Craftsman RHFT Ratchet Type Study 1968-2009

I was raised on the Craftsman Brand with my step dad in his garage workshop; as an adult I have continued our Craftsman USA tradition. I was gifted my first Craftsman Mechanic set in 2005 but since realized the Craftsman golden years were much earlier. Recently I learned of the RHFT ratchets from GJ and was immediately intrigued. As I started searching for RHFT ratchets, I was shocked at all the different types and wanted to understand them. I never dreamed my original 4 type catalog driven list would be transformed into a 10 type patent driven list like no other. Thanks to all the GJ members that contributed to my first thread and drove this project forward. The biggest contributor by far, at times surpassing my own contribution, is DadsTools. The research is now all organized in Dad’s Approach, Method, Sources and Type Summary writings. The list wouldn't be what is today without Dad, and in his posts following this one, you will understand why.

If you ever wanted to learn about the Craftsman Round Head Fine Tooth line of tools… You have come to the right place. Enjoy!!!



ABBREVIATIONS [see Type Study Approach et.al. for more details]:
M = model number
NM = no model number
QR1 = 1st Generation quick release having an opening in the stud end for the plunger
QR2 = 2nd Generation quick release having no plunger opening or a “blind” stud
PA = pointed-As in the CRAFTSMAN logo
FA = flat-As in the CRAFTSMAN logo

FOOTNOTES [see Type Study Approach et.al. for more details]:
(1) Some examples are found with a double-spaced P A T E N T P E N D I N G
(2) Types 3 through 6 can be found in both "double-line" and "no-line" CRAFTSMAN logo variations
(3) A small percentage of Type 6 can be found with a -VV- mfr. code
(4) Late production 1/2" & 3/8" have smaller diameter plungers (QR1-S), poss. 1978-81
(5) Early Type 7 have small model # on top text line, later Type 7 have full-height model # at right
(6) Two-letter V_ mfr codes, typically VE, VF, VG, VH, VJ

Original thread (the beginnings of this RHFT type study)
https://www.garagejournal.com/forum/showthread.php?t=454332

TYPE STUDY APPROACH, METHOD & SOURCES
[Please see also the Type Summary Section in a separate post]

In any collectible Type Study, one must first decide by what criteria the typing will be determined. This is based in no small part on how the study is intended to be used. In this case, the goal was to assist the collector in determining the production date range of any Craftsman Round Head Fine Tooth (RHFT) ratchet by visual inspection only. The outward appearance and markings were consequently used as the sole assessment criteria for determining each Type and its dating. Since the dual-pawl ratcheting means and tooth count for each drive size remained consistent throughout the RHFT production, only the externally distinct features were required to define each Type.

Easco (formally Moore Drop Forging) and its successor Danaher produced versions of the RHFT for a number of brands besides Craftsman including Master Mechanic, KD, Allen, Ridgid, Napa and others, as well as under its own Easco brand. This Type Study is focused exclusively on the Craftsman versions, although the related patents will apply to these other brands as well.

Minor differences in external markings having no substantive affect on the identification or chronology of a Type are deemed to be a “variation” and are footnoted in the Type List accordingly. This can be a matter of subjective judgment at times, and so individual opinions on these variations may differ. The criterion here is whether a marking would substantially alter the definition or dating of a Type group where its members are otherwise identical.

For example, a —VV— mfr. code is occasionally found on a small minority of Type 6 examples (instead of the characteristic —V— code) while all other markings remain identical. One would be tempted to define this as an additional Type with its own date range by following the assumption that one mark must supersede the other, so that —V— was replaced by —VV— at some point along the timeline. But other authoritative studies have assigned date ranges for —V— and —VV— of 1968-1986 and 1974-1989 respectively (a 12-year overlap), showing that both codes were being used concurrently during the Type 6 date range of 1972-1981. In addition, the —V— code was still being used on the later Types 7 and 8, proving there was no distinct switchover from one mark to the other. Seeking the simplicity of stating something like “—V— was being used, then they switched to —VV—, and then back to —V— again” will not work here, since we have no way to determine exactly when or even why —VV— makes the rare Type 6 appearance. Trying to force the evidence into a dogmatic preconceived notion would be like trying to pound a square peg into a round hole instead of letting the evidence take us where it will. What’s more, even the experts cannot say why —V— was used at times on some tools and —VV— on others during their overlapping years (although Jim C.’s TD Study and others have suggested it may represent an alternative plant in the Easco network of manufacturing facilities). Since all the Type 6 examples are otherwise identical, and neither code alters its date range of 1972-81, we have no grounds to assign —VV— its own Type, and so must include it only as a minor variation within the Type 6 period.

Another example is the lines on either side of the CRAFTSMAN name logo that appear on so many of its hand tools. To my knowledge, no “official” term exists for these lines. Alloy Artifacts calls it the “double-line” logo when there are two lines, and perhaps that’s as good as any. On the RHFT we find two logo variations; one with two lines and one with no lines, or a “no-line” logo. Both logos are found throughout Types 3 through 6. However, each Type has a ‘majority’ variation. All of Type 3 was almost certainly meant to have a double-line logo, and so the very rare occurrence of a no-line logo is a fluke. Type 4 and 5 on the other hand appear instead to have been planned with a no-line logo, since that’s what the overwhelming majority have, So it’s possible that at the end of the Type 3 period that a few were made with the new Type 4 no-line stamp, creating a sort of transitional version. A double-line logo on the Type 4 and 5, however, is more difficult to explain, since the overwhelming majority of them have no lines. But we do know from examining the double-line “teardrop” ratchets from this period that the no-line logo occasionally appears on these as well, so we know that both logo stamps were in use at the factory. Keep in mind that the logo stamp was a separate device from the descriptive panel stamp, and so could be used on any appropriate sized panel. Because the geometry of the raised panels on both the teardrop and the RHFT were essentially the same, both the double-line and no-line stamps could have been applied to either. On the Type 6, it appears that the no-line logo was in use until late in that era and then was changed back to the double-line, but earlier double-line examples are also known to exist. Because of all these inconsistencies, the presence of a double-line or no-line logo can at best be defined only as a variation.

