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

[RTM]

Unfortunately, none of their PDFs open on my Android phone.

 

[four.cycle]

don't know what to tell you ... works fine on a desktop.

 

[kwigly]

This one is a similar design concept to the Fray/Buell, but without the wings on the threaded metal clamp ring. The tool acceptance shaft is split into 4 segments like a modern collett, but unfortunately the splitting slits only extend about 1/2 inch down the shaft, making it rather inflexible. This stiffness, coupled with the lack of wings on the clamp ring to provide more torque, make it impossible to sufficiently tighten the head to securely hold the tool bits (without resorting to pliers/vicegrips), which is a pity as it came with several bits stored in the hollow wooden handle.

 

[four.cycle]

^ Somewhat similar to the Hull design with respect to the collect:

L.L. Hull, Clinton, Connecticut combination tool (photo ebay)

That's the "L.L. Hull" of Clinton, Connecticut.
(There was also an "F.G. Hull of Plainville, Connecticut, who also made a "combination tool")
(That's just two of dozens of 19th century New England "combination tool" makers.)

 

[kwigly]

Nice one four.cycle. That looks like a functional design, with the slots extending down the main shaft at least an inch, making the "fingers" flexible.

 

[LeonardY]

Leonard - I would absolutely, positively NOT apply any sort of modern-day adhesive to that unit, or attempt to make any sort of "repair".

Thanks. I won't.

 

[Outlawmws]

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?

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.

Thanks. I won't.

I can see three sides to this question - First, I agree with 4C on "modern adhesives" - particularly super glue on wood - its not a suitable glue, particularity for wood or "filling gaps" - it wants hard well fitting surfaces and its not suitable for much else.

2 and 3 are dependent on what you want to do with it:
Display only? Do nothing.
User? Now you want to consider a repair with a suitable wood glue. How big is the "hairline" is it open? If gaped, if you clamp a gap shut are you risking breaking the thing elsewhere? we are talking 100 YO or more wood here... Id Closed can you open it without breaking it elsewhere? -you would need to get a tiny amount of that "suitable wood glue" in there...

I have opened up cracked hammer handles and gotten a good grade of PVA wood glue inside, and then clamped it shut, and then wiped the excess off with damp paper towel. Hickory - even when old - is fairly flexible. other hardwoods, not so much? but may be...

Its not a simple question to properly preserve old antique tools or anything else. the main mantra for preservation is "do no harm"

 

[RTM]

PVA is still not period correct, or correct for trying to retain period correctness. You should really use hot hide glue, but cold hide glue is acceptable. Either of these two glues are reversible, so you can undo the repair down the road. CA and PVA don’t fit in that category of reversible.

 

[four.cycle]

kwigly - that Hull unit isn't mine. that photo is from an ebay listing. I was just trying to find something with a similar design on the collet.

 

[Outlawmws]

PVA is still not period correct, or correct for trying to retain period correctness. You should really use hot hide glue, but cold hide glue is acceptable. Either of these two glues are reversible, so you can undo the repair down the road. CA and PVA don’t fit in that category of reversible.

1912

PVA was discovered in 1912 by Dr. Fritz Klatte in Germany. It is one of the most widely used water-dispersed adhesives.

So says the internet. Period correct enough for my uses,

 

[Private Lugnutz]

Have you guys discussing adhesives ever poked around the Smithsonian Museum Conservation Institute (MCI) site? MCI is like SI's professional community outreach program. The back door, if you will, to SI. They publish papers and tutorials and take on volunteers, all aimed at the art and practice of artifact preservation and restoration. I get lost in there every week. One link leads to another which leads to a bibliography which leads to a whole 'nother project. Where wood and adhesives are concerned, they have forays into everything from santos to furniture to the laminated plywood used in the all-wing jet-powered Horton Ho 229 V3 captured from the Luftwaffe after WWII. The code of ethics is interesting to read in and of itself. Generally speaking, their principles are pretty strict, as you might expect, but, while aperiod intervention is always a last resort, stability trumps everything.

Link to get started...

https://www.si.edu/mci/index.html

 

[bbbarracuda]

Thanks Private Lugnutz.
Another rabbit hole to disappear down.

 

[Outlawmws]

That should be some interesting reading Lugz. Thx!

