalk but I think it's more of a wax.

I noticed that above the marking was another. I took a another picture with my Sony A6000. I can clearly see an A.

 

[Private Lugnutz]

Thanks much, Leonard! If you're referring to the top unchalked marking, I see the "A" and also an "N."

I am seeing _ . A _ _ _ N _

I could be influenced by knowing that the name is on other examples of these tools, but I am seeing "_ _ ELL" in the chalked marking, which leads me to BUELL.

If I could impose on you a little more, would you mind trying to clean off those rust/box rot spots? Scrubbing hard with penetrating oil and 0000 steel wool and a steel brush should do the trick. Or, if you have it, submerging just the nose (NOT the wood) in Evaporust. I know. What a PITA this is turning out to be, right?

 

[kwigly]

LeonardY's tool looks like it might be made to the Aiken patent of 1858
[thanks to four.cycle who found the patent for my "Holt" and got me looking at patent listings]

 

[Private Lugnutz]

Definitely it. H. AIKEN fits that first marking, too. Nice work.

 

[LeonardY]

LeonardY's tool looks like it might be made to the Aiken patent of 1858

Definitely it. H. AIKEN fits that first marking, too. Nice work.

Thanks guys.

It's been tucked away in a drawer.
There is a hairline split along one of the grain lines on the cap. Should I put a drop of thin super glue to stabilize it?

 

[LeonardY]

LeonardY's tool looks like it might be made to the Aiken patent of 1858
[thanks to four.cycle who found the patent for my "Holt" and got me looking at patent listings]

Do you have a link to these patents?
I would like to print it.
Thanks

 

[Private Lugnutz]

He had a utility patent, too. 19,901. The one Kwigly has cited is the design patent. Google DATAMP Aiken. When you hit the DATAMP page, they're the last two on the bottom of the list. When you're on either patent page, there will be a link to the original patent on the USPTO site. The DATAMP images are only excerpts or composites.

 

[RTM]

He had a utility patent, too. 19,901. The one Kwigly has cited is the design patent. Google DATAMP Aiken. When you hit the DATAMP page, they're the last two on the bottom of the list. When you're on either patent page, there will be a link to the original patent on the USPTO site. The DATAMP images are only excerpts or composites.

You can also follow the link lower right to Google patents, and download a pdf from there

 

[Private Lugnutz]

I'm not a Google Patents fan/user. EDIT: Disregard. I can see you were quoting me but tacking on an extra suggestion for Leonard.

 

[four.cycle]

Leonard - I would absolutely, positively NOT apply any sort of modern-day adhesive to that unit, or attempt to make any sort of "repair".
You have a fairly rare piece there... better not to mess with it.
Just my lousy opinion, of course.

I do not believe we have a thread on either of the Mssrs. Aiken, the elder of the two being responsible for a number of other patents as well:

Aiken / Francis Herrick "Frank" Aiken / (1843-1876) Son of Herrick Aiken, also a toolmaker / Dracut, MA and Franklin, NH – Wrenches by son, father not known to make wrenches / https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/97735453/herrick-aiken /

(son Francis ("Frank") was the one who made the small adjustable "bicycle" wrench stamped with the running bunny. father Herrick was the one who made the multi-tool (and held a number of patents on other items.)

Aiken / Herrick Aiken, Franklin, NH / (1797-1866) Father of Francis Herrick "Frank" Aiken – / Tool Holder / patent 19901 Apr 13 1858 & D1001 May 11 1858 Herrick Aiken (among others) /

 

[RTM]

I'm not a Google Patents fan/user. EDIT: Disregard. I can see you were quoting me but tacking on an extra suggestion for Leonard.

Yeah, Google patents is less than user friendly, but their PDFs are easier to download and print than the patent office.

 

[four.cycle]

???
Google patents is only of any use when you can't find it anywhere else.
try this URL, RTM:

Patent Public Search | USPTO

patft.uspto.gov