The above two examples illustrate the kinds of judgment calls essential to any Type Study project. A researcher must assess which features are fundamental to the purpose of the Type Study and which are incidental. Our purpose was to provide the reader with a clear, easy-to-use means to accurately identify and date any RHFT. It’s noble to try classifying every observable variable, but not every feature is worthy of its own Type. Sometimes the attempt to Type every variable might even be futile, as is apparently the case with the Plomb / Proto / Penens / Fleet / et.al. pear- and racetrack-head ratchets from the 1940s-50s where it seems like they marked every single production run with a different brand (both for others and their own) and model number (sometimes different numbers for the same brand or the same number for different brands!). Or like the New Britain Kilness ratchet where NMB made the exact same tool marked for so many different brands that I’m still not sure we’ve found them all! Our approach to the RHFT would simply not work with these—the only way to Type these kinds of lines is according to their mechanical geometry, the brand and number markings having to be relegated to mere variations. Otherwise, the resulting list would be so complex and unwieldy as to make it a chore to use, and possibly a project with no end. And so each Type Study must be tailored to the peculiarities of that particular tool line, presented in a format that furnishes both accuracy and ease of use, and in a framework that projects a foreseeable conclusion while lending itself to simple amendment without having to substantially reconstruct it.

It has been suggested that certain product features on the RHFT might be drive-specific. We found no evidence of this. After an extensive search of all available current and archived images online, we found every drive size represented in each Type.

Terminology is another element of any Type Study. Physical features and markings have over time acquired various descriptive terms within the collecting community. Sometimes these terms differ from one another. Manufacturers themselves sometime disagree in their descriptions of a given feature. For the sake of the RHFT, we used the ‘official’ terms specified in the related patents: the drive part on which a socket is placed is called the stud; the button activating the quick release is called the release button; the ram that extends out of the stud when the release button is pushed is called the plunger. We have already discussed the use of double-line and no-line logo names.

The Type Study makes use of the following abbreviations for saving space:

M = handle shows a model number
NM = handle shows no model number
PA = pointed-As in the CRAFTSMAN logo
FA = flat-As in the CRAFTSMAN logo
QR1 = 1st Generation quick release having an opening in the stud end for the plunger
QR2 = 2nd Generation quick release having no plunger opening or a “blind” stud

Speaking of the two quick release variations, we found instances where a later QR2 rebuild kit was installed in an earlier QR1 style ratchet (and vise versa). Fortunately, the easily recognized ‘blind-stud’ of the QR2 is linked to a later patent date as well as a different series of model numbers. Once you know what to look for, you won’t confuse them or be fooled. The patent for the QR2 will be explained in the separate Type Summary posting under the Type 7 entry. For now, here are the distinct model numbers for each drive size and QR style:

___________QR1_________QR2
1/4"_______43178_______43187
3/8"_______43788_______43781
1/2"_______44978_______44977
3/8" Flex___42792_______42794
1/2" Flex___44973_______44983

The RHFT Flex-Head ratchets were first introduced in 1978 during the Type 6 era. All the examples we’ve seen conform to the very same Type Study definitions and chronology as the standard Type 6 through Type 10.

One other product in the line is the RHFT ratcheting torque wrench, briefly offered in a 3/8” drive #44466 and a 1/2" drive #44465 between 1978 and 1981. The only thing they share in common with the other RHFT wrenches is the ratchet heads, which themselves also conform with the Type Study from the handful we’ve seen: 1978-80 = QR1, 1981 = QR2. The difference with these is that, unlike the other ratchets, the model numbers stay the same with the change to the QR2. They are included here simply for the sake of thoroughness.

Honorable mention goes to the obscure Quick Release Extension Bar sold in the general catalogs and stores for only two years between 1972-74. It was made to work with the Roberts QR1 extending plunger in both the RHFT and Teardrop ratchets, which engaged the bar’s center rod activating the QR on the stud end. A plastic collar was installed on the bar shank against the shoulder of the female drive end, so that two fingers could be placed on it providing leverage when pressing the QR button with the thumb. Not many were sold, and the collars invariably broke, which led to its ultimate demise. While not strictly an RHFT item, it is kind of a sad orphan that deserves a home, so we’re giving it a place here. The QR bar was made in two lengths and drive sizes: 43533 3” 3/8dr, 43534 6” 3/8dr, 43535 3” 1/2dr, and 43536 6” 1/2dr.

This Craftsman Type Study is unique in that it was compiled almost entirely without the use of any Sears catalog references. Most type studies depend heavily on these catalogs out of necessity, even though they can be fraught with inconsistencies, omissions and inaccurate artists’ renderings. For example, the RHFT first appeared in the 1970 catalog, and so the community has generally presumed this was the first year of production. Yet the patent markings on the ratchets themselves prove that production began two years earlier. At the time, Sears had the largest retail distribution channel in the country for its Craftsman branded tools, and so an item certainly did not need to be in the catalog to be sold successfully. When we needed a tool back in the day, we just drove to Sears—we didn’t look in the catalog first.

We used the catalogs only for comparing handle logo images to the actual artifacts, the debut date of the flex head, the date range of the torque wrenches, and for a little help in determining the starting date for the Type 10. Other than these, we were fortunate that the patent markings allowed us to use the USPTO and Canadian issued patents exclusively for our Type dating, which are far more reliable than any catalog. Not only do these government-issued dates make this Type Study uncommonly precise, but their rapid succession during those early RHFT years sheds additional light on that important transition period when =V= was changed to —V—, pointed-A changed to flat-A, and when model numbers first appeared on the tools. While we can’t form any across-the-board conclusions about the markings on the entire hand tool line from this single ratchet study, we can now say for certain that the decision to transit from older markings to newer happened at least as early or late as a particular year.


