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

[Private Lugnutz]

Also, note that RTM posted a MF 1904 catalog that features the tool handle in few different size kits in which it is described as a "Patent Adjustable Holder." If you want to see the actual page and text see post #98 on page 3 for the link. Not sure what to think about that. If it was theirs, I'm not sure why they wouldn't just call it an Adjustable Holder. Are they preceding every name of every tool they have patented and offer in the catalog with "Patent"? Thirty-six years after it was patented? It smacks of Bonney advertising "Fray's Patent Awl and Tool Set" in their 1896 catalog, only MF dropping the Amidon attribution as unnecessary it's so well known.

 

[Private Lugnutz]

Are they preceding every name of every tool they have patented and offer in the catalog with "Patent"? Thirty-six years after it was patented? It smacks of Bonney advertising "Fray's Patent Awl and Tool Set" in their 1896 catalog, only MF dropping the Amidon attribution as unnecessary it's so well known.

Okay, so I peeled back that onion of thought another layer, but I probably need some help from wood working guys with good knowledge of wood working tools patents.

It seems to me that the word "Patent" precedes or is otherwise only used in association with a tool in the 1904 MF catalog "B" for tools they are explicitly calling out as someone else's patent. In 84 pages of MF tools, there are only five (5) examples of the word "Patent".

- A brace, where they actually cite the patentee, "Barber's Improved Patent Brace."
- An angular bit stock (an example of which I actually own, linked here) where they don't credit Anthoine (171,235), just, "Patent Universal Angular Bit Stock".
- A "Patent Star Hack Saw Frame" (didn't Peck, Stowe, and Wilcox own that?)
- The object in question (again, "Patent Adjustable Holder").
- And, a "Patent Adjustable Hollow Auger."

 

[Private Lugnutz]

Amidon was a co-founder of Millers Falls. Whether or not they made all the holders that used that bit, still not certain, but their association with that type of bit seems undeniable.

 

[bbbarracuda]

I’ve got 2 of this size, both have the springs.
They have the pat. Jan 14, 1868
There is also some other printing after the pat date, but it’s so shallow and worn, I can’t make out what it says
I’ll try to get the figured out later but don’t have the time today.
One has the tools for it.
The other feels hollow by the weight, but the cap is completely unmovable. Almost like the line is just scribed. So it may just be a tool holder.

 

[RTM]

It seems to me that the word "Patent" precedes or is otherwise only used in association with a tool in the 1904 MF catalog "B" for tools they are explicitly calling out as someone else's patent. In 84 pages of MF tools, there are only five (5) examples of the word "Patent".

- A brace, where they actually cite the patentee, "Barber's Improved Patent Brace."
- An angular bit stock (an example of which I actually own, linked here) where they don't credit Anthoine (171,235), just, "Patent Universal Angular Bit Stock".
- A "Patent Star Hack Saw Frame" (didn't Peck, Stowe, and Wilcox own that?)
- The object in question (again, "Patent Adjustable Holder").
- And, a "Patent Adjustable Hollow Auger."

Not to go too far afield here, there are several other tools in there called out by Patentee's name. ie Graves Automatic Drill Stock on Pg 20. So maybe there is a method, following your lead on Pexto, maybe a direct competitor to them? Maybe its actually a different Saw Maker

So, lets dive into the Star Hacksaw. The blade patent I see here, US601947, issued to G.N. Clemson who I am assuming is part of Wheeler Madden Clemson, and probably the Clemson Bros. See an ad from 1927 for the blade here. Datamp specifically called this out as a Star Blade, and confirms the familial ties
The next DATAMP hacksaw patent also calls it a Star, based on the patent found on a box of blades.

Turns out G.N. Clemson has a bunch of patents, several for Hacksaw blades.

And back to Pexto, their 1910 catalog has no hacksaws, or saws period.

Gonna keep digging on this thought later today.

 

[Private Lugnutz]

Not to go too far afield here,

No need to go any further, which will only distract the thread. I was just riffing on my first thought, but I realized it did not bear fully out as soon as I discovered that Amidon was a MF co-founder.

And back to Pexto, their 1910 catalog has no hacksaws, or saws period.

They made "Star" brand clamps. That's what threw me. But again, not necessary to dig deeper on any of the others. I am convinced Amidon wholly owned the patent and didn't need to assign it to the company he co-started.

 

[Private Lugnutz]

I’ll try to get the figured out later

Thanks. Might help. So far, neither the RED DEVIL, the Springfield, or the unmarked (obviously) models on the thread have the patent date. Only the MF'er (snerk). If yours is also an MF'er, it could mean the others were just ripping MF off, or, much more likely, they were made 17 years later than 1868, when the patent expired. If it's not an MF'er, it could mean whoever was making them (and it could be MF, or someone for MF and everyone else) was putting the patent on when it was still in effect, before 1885.

