Search results

Mine has a decal that says it’s a Columbian No. 23. Whether they were the actual manufacturer, would be open for discussion, since anybody could have had a decal made with their name on it.

Shift, the 720 is probably the part no. or the foundries casting number. Pretty sure it is not a date code since my 492 1/2 has the same number cast in its base. With respect to your vise. Is it possible that the spring is just weak? It is over a hundred years old and was was probably closed...

After all the posts on the 492 1/2 and 20, I decided my 492 1/2 needed a wrench. This turned out to take longer than I thought since the nuts are not a standard size, at least mine aren’t and they are original. A 7/16 is too small and a 1/2 inch is a touch too big. After a bit of trying...

Thanks for posting those pictures! It answered two questions I had. One was what type of spring setup Parker used, and the other was whether Parkers patent for the front retainer had been utilized.

The front retaining collar was patented November 26, 1867 by Charles Kingsley, shortly before the December 17, 1867 patent by H K & T W Porter for the spring and screw setup in the meatball that restricted the handle movement. I have never seen a Parker patent for the spring over rhe spindle...

Maybe I’m missing something too. Is there any literature etc. out there that shows a 705 1/2 of any description, be it a Trojan or any other kind of standard Parker?

Interesting that when Stanley went to the swivel base and color change, they also went to the double guide rod construction. I see the 1934 catalog lists this vise as having two inch jaws. It looks like Walter was wrong when he listed it as 2 1/2. The 1926 catalog, which shows the cast slide...

Here’s a Stanley that isn’t in the data base. A rather uncommon Four Square no. 1145. Jaw width 2 1/2 in. In Walter's Stanley 'Bible' Opens 1 7/8 inch Weight 3 1/2 lbs. Finish is Black Japanning, Gray & Red at end of production Manufactured from 1923-1935 Swivel base and extra pipe jaws added...

Very nice!! I like those little British vices.

KMS, looks the operation was an unquestionable success!! Nice job. Sure looks better than the original table clamp.

I would agree! I think, as much as anything, that there is a lot of satisfaction in bringing something back to life that in a lot of instances was dead. If you look through the many posts on this thread you will find many instances of this.

Very cool Rusty, first time I’ve ever seen one...let alone two!

Because he wants to, and because he can! Looks great!

Kevin, here’s another one for the spread sheet. This time a No. 90 Hall’s patent made by Chas. Parker. It has 2 inch jaws and opens almost 2 inches. Advertised weight is 8 pounds although the actual weight is 7 pounds 10 ozs. As you can see, my example has a long raised anvil pad while the...

I had a 5 inch Holland’s with the same problem. Not having as much patience as you apparently have and after having hit the front of the nut at the bottom with a 4 pound hammer and a brass drift I decided on a different idea. I had bought a bunch of puller parts at the flea so rigged it up so...

Thanks Kevin, coming from you that means a lot! I’ve pondered your question on the anvil and I think I would call it one. I went back and looked at that particular part and it appears to have a better finish than an "as cast" part would have. In addition it is similar to the pads found on...

Thanks for the information. For whatever reason I forgot to check and see if they had any catalogs.

Kevin, here’s another one for the spreadsheet. It is faintly marked on the front jaw; "Union Vise Co., Boston, Mass, 1 1/2 inch". Although it says 1 1/2 the jaws are closer to 1 5/8 in. It weighs in at 2 lbs. 3 ozs. The last picture is intended to show the method of retaining the main...

akasrick, I'll definitely keep that in mind. Was anything mentioned about them keeping the Jersey vise colors after they bought them? As I had a Stanley, same logo, with the milky brown paint. I'll have to see if some of that book is online. akasrick I found a No. 763 in my collection, that...

akasrick, You might want to be careful with taking off the black. From 1911 until about 1950 they were finished in a black & orange enamel. In 1950 pipe jaws were added and the color changed to a gray & red finish. In 1964 it was changed to dark blue(a very dark blue, almost black)...