There are seven patents related to the handle markings on the RHFT. They are as follows:

--US 3172675 Ball Socket Attachment for Impact Tool, filed 2-19-63, issued 3-9-65, inventor Victor E. Gonzalez, no assignee, acquired by Sears in 1968 [Note: this and the following patent number were not originally intended to be associated with the RHFT—their solitary appearance on the Type 4 is explained in the Type Summary section.]

--US 3208318 Quick Release for Socket Wrenches, filed 4-24-64, issued 9-28-65, inventor Peter M. Roberts, assigned to Sears 6-15-65, assigned back to Roberts by Sears 2-17-81

--US 3467231 Pawl Reversing Mechanism for Ratchet Wrenches, filed 2-12-68, issued 9-16-69, inventor Henry J. Haznar, assigned to Moore Drop Forging.

--US 3532013 Quick Release Mechanism for Fine Tooth Ratchet Wrenches, filed 5-1-68, issued 10-6-70, inventor Henry J. Haznar, assigned to Easco Hand Tools Inc.

--Canadian 870343 Pawl Reversing Mechanism for Ratchet Wrenches, filed N/A, issued 5-11-71, inventor Henry J. Haznar, owner Moore Drop Forging [Note: This is the Canadian counterpart to the corresponding US 3467231 patent]

--Canadian 888494 Quick Release Mechanism for Fine Tooth Ratchet Wrenches, filed N/A, issued 12-21-71, inventor Henry J. Haznar, owner Moore Drop Forging [Note: The Canadian counterpart to the corresponding US 3532013 patent]

--US 4399722 Socket Wrench Including Quick-Release Adapter, filed 3-6-81, issued 8-23-83, inventor Vincent Sardo Jr., no assignee [Note: This previously un-referenced patent solves the mystery surrounding an often misidentified RHFT type (even by Alloy Artifacts), and will be explained in greater detail in the Type Summary section.]

The second patent listed above for a quick release mechanism invented by Peter M. Roberts and issued in 1965 (3208318) was the object of a long court battle between Roberts and Sears. Roberts had assigned the patent to Sears, but in 1969 sued Sears over infringement and that the retail giant had defrauded him in the agreement. The case went though multiple trials and appeals, and was not completely settled until 20 years later. While it is not the intent of this Type Study to substantially involve itself with this matter, the discussion of which would fill many pages on its own, it merits mentioning because it played a role in the patent history of the RHFT. The Haznar quick release patent, the patent pending marks on Types 1 and 2, the appearance of its number on the Type 4, and the 1981 filing of the Sardo quick release patent were all influenced to some degree by the legal wrangling between the two parties. We will confine ourselves to its brief mention only in those instances where it directly affects the RHFT typing details.

A fascinating revelation during the December 1976 Roberts trial and of particular interest to collectors is the sheer volume of QR ratchets sold by Sears. In the 11 years between late 1965 and the trial, it was documented that Sears sold a staggering 17 million units! That averages over 1.5 million units a year, or almost 29,000 a week. And while the numbers are not sorted between Teardrop and RHFT ratchets or drive sizes, it’s apparent that huge quantities were made of each. The 6/15/65 agreement between Roberts and Sears called for a 2-cent per unit royalty up to a maximum of $10,000. It was reported that Sears paid this off sometime in 1966 only nine months after the agreement—that’s 500,000 units sold! No wonder Roberts sued. In preparation for the market launch of the Teardrop QR ratchet toward the end of 1965, Moore Drop Forging produced 750,000 QR ratchets for Sears, at times as many as 40,000 units per week. The general public would have no idea of these numbers had it not been for the trial. There are a number of takeaways in this for collectors. First, what you see for sale on websites like eBay, yard/estate sales and flea markets represent only a tiny fraction of what’s out there still in the garages and tool boxes of private hands. Second, just because you’ve not seen a specimen personally does not necessarily mean it doesn’t exist. Too, it gives us an insight into the kinds of quantities Sears could sell just through its stores without even listing the item in a catalog. And finally, we don’t have a situation where a particular model or type was made and then languished for months or years before that production run was finally sold out—Sears was flipping these runs at a dizzying pace, and a change in style or markings could be released in mere weeks after the decision was made. The documented evidence from the court case is beyond mere speculation, personal observation or catalog representation—they are indisputable fact.

As is the case with virtually all patented products, an item marked PATENT PENDING means a patent application has been filed with the USPTO but has not yet been approved for issue. Once approved, a manufacturer will change the markings to show the issued patent number. We interpreted the RHFT markings accordingly.

The Craftsman mfr. code study by Gary Lauver was used as the source for the date ranges of the —V— and —VV— codes. Observations posted by numerous GJ members in multiple RHFT-related threads were relied on to determine both the last year of its appearance in a Sears catalog (2008) and the last year it was still offered for sale online (2009).

We would like to thank all the GJ members for their assistance and support in this endeavor. We are honored to make this contribution to the GJ vintage hand tool lexicon.

TYPE SUMMARY [Please see Post #39 for logo variations & additional information]

TYPE 1: The first issue of the RHFT ratchet, characterized by three distinct handle markings: the pointed-As in the CRAFTSMAN logo, =V= mfr code and PATENT PENDING.

In 1968, Moore Drop Forging filed two patent applications with the USPTO for both the ratcheting mechanism and the quick release (QR1) of the original RHFT, both invented by employee H.J. Haznar. The same two patents were also filed with the Canadian Patent Office for a total of four pending applications (this total will figure prominently in the early years of the RHFT history). The first was for the ratcheting mechanism and was filed 2-12-68; the second for the quick release was filed 5-1-68. Although the Canadian filing dates are not available online, the drawings and abstracts are the same as in the US applications and so were likely submitted the same year.