 

[bbbarracuda]

With a magnifying glass, I was able to tell both are Miller's Falls
Strange that the patent dates were stamped much deeper and easier to read.

 

[Private Lugnutz]

Thanks, 'Cuda.

 

[four.cycle]

^ there's always the possibility that some other MF'er was making them for the other MF'ers.

I'm trying to keep up with you guys on these recent discoveries. Not sure I got them all. Will upload a new list in a couple minutes.
Be back in a week or so - off to the coast for some mushrooms.

BK

 

[RTM]

With a magnifying glass, I was able to tell both are Miller's Falls
Strange that the patent dates were stamped much deeper and easier to read.

Stamped on the chuck?

 

[Outlawmws]

Mine was and same for stamp depth, but part of that for me was rust...

 

[bbbarracuda]

Stamped on the chuck?

Yes.
The pat date was very readable. If I hadn't been looking for Millers falls, probably wouldn't have figure out what it said.

 

[Private Lugnutz]

I'm trying to keep up with you guys on these recent discoveries. Not sure I got them all.

There's only been one "new to the thread" unit posted since @WisJim's very cool (though solid, not hollow-handle) Holt unit back in February 2022, and that's the unit that caused this most recent discussion, the unit I found marked Springfield Level & Tool that looks very much like if not identical to previous units that are marked Millers Falls, S&H (Smith & Hemenway) Red Devil, or unmarked. And nothing in that discussion discovered anything except that MF, vis-a-vis its co-founder, Amidon, did own the patent for the bit-chuck design (two halves, pinned together, and loosened and tightened with a threaded collar) this type holder is built around.

In short, I don't think you missed anything "recent."

...there's always the possibility that some other MF'er was making them for the other MF'ers.

If you mean neither MF, S&H, or Springfield, I wholeheartedly agree. It's what I meant by "third party" here...

It could be third party to all of them

...and in explanation here...

it could be MF, or someone for MF and everyone else

But it's important to note that, so far, the units stamped Millers Falls are the only units that also bear the patent date. I think that could mean that the other units didn't have to, which could indicate later production after the patent expired. It could still mean that a third party was making them for others (i.e., Springfield, S&H, and whoever sold your unmarked one...) and themselves, and that still could be MF.

 

[WisJim]

I think that I posted about it somewhere, but I also have a Millers Falls No 16 brace that is a very small brace using the same chuck and jaws as the tool handles being discussed. This brace was discontinued by 1899 according to Randy Roeder's MF site--just to add to the confusion.

 

[Mintgrun]

ROLLIS is a new name to me and new to this thread as well. The design is not new though. There's no patent information on this one. Just the name.



I think the handle is cocobolo and it contains a familiar mix of bits. It also has the metal end screwed into the cap, but uses a round head screw, which differs from Outlaw's example with a flat head.



That screw wouldn't do the bits' cutting edges any good.



This one is also missing the little wire keeper for the jaws.



I haven't done a lot of searching, but the name ROLLIS only brings up examples of this multi tool when googling, aside from this neat little level that's on ePay right now. It's patent date appears to be Dec 22, 1896.



Okay, after looking at that seller's other items for sale (page one, anyway) I found another level. (amongst many other cool tools)



Tom

 

[d42jeep]

I found this one at an estate sale this morning that resembles Outlaw’s Millers Falls example although I can‘t quite read the markings. It seems to have a full compliment of bits.
-Don

 

[Outlawmws]

That's a tough one even blown up big like that - maybe thin paper and a rubbing?

 

[d42jeep]

Although the pictures don’t show the markings well, there is a rectangular outline around them that looks very much like yours shown in post #22. I may do a little more restoration work on that area tomorrow. I was happy to see the spring in place on the jaws.
-Don

 

[d42jeep]

A little work with my 3M 220 disc made the Millers Falls markings pretty obvious. Patented in 1868
-Don

 

[four.cycle]

Jan 14 1868 - 73279?

 

[d42jeep]

That’s the date and the patent. I guess due to the jaw design. It’s very hard to get usable pictures
-Don

 

[four.cycle]

^ that's got to be the one - it's the only thing applicable that falls on a 14th that year.

 

[Private Lugnutz]

??? That's the patent. Amidon was a co-founder of MF. We've talked about it several times on this thread already, including the last couple pages. This is not the first MF to be posted. And not the first of this type, with that type chuck, although the others don't have the patent number.