 

[kwigly]

These three brass ended tool holders all take square ended bits. On two of the tools, the threaded brass retainer ring screws off to reveal the recessed square seat for the bits. Appropriate bits need to have a small head to pass through the hole in these retainer rings, have a square base to fit the socket, and a tapered shaft to be locked down as the retainer ring is tightened. Appropriate small-head bits could include awls, needles, and small drills, but I only have a couple that fit. The smooth handled tool with a screw retainer can take large-headed bits, but its an imposter for this thread, as the handle is solid. However, the two circumcised handles unscrew at the collar to reveal the hollow bit storage area. No names visible, but the boxwood handles on the two hollow handles suggests British origins

 

[kwigly]

The front half of this tool holder screws off to reveal a selection of tools in individual sockets. When screwed down on the shaft, the tapered inside of the metal nose squeezes the split shaft to hold the tool. The main shaft extends to the back of the holder so you can tap it with a hammer if required for chiseling etc.
Looks like this one conforms to Chamberlain's 1849 patent #6261

 

[four.cycle]

kwigly, would it be possible for you to post a photo of the **** end of the handle showing the end of the metal shaft?
the patent drawings for 6261 (and the other two patents referenced at datamp.org) do not show the shafts extending all the way to the **** end of the handle. thanks!

It would appear Mr. Chamberlain was quite a prolific inventor but it looks as though no definitive connection has been made between Chamberlain and a manufacturer, at least not in respect to "combination tool".

 

[kwigly]

four.cycle, picture of the back of the tool attached, showing the steel end, which I've assumed is to protect the wooden body from any hammer blows. This is about 5/8" diameter, whereas the main shaft is only about 3/8" rod, so without disassembly I'm not exactly sure if it is all one piece (or even connected), However, the balance of the tool seems to indicate significant steel weight in the **** end of the tool

 

[Private Lugnutz]

Chamberlain's patent was assigned to William A. Dodge, but that's not turning up any production either. He was associated with Adell Mfg, Co., in Orange, Nass., but they made stove grate holders.

 

[kwigly]

Although I'm thinking my tool holder resembles Chamberlain's design concepts, its not exactly the same as the patent drawings and not signed, and quite possibly it was not made by him or his assigns, or even within several decades of his patent. (but trying to solve/explain old tool origins is one of the delights of the vintage tool game )

 

[four.cycle]

"Chamberlain's patent was assigned..."

That's a possibility... but... the Adell references seem to all be post 1900. (Not sure if that is any indicator or not.)

 

[LeonardY]

2 and 3 are dependent on what you want to do with it:

I just put it back in the drawer where it has been for the last 10+ years. I did put a note with it. So my nephew will know what it is.
It was bought by my god father's dad. It probably hasn't been used since the mid 1950's.

 

[WisJim]

Here's one of mine, only example that I've ever seen. The same chuck mechanism was also used in a brace, and my brace using the chuck came with just a few bits to fit it. Patented by Henry Smith, patent 501,110, in 1893, and manufactured by Holt Mfg. Co, of Hartford, Connecticut.

US Patent: 501,110 - Tool holder

US patent 501,110 Tool holder was issued to Henry V. Smith of Hartford, CT. It was granted on 07/11/1893.

www.datamp.org

 

[RTM]

Hot dog, I get to join the Alford Hand Vise club, was at a hoarder's estate sale, and on my umpteenth circle of the small walking space in the garage, I opened the cupboard doors. Sitting up high, on a box of other junk, all by itself, was a hand vise. As I reached in, I realized it was the highly anticipated Alford. Unfortunately, did not find any of the attachments for it, but this gives me further motivation to go back tomorrow, with some more dexterous gloves, so I can pick up little **** goodies.

This needs a light polish to remove the rusty acne from the top side. Not sure how long it had sat there.

 

[Private Lugnutz]

Nice find! It looks to be in great condition. I wonder when MF stopped production? Outlaw's and 2oolhound's examples look much earlier, with a more bulbous handle.

 

[GreenMars]

Hey All. I have what I think is an unusual multi-tool to show you. Check out my Happy Birthday Tool Haul video. If you want to skip to the multi-tool, it starts at the 2:25 time. After the tool haul is a walk around of a TRULY AMAZING tool store in Amish country called Colonial Homestead. If you like old tools, you won't be disappointed to watch!

 

[Private Lugnutz]

Thrilled to bump the thread with a new find and a FOAK (first-of-a-kind) here if I'm not mistaken. Springfield Level & Tool Company, Springfield, Mass.



The marking is "SPFLD. LEVEL & TOOL CO." / "SPRINGFIELD, MASS."



Note how much bigger and longer it is than what I think of as the "standard" size models.



Looks like they splintered off of Davis Level & Tool, also in Springfield.



Mechanically, just three pieces in the business end. Two half-chucks which fit into the respective opening in that milled nose and the threaded collar to tighten them. Only three of the bits are original. The saw blade and the four-square file are not. And neither is that wrench. I am wondering if it's for the chuck of different multi-tool and was mixed up and thrown in this one. It serves no function in this style. The cap has a steel piece, as we've seen in a few others, ostensibly for tapping, but there is no through shank or support for it.

See Pics below for those details.