The drawings in these two patents help to narrow the Type 1 dating. The 2-12-68 drawings show approximations of the RHFT mechanism, but the later 5-1-68 drawing shows a scale image of the actual tool down to the head shape, thumbwheel and even the sculpted geometry of the shank. This indicates that at the time of these later drawings, the engineering was completed and the tool was already being made under the pending first patent, which places the start of the Type 1 production between February and May of 1968. This also tells us that the =V= code and the pointed-A were still in use at that time.

It’s important to note that at the time of the 1968 Moore patent filings, Sears already had an issued quick release patent assigned to it in 1965 (Roberts 3208318), and so the patent pending marking on the Type 1 shows that this earlier 3208318 patent was never intended to be associated with Moore’s RHFT. This fact will play a role in subsequent analysis.


TYPE 2: Same as Type 1 except it has the flat-As in the logo. It was assigned its own Type because of the flat-A’s importance in helping to date other Craftsman hand tools. Vintage Craftsman enthusiasts universally recognize that the transition from pointed-A to flat-A happened some time around 1968, and the Type 2 confirms this. Starting with Type 2, the pointed-A never appears again in the RHFT series.

The PATENT PENDING means Type 2 was also made prior to the first RHFT patent that was to be issued later by the USPTO on 9-16-69. This places Type 2 production on the RHFT timeline between May 1968 and September 1969. The double-line =V= marking suggests this code was still in use as late as 1969.


TYPE 3: Changes to both the patent markings and the mfr code characterize the Type 3. The earlier pending marks are now replaced with U.S. PAT. 3462731, AND OTHERS. The number refers to the first RHFT patent issued on 9-16-69 by the USPTO for the ratchet mechanism. Its appearance on the handle shows that the Type 3 started production after this date.

The “AND OTHERS” is a curious statement that still strikes us oddly today. The “U.S. PAT.” is singular, and along with just one number demonstrates that Moore—now operating as Easco Hand Tools—had only a single legitimate RHFT patent in hand (the previously mentioned Sears patent was not included). If it actually had more, it would have used the plural “U.S.PATS.” as it did on the later Types when it definitely had multiple patent numbers. So what is the meaning of this ambiguous “AND OTHERS” when they truly had no other patents issued yet?

Recall that Moore filed four patent applications in 1968. The management apparently expected the OTHERS to be issued very shortly after the first. Since there was only a single other US patent pending, they were also counting on the two Canadian pending patents to make up the OTHERS. So they decided to claim AND OTHERS anticipating that by the time the Type 3 production was completed and being distributed, they would certainly have the OTHERS in hand. But as the markings on the Type 4 will reveal, things did not turn out quite the way they expected.

For now, we can confidently date the range of production for the Type 3 as beginning after the first-issued patent cited on the handle, but before the second legitimate RHFT patent was finally issued on 10-6-70, and so between September 1969 and October 1970.

The other important Type 3 marking is the first use of the single-line —V— mfr code on the RHFT. The double-line =V= never appears again on any RHFT, revealing that this change was a permanent transition. This also confirms that the new —V— code was in use as early as 1969.
[see post #39 for logo variations]


TYPE 4: One of the more interesting of the RHFTs is the Type 4, which is characterized by the presence of four different US patent numbers 3172675, 3208318, 3467231 and 353201, as well as a model number. At first glance, these numbers might lead one to think this version was issued somewhat later in the RHFT timeline. But a careful assessment of the marking on both Types 3 and 4 uncovers its true vintage and meaning.

The last two numbers are legitimate RHFT US patents that referred specifically to that tool; 3467231 for the ratchet mechanism and 3532013 for the quick release. This is the first appearance of the 3532013 patent, which confirms the Type 4 was made after its 10-6-70 issue date.

So far, so good….but what’s the story on the first two patent numbers? This has always been puzzling since they were both issued back in 1965. Had they been originally intended to reference the RHFT, we would have seen them pompously displayed on the 1968-1969 Types 1 and 2 handles instead of the relatively lame “patent pending” mark. Anyone who has ever looked up the first patent 3172675 knows this has virtually nothing to do with the RHFT. The second number 3208318 is the previously mentioned 1965 Sears/Roberts quick release that was never intended to be associated with the RHFT—from its start, the RHFT was dependent solely on the 1968 Moore quick release. So why were these two numbers placed on the handle?

The only answer that fits all the facts is that these two 1965 numbers weren’t placed on the Type 4 because of any relevance to the RHFT, but because of the overly-optimistic AND OTHERS claim on the Type 3. At the time of the Type 4 production run, Easco (the new company name) had been issued only one more of the pending patents (3532013), giving it a total of just two. That comprised only a single added ‘other’ number, which did not add up to the plural OTHERS it had promised publicly on the previous Type 3. One can imagine how unhappy this would have made Sears management. So Sears and Easco had to dive into their patent repertoire to fish up a couple of patents that ‘sort-of, kind-of’ looked like they might have something remotely to do with the RHFT to take the place of the two still-pending Canadian patents that had not yet been issued, slapped them on the handle, and said, “See? There are the OTHERS we promised!” I call these two the imposters that masqueraded as the real thing for a handful of months until the first legitimate RHFT Canadian patent was finally issued in 1971. Once Easco had its bona fide OTHERS, the imposters were expunged from the record and quietly slipped back into the filing cabinet, never to be seen on the RHFT again.

Having finally uncovered the first two patent numbers as imposters, we can now reckon the date range for the Type 4 production based on the second genuine RHFT patent issued 10-6-70 (US3532013), but before the third genuine patent (Canadian) that would be issued 5-11-71, or between October 1970 and May 1971.