 

[four.cycle]

^ If and when I am ever able to find mine.... I'm pretty sure it's a match to that one. Someone else here had one as well - no branding or markings on it. Only way to know for sure, I suppose, would be to compare the design and construction of the chuck, which is what the patent is all about.

 

[d42jeep]

I found this one last Friday at a Point Richmond estate sale. It’s the first one I’ve seen with a screw to retain the bit. It looks like something is missing from the threaded area in the bit end. There were no additional tools stashed inside. I can’t find any markings.
-Don
Here it is with my others.

 

[Oldtuleguy]

That's a nice one. Looks similar to one kwigly posted #134

 

[gdwtvb]

Hello, I was cleaning out the garage and going through tools and I found one of these. Marked G. L. Holt. I almost chucked it out as an old broken handle except that it seemed too heavy and rattled. I currently own the family home that was purchased almost 80 years ago, always provides surprises. My research led me here.






I'll ask my 82 year old father about it next time I talk to him tomorrow to see if he recognizes it. Looks pretty complete.

Grizz

 

[Private Lugnutz]

Hello, I was cleaning out the garage and going through tools and I found one of these.

Hello, Grizz. Welcome to GJ and to this thread.

Marked G. L. Holt...[ ]....My research led me here.

You probably saw @kwigly 's example in post #101 on page 3. Yours is only the second one of these that we've seen here.

Looks pretty complete.

Hard to ascertain without a catalog listing, although I will say that ten (10) bits is a lot. More than typical, and @kwigly 's has seven (7) bits, so yours will be helpful to him to see what bits his is missing.

 

[gdwtvb]

Hello, Grizz. Welcome to GJ and to this thread.

You probably saw @kwigly 's example in post #101 on page 3. Yours is only the second one of these that we've seen here.

I did see his, and thanks for the welcome. It actually takes a little work to get all the bits situated back inside correctly. I can't imagine anymore fitting. The saw, screwdrivers, awl, and chisels are easy, any idea what the last two bits on the right are for? they aren't sharpened. Wood counterbore?

Sometime this week I'll clean it up and post pictures before it goes in the Curio cabinet.

Happy New Year
Grizz

 

[Private Lugnutz]

any idea what the last two bits on the right are for? they aren't sharpened.

Not sure about the one on the far right. The one next to it is called a tapered reamer in catalogs.

 

[RTM]

Far right is a countersink

 

[gdwtvb]

Cleaned, waxed and off the the Curio Cabinet. I will keep my eyes open at estate sales, now that I know what I'm looking for.

For reference, it is marked: "THE G. L. HOLT CO HFD. CT. PAT'D"

Grizz

 

[four.cycle]

^ that's an incredibly nice piece there. I do not believe I've seen one with that many bits.

the Holt factory was a busy place

Holt / G.L. Holt Co., 16 Sigourney St., Hartford, CT / patent 501110 Jul 11 1893 Henry V. Smith & 829154 Aug 21 1906 Gardner L. Holt & 1070656 Aug 19 1913 John Anderson & 1123462 Jan 5 1915 John Anderson & John Elmer Anderson / "Sure Holt" "Adjustable Twin" "Triplet" / information re: pat 829154 http://icetoolcollection.com/1p5knobhandle.htm /

 

[Old Radar]

Hooboy! Icepicks--now there's a rabbithole!

 

[RTM]

/ information re: pat 829154 http://icetoolcollection.com/1p5knobhandle.htm /

Hooboy! Icepicks--now there's a rabbithole!

yes it is, I just wish it wasn’t so hard to find online, guess I should bookmark it.

Great for explaining ice hammer vs meat tenderizer vs both, 4 pt ice pick vs tack puller, etc.

 

[Private Lugnutz]

I do not believe I've seen one with that many bits.

Fray's, post #1. But four (4) of the ten (10) are all brad-awls with different width tips. That Holt is more diverse.

 

[four.cycle]

Hooboy! Icepicks--now there's a rabbithole!

That's just the tip of the ICEberg, sir. It wasn't until Stan S. sent me a note reminding me that up until the first part of the 20th century, the "ICE MAN" came by a couple times a week with a new block of ice for your "ICE BOX". There was an enormous multi-million-dollar industry created just to move ice from point A to point B, and it required a whole hell of a lot of tools, including but not limited to horse-drawn multi-bladed "ICE SAWS". A guy could spend an entire lifetime just on "Ice Tools".

 

[four.cycle]

Fray's, post #1.

Honestly, sometimes I think I miss more stuff here than I catch!
Bear in mind that most of those I've seen have been the photo images of ebay sellers... most of them are missing pieces.

 

[Private Lugnutz]

I didn't double-check the thread, but that probably holds true for most found and reported here as well.