 

[Private Lugnutz]

I'm going to retract the FOAK claim. It's the first Springfield Level & Tool. But it is a dead ringer for Outlaw's RED DEVIL on page 2, post #56, and 4.c's unmarked model on page 3, post #83. My hunch would be that someone else was making them 3rd party for ALL these concerns.

 

[WisJim]

Lugz, it looks like a Millers Falls tool handle, and I think that the chuck is missing a spring.

 

[Private Lugnutz]

I think that the chuck is missing a spring.

Yep. I saw it on Outlaws but forgot to go back and edit my post. It works without it, but loosely, and with a little manipulation needed. I'm going to ask him to post his so I can fab it.

 

[Outlawmws]

I'll see how fast I can find mine Lugz (keeping in mind I'm still convalescing a bit, and I get yelled at if I pick up a piece of paper...)

 

[Private Lugnutz]

No rush. Wouldn't want to be responsible for a SWMBO scolding.

 

[Outlawmws]

So I'm still being told (from all sources) not to exert, but I'm feeling pretty decent and I got to the hollow handle stuff and grabbed the first one that resembled your's Lugz, and - Um - what spring?

got another, same deal

Third try was a charm, and low and behold it was the red devil:



Spring up close:



And measured I'm sure this dimension is not critical - The width of the "U" is pretty tight but not hard. point to point its about 5:20 or so.
The Gap spacing is about .100, so maybe use a #39 or 40 drill bit as a mandrel?

Wire Dia is .046? (between 18-19 Ga.? ) So wire size may be a bit tricky, unless your holes are a different size?

 

[Private Lugnutz]

I can make that!

Thanks for all the dimensions etc!

This part...

I got to the hollow handle stuff and grabbed the first one that resembled your's Lugz, and - Um - what spring?

...was funny, but also probably telling. Between you and me we have four of this type, and 50% of them are missing the spring! They WILL work without them, just not as well.

 

[four.cycle]

I'm having a difficult time keeping up with stuff here because I've been gone so much lately and immersed in other projects.
The "Springfield" find is intriguing, to say the least, and your comment about the three different examples we've seen here possibly having been made by the same manufacturer begs the question of WHO?
That one I posted - which really surprised me when I opened the package and saw how large the handle was - is very similar to units made by Millers Falls, but without any markings I didn't want to speculate about its origins.

 

[Private Lugnutz]

Lugz, it looks like a Millers Falls tool handle,

That one I posted - which really surprised me when I opened the package and saw how large the handle was - is very similar to units made by Millers Falls, but without any markings I didn't want to speculate about its origins.

I agree with both of you. The units we see here on this thread marked Millers Falls (Outlaw's), S&H RED DEVIL (Outlaw's), unmarked (4.c's), and now the Springfield Level & Tool Co (mine) do seem identical and likely made by the same OEM. However, I am not sure why you two seem to be attributing that to MF. It could be third party to all of them and more we have not seen, no? If it has been established that MF is indeed the OEM, please point me to that info, because I missed it. That's not a challenge. I am not contending that it is not MF. I'm just saying I didn't know that.

 

[four.cycle]

There's a reason but I can't think of it at the moment.
I PROBABLY saw an identical (or very similar) unit in an ebay ad that was stamped Millers Falls.
(Best wild guess at the moment. I think more caffeine is in order here.)

 

[Outlawmws]

4 .C - the top one in my pic is a C.Simmons, (chipped jaw) and the middle one is Millers falls (Longer chuck) All the jaws are pretty much the same, and the threaded part, but the chucks clearly have cosmetic differences...

 

[Outlawmws]

Lugz, did we ever ferret out a patent? the MF says patented Jan 14th 1868 (barely legible...)

Perhaps this one? https://www.datamp.org/patents/displayPatent.php?pn=73279&id=5692

No assignments I can find: https://patents.google.com/patent/US73279 (But obv. MF had one...)

 

[Private Lugnutz]

Lugz, did we ever ferret out a patent?

Yes, we did.

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.

No assignments I can find..[ ]...(But obv. MF had one...)

Assignments are different than licenses or third party production. I'm not sure that your MF unit bearing the patent date demonstrates that the patent was assigned to MF.

 

[Private Lugnutz]

I PROBABLY saw an identical (or very similar) unit in an ebay ad that was stamped Millers Falls.

And it's a strong hunch. We have one (Outlaw's) right on this thread. The issue is we have other lookalikes, and some of those (S&H, Springfield) are also capable of production. Or it could be a third party making them for all of the above, to include the big catalog purveyors, which Oultaw's E.C. Simmons unit exemplifies.

To be honest, I was kind of hoping someone HAD tracked this one down, just out of sheer laziness, and I wouldn't mind it being MF. I would just like to see the proof.