Type 4 is also the first RHFT to display a model number. This is important to the Craftsman timeline because it confirms the appearance of model numbers on the hand tools as early as 1970.
[see post #39 for logo variations]


TYPE 5: The Type 5 is characterized by the removal of the two ‘imposters’ (since they were no longer needed as stand-ins) and replaced by the first Canadian-issued patent number along with its 1971 year of issue. Including the 1971 issue year on the handle is kind of unusual on a Craftsman hand tool. Perhaps it was added to fill out the second text line on the handle, or to possibly ‘refresh’ the image of the RHFT by proudly proclaiming a brand new date.

Canadian patent 870343 was issued 5-11-71, and so Type 5 production commenced after that date. However, the issuing of the second and final Canadian patent at the end of that same year was to make the Type 5 short-lived, giving it a production date-range between May 1971 and December 1971.
[see post #39 for logo variations]


TYPE 6: The Type 6 is characterized by the change in the Type 5 Canadian patent markings from CAN.PAT.870343-1971 to CAN.PATENTED-1971, replacing one of the numbers with a word.

This brings us to the next RHFT puzzle—why would Easco remove a legitimate patent number when it was previously motivated to stuff every patent number it could on the handle? The answer here seems to have been dictated by necessity. The issue of the second Canadian patent (888494 for the quick release) on 12-21-71 now left Easco with four legitimate patent numbers to fit on the second text line of the handle, and so something had to go to make the needed room. It could not remove the “CAN.” because that is what delineated the US numbers from the Canadian ones. It could not justify removing any US numbers in favor of Canadian ones, not only because of their historical importance, but also because the US patents held the greater clout in the domestic marketplace than their less prestigious Canadian counterparts. The 1971 also appears to have been deemed too important to sacrifice, or perhaps its removal wouldn’t have provided the needed space anyway. Easco apparently decided that the best solution was to absorb both Canadian patents into the blanket-term PATENTED in place of the numbers.

Given that the second patent’s 12-21-71 issue date was at the start of the holidays, any subsequent production run would have had to wait until the new year, which gives us a starting date for Type 6 production no earlier than January 1972. Its end in March of 1981 would be brought about by a fifth and final RHFT patent.

During the latter part of the Type 6 period, the diameter of the plunger on the 1/2” and 3/8” was reduced, creating a “small plunger” variation. The internal mechanism and assembly differs slightly, but is still a 2-piece affair that functioned similarly. The reason for this change is uncertain. Todd F. from the Tool Talk forum confirmed it’s not required for the elusive QR extension bar. The QR means is the same and so provided no infringement protection from the Roberts patent lawsuit (at this time, Sears still had complete ownership of the patent anyway). They might have been addressing a service issue by thickening the stud metal or improving the mechanism’s reliability, or had simply found a less expensive means for producing it. A review of the artifacts and their markings suggests a date for the change around 1977-78, and ran until the end of the Type 6 in 1981.
[see post #39 for logo variations]


TYPE 7: The Type 7 is the most challenging to place chronologically in the RHFT timeline. Its PATENT PENDING mark leads many to believe it was made prior to the issue of the first RHFT patents (even Alloy Artifacts assigns it such an early date). Yet the presence of a model number and the absence of the older =V= code makes this ‘early’ solution untenable. So, what patent application is being referred to as PENDING, since a final patent number never appears on any subsequent RHFT?

Fortunately, the tool itself provides the needed clue. The Type 7 is the first RHFT to have a “blind” stud with no plunger opening. All prior Types had a plunger that protruded from the stud end when the release button was pushed. It is this feature—what we’re calling the ‘2nd Generation’ quick release, or the QR2—that is the link to the actual patent in question.

An extensive search turned up an unassigned ‘orphan’ patent filed by Vincent Sardo Jr. on 3-6-81 and issued on 8-23-83 as patent 4399722. The abstract explains that the invention is an improvement specifically directed at the Haznar patents 3467231 and 3532013 (look familiar?). The Fig. 1 drawing shows a near-perfect rendering of the Craftsman RHFT ratchet with its shank design, head shape, thumbwheel, release button, selector knob, and even the geometry of the raised panel handle. There can be no doubt this patent is ‘hard-wired’ to the RHFT. This was the missing puzzle piece that finally allowed us to correctly identify the Type 7 and place within the RHFT timeline.

The need for this new patent was due to the ongoing lawsuit between Sears and Peter Roberts over his earlier 1965 patent 3208318 for the original quick release mechanism. We’ve mentioned this patent a couple of times for the role it would ultimately play in the RHFT history. Roberts entered into an agreement with Sears in 1965 assigning it all patent rights. He later filed suit in 1969 claiming Sears swindled him. The legal battle went on for two decades with the parties finally settling in 1989. A judge decided in May 1979 that Sears should return the patent rights to Roberts. To quote a comprehensive article on the case by the Washington Post, “Under court order, Sears later would reassign the patent to Roberts and introduce a quick-release wrench that, it said, differed significantly from his.”

Sears reassigned the patent back to Roberts on 2-17-81. This left it without a patent under which to continue manufacturing its QR ratchets without infringement. Sears would need to “introduce a quick-release wrench that….differed significantly from his.” This explains the new patent application only a couple of weeks later on 3-6-81 for an improved quick release mechanism and its associated PATENT PENDING mark on the Type 7. It also helps explain why the extending plunger in Roberts and Haznar was replaced with a blind stud having no extending plunger so that it "differed significantly" from Roberts.

Roberts’ design relied on a singly located QR groove cut into the plunger to receive the dropping detent ball. The plunger could not be allowed to turn because the groove would have rotated away from its vertical alignment with the detent ball opening. But the RHFT called for a rotating selector disk and release button in the same assembly so these had to be separate parts from the non-rotating Roberts plunger. This two-part device is what’s provided in the RHFT Haznar patent.

Sardo’s improved QR patent provides for the plunger and release button to be made as a single piece that could be rotated together. This was accomplished by employing an orbital groove around the entire diameter of the plunger so that no matter how it was rotated, the groove would be in a position to receive the dropping detent ball. The new design was incorporated into the QR2 quick release found on the Type 7 and later RHFTs, as well as the teardrop ratchets. This improvement is the one depicted in Fig.2 of the Sardo patent application and indicated by the PATENT PENDING handle marking. Sardo has a thrown-together contrived feel—it’s essentially a ‘CYA’ cover-your-**** patent lacking any remarkably innovative features. It got the job done with an uninspiring but serviceable solution that was also different than Roberts and had no prior patent art.

4399722 also describes a “quick-release adapter” that is essentially an extension bar with its own built-in QR mechanism. Sears sold this bar in its catalogs and stores for a short time back in 1972-74 under cover of Roberts’ patent. Having now lost that cover, Sears needed to protect itself for this past infringement, and so it included the bar in the 1981 Sardo CYA patent application. Since the original QR bar was activated by the Roberts protruding plunger, Sardo had to show its new QR ratchet with the same kind of plunger to make it look like the two were designed to work together so that the unusual act of patenting two devices at once appeared plausible on the surface. That the Type 7 QR was implemented with a blind stud incapable of working this bar that Sears never intended to produce again further illustrates Sardo’s contrived nature.

Todd F. from the Tool Talk forum disassembled and photographed the blind stud QR2, revealing a curious spring and second ball in place of the previous forward-protruding section of Roberts' device. But the remainder of the one-piece orbital groove, plunger and release button component is identical to that depicted in Sardo’s Fig. 2 drawing.

The 3-6-81 application date and the 8-23-83 issue date of 4399722 finally enables us to correctly place the Type 7 in the RHFT timeline during this patent’s pending period from March 1981 to August 1983. It is the last Craftsman RHFT to carry a patent marking.


TYPE 8: The Type 8 is the first RHFT to have no patent markings, and the last to bear the —V— mfr code. It conforms to the same standard markings found on many other Craftsman raised panel wrenches: FORGED IN U.S.A. followed by the mfr code and the model number. Based on the citing of 1986 as the final year of the —V— code by Lauver and other sources, we can assign a date range for Type 8 production from the end of the Sardo patent’s pending period to the end of the —V— series, or from August 1983 to some time in 1986.

The Type 8 leaves us with one final RHFT mystery—what happened to the QR2’s 4399722 patent number? Why wasn’t the number stamped on the handle after its issue date like with all other previous RHFT patents? We should expect to see it prominently displayed after patiently waiting out the pending period. But starting with the Type 8, patent markings are never again shown on the handle.

The likely answer is in the 1981 reassignment of 3208318 to Roberts, which left Sears legally exposed were it to continue selling the RHFT. The sole purpose of the subsequent filing by Sears of the QR2 patent and its re-design of the mechanism was to legally protect itself from another infringement suit by Roberts. Fortunately for Sears, Roberts’ patent expired shortly thereafter on 9-28-82 during the pending period of QR2 4399722 patent. The patent expiration of the Roberts quick release passed it into the public domain where anyone could reproduce it without fear of infringement. Since Sears no longer needed the protection afforded by 4399722 at the time it was issued on 8-23-83, there was no longer any need to stamp the patent number on the handle. Considering the years of legal entanglement over this case, we can imagine it seemed best to just let the whole affair pass into history.


TYPE 9: Type 9 represents the post-V period. They are essentially the same as Type 8 except they now have a 2-letter mfr code beginning with V and ending with another letter. These are typically VE, VF, VG, VH or VJ. The date range begins when the single-V ends in 1986 and continues until early 1995.


TYPE 10: Type 10 is the last of the RHFT ratchets, characterized by the removal of the “FORGED IN” markings from the handle, leaving only the “USA” mark (the mfr code and the model number are still there). The double-lines are also removed from both sides of the handle leaving a no-line logo. These can have a variety of mfr codes. The date range for Type 10 is 1995 until the very end of the RHFT series. The last catalog appearance for the RHFT was in 2008, and was still available online at least through 2009. To find the manufacturer and dates for the various Type 10 codes, refer to Gary Lauver’s excellent Craftsman Hand Tool Manufacturers & Date Ranges study at https://www.garagejournal.com/forum/...ad.php?t=84807

Nailed it!!! I think you absolutely nailed it!! Well done boys!!!

Jim C.

Jim C. said:

Nailed it!!! I think you absolutely nailed it!! Well done boys!!!

Jim C.

Click to expand...

Thanks. I think we've covered some details that hadn't been explored before.

Nice Work!

That is super. Great work!

Great job! Thank you for the information

As I type my thank you, I look at my two examples. One, the 3/8"type 6, a fleamarket find, but the other , a type 7 1/4" brings back memories of a time in my life.

Guys.
Thanks for so much work .
Generations of collectors will turn to this .
I remember being told my type 7 was from the early 80's and not believing it.
Lauver if you happen to see this... you were right and I was wrong.

fantastic! well done

Nicely done!

A couple of addendums to my analyses....

1. A question came up again off-forum about any of these Types being drive specific. In my research, I looked at examples in the following:

--My own photo library
--every RHFT reference found on the internet at-large
--Past and present eBay listings (using Terapeak and Worthpoint for past examples)
--any related youtube videos
--Went through every related past posts on GJ, Papaws, and other forums that included both photos and verbal marking descriptions with drive sizes
--Expanded searches just for Cman quick releases and/or model numbers to cover eBayers that didn't know we call these RHFT (if they weren't involved in the community, how would they know this)?
--catalogs

As mentioned in the APPROACH section, I found examples of all three drive sizes in standard ratchets for every Type as described (Type 1 through Type 9). I did not find an example of each in the flex-head ratchets because of their scarcity, but every one I found conformed to the Type Study list.

2. I mentioned in the APPROACH section regarding the quick releases that I found older QR1-era handles with the later QR2 repair kits. We just found another eBay example in reverse--a QR2-era handle with an earlier QR1 release. However, you can tell that the core has more wear on it than the handle, so the core is not original.

It's important to keep in mind that the move from the QR1 to the QR2 was a legal issue. They weren't just "improving" the design, they were covering their legal butts. Nothing arbitrary or random about the switch at all. We have no evidence that after they changed to the blind stud that they ever went back to the earlier design. Beside, the QR2 was obviously a less-expensive design to mfr, so there was no motive to switch back and forth. They changed the model numbers also to make a clear distinction between the 'lawsuit' QR1 and the 'no lawsuit' QR2.

Recall too that back in the day, a lot of Sears stores had a fellow in store that used to rebuild the warranty ratchets with new parts or used ones pulled from other turned-in ratchets (maybe a broken handle or something). Or users could switch the cores out themselves (as the eBay seller with this 'Frankenratchet' may have).

Most round heads have replaceable cores that can make identifying the original core difficult. In the case of the RHFT, the model numbers and patent markings are the tell, and the lawsuit is overwhelming evidence that QR2 was introduced for legal protection. There would be no motive to switch back and forth after that fact. So, in cases of doubt, look at the handle markings and refer to the Type Study list to get the original Type and dating, and to tell if the original core has been swapped out with a different type.

All valid points Dad. Thank for the update!

I was shown on another site a variation that exists in the Types 1 and 2 of the normal single-spaced PATENT PENDING and a double-spaced P A T E N T P E N D I N G. I've only seen this in the 1/4" drive size. No worries--it doesn't alter the Type Study List description and dating. It's just a variation that has been noted on a 1/4" drive. I need to do a little more research on the scope of it before adding this variation to the List.

If anyone else has a RHFT variation not mentioned on the Type Study List, please show 'em!

My God, thats one helluva study, nicely done. I've never put that much thought into it, just always knew and owned the =V= 1968-69 ratchets were the best.

Nicely done. I found a picture of my daughter and son-in-law’s 1/4” drive drawer and was immediately able to determine that I had given them a type 5 ratchet and when it was made.
-Don

Based on recent found examples, we have two additional footnotes to add to the Type List:

--some Types 1 and 2 are found with a double-spaced P A T E N T P E N D I N G mark as opposed to the typical single-spaced PATENT PENDING

--early Type 7 have a small model number on the first text line above the pending marks; later Type 7 has a full-height model number at the right of the panel

Neither of these variations alter the fundamental description and date range for any of the Types, and so the List is still perfectly accurate and usable as it is (the patent information and associated dates are still king!). These variations are being added as footnotes for the sake of thoroughness.

I'm passing this new info to b.well, who should have the Type List amended when he gets a chance.

d42jeep said:

Nicely done. I found a picture of my daughter and son-in-law’s 1/4” drive drawer and was immediately able to determine that I had given them a type 5 ratchet and when it was made.
-Don

Click to expand...

Thanks, Don. I really appreciate the kind words. I wanted it to be as user-friendly and accurate as possible while still including the important background information in separate sections. I took a different approach than other type studies I've seen before. I'm grateful (and relieved!) it's getting a good reception.

I updated my original post to represent DadsTools latest finds outlined in post #18. As always, thanks to Dad and everyone that helps enhance the accuracy of this study.

I've been giving much thought to both the findings of Jim C. in his TD Type Study and in the Todd F. RHFT collection. The issue revolves around the removal by Sears of the "FORGED IN" handle marking during the post-V Type 9 period, leaving just the "U.S.A." mark. One of my criteria in the RHFT for defining what is a major Type as opposed to a variation within a Type is if the visible feature being considered represents a distinct delineator in the RHFT timeline, or in other words, a chronological distinction where one feature ends at such a time and another supersedes it. I also had to consider whether the feature change was striking enough to merit its own Type classification. To put it another way, did the change effect the overall meaning of the artifact with respect to the RHFT history? Was the feature an important 'event' within the RHFT story?

For example, in the Type List, we have a number of footnoted (f) variations for which I made certain judgement calls based on these criteria. The double spacing noted in f1 did not change the overall meaning of Type 1 markings in the timeline, and its dating uncertain. Based on the randomness of f2, it's impossible to date, nor does it affect the historical meaning of Types 3 through 6. The same can be said for the occasional -VV- in Type 6. We could determine that the f4 change from small to large model numbers happened sequentially in the timeline, but the date of the change is ambiguous while the distinguishing information on both are still the same (i.e., one could still accurately identify both the distinctness of Type 7 and its place within the RHFT history regardless to small or large model number). According to Lauver, most of the various mfr codes in Type 9 (noted by f5) ran concurrently so are impossible to sequentially date them, nor do they otherwise change the distinguishing information found on that Type.

Now we come to the latest finding that there appears to be reasonably firm date range for the removal of the "FORGED IN" marking. It also presents a distinct change in the information markings on the handle. Moreover, it indeed appears sequential in that once the FORGED IN is dropped, it never appears again, making a major distinction between 'before' and 'after' examples with a correspondingly different date range. This seems to meet all my given criteria for a major Type.

Should I add a Type 10 for this change, or simply list it as a variation? Your thoughts?

Wow, an incredible amount of work! The patent controversy and patent #/pat pend flip-flops are very interesting reading. For my ratchet obsession I've purposely avoiding getting into all the small detail differences you've outlined, but that's because my interest was in finding same/related ratchet/gut designs produced under different brands - chasing all those small variations within any one brand/model (currently have ratchets from 130+ different USA brands out of over 150 USA brands seen over the years), would've driven me stark raving bonkers...

I bought all 5 of my RHFTs in the early '80's from the catalog - remember the buy x for x% off, y for y% off and z or more for z% off sales? Hit those numerous times to fill out sets and buy accessories. All mine are QR2 and I believe are all marked Pat. Pend (buried in the garage so can't check at the moment), although I think the 1/4" got swapped out later for a new one after it popped inside. Or maybe I kept it and finally found a rebuild kit - I do recall a store trying to con me into accepting the cheap round head because it was the alleged replacement for the RHFT.

Great work and a great read!

PowderKeg, sounds like you have a nice set of RHFT Type7 ratchets.

Dad, the most recent non-flex RHFT I have seen is a VH (94-97) that is stamped "Forged in the USA". The most recent flex RHFT is a VVK stamped "USA". For Jim C's TD ratchets we see VE,VF, VG (94-95) are all "Forged in the USA". However I see TD VH is only stamped "USA". I haven't seen Todd F's collection. What date are you zoning in on for a RHFT "USA"?

b.well said:

PowderKeg, sounds like you have a nice set of RHFT Type7 ratchets.

Click to expand...

Well, they are my all-time favorite ratchets, and the first new ones I bought (not counting the meh pearheads that came with the big set). Also have RHFT sets of Master Mech, Easco, & NAPA QR and non-QR, Allen & KD QR, 2 of the 3 Armstrong versions with the fully polished sculpted handles (beautiful ratchets!), a Wilde, and a long handled fixed head Ridgid. Me does like RHFTs....

PowderKeg, You have a thorough collection. Post them all up here in a picture sometime

When it comes to ones like Easco, do you prefer the older ones without QR or the slightly newer old ones with the QR? I do like having the QR in there on my Craftsman.

b.well said:

PowderKeg, sounds like you have a nice set of RHFT Type7 ratchets.

Dad, the most recent non-flex RHFT I have seen is a VH (94-97) that is stamped "Forged in the USA". The most recent flex RHFT is a VVK stamped "USA". For Jim C's TD ratchets we see VE,VF, VG (94-95) are all "Forged in the USA". However I see TD VH is only stamped "USA". I haven't seen Todd F's collection. What date are you zoning in on for a RHFT "USA"?

Click to expand...

It's looking around 1995.

b.well said:

When it comes to ones like Easco, do you prefer the older ones without QR or the slightly newer old ones with the QR? I do like having the QR in there on my Craftsman.

Click to expand...

The QR is one of several reasons the Craftys have remained at the top of my favorites list. The non-QR ratchets just as easily, just not as convenient to switch sockets et.al.

Dad, what evidence have you found that tightens the dates more than i have above? 1995 is in the ballpark. But hard for me to say for sure without seeing the next series of the RHFT ratchet.

b.well said:

Dad, what evidence have you found that tightens the dates more than i have above? 1995 is in the ballpark. But hard for me to say for sure without seeing the next series of the RHFT ratchet.

Click to expand...

This is one of those dates that is bound to be an approximate. And of course, the catalogs never show you the descriptive sides of tool handles so they're of little help either.

We do have several clues. Jim C. ended his TD Type Study at 1993, which to him is the last year of the metal selector switch (they changed to plastic after that). All metal switch examples still have the FORGED IN mark.

Next is a photo from the Todd F. collection showing handles with both FORGED IN and just USA. They also show a progression of mfr codes. I've attached the photo.

After the single letter -V- ended in 1986, Sears began using double-letter codes. These follow a pattern of V followed by a second character. We can dismiss the VV code because it was used prior to 1986--we're interested in the post-1986 codes. Here's where it can get fuzzy because we really don't know WHY some of these codes were used, nor specifically on what tools, so we need to focus on the ratchets. For example, VΛ appears on a lot of end wrenches, but I haven't noticed it used on ratchets so far.

In the photo, you'll see that FORGED IN appears on VG and VH (Sears skipped VI). Then starting with VJ, the mark is removed. Lauver suggests (as does deductive reasoning, if such can even be used with Cman) that the alphabetical order is somewhat sequential; E, F, G, H, J, K, etc. Lauver lists the following for these codes:

VE = Danaher, ca. ? - ?
VF = Danaher, ca. likely early 1990's
VG = Danaher, ca. 1994 - 1995
VH = Danaher, ca. 1994 - 1997
VJ = Danaher, ca. 1994 - 2008
VK = Danaher, ca. 1996 - ?
VL = Danaher, ca. 1995
VM = Danaher, ca. 1998 - ?

....after which the dates become too late to be a viable choice. The keys here would be the VG in use for only 1994-1995 and has the FORGED mark, and the VK starting in 1996 and having no FORGED mark. Admittedly, we are only looking at a single photo of five wrenches and only the shown codes, but Todd's collection of Cman ratchets is very extensive, and so I think he has enough to justify presenting these few as a characteristic example. This all leads to a switchover date of around 1995 thumbnail. Were we to assume that VG retained its FORGED mark through its lifespan of 1994-95, and that VK began its life without it in 1996, then 1996 might be a more solid date for the change.

But here again, we are in the floating craps game of the Craftsman Dating Lottery. We can only do the best we can with what we have. And at some point, one has to pull the trigger. Hopefully others might have additional information that can confirm or correct this.

Dad, great picture of the RHFT handles across the series. I hadn't seen the VJ handle before.

We also know "forged in" is not consistent between TD and RHFT ratchets. TD VH is "USA" and RHFT VH is "Forged In USA". RHFT VH could remain the same through 97. Keep the RHFT premier ratchet more premier with the "Forged In" tradition. I see the "USA" start date range to be 94-98; I see the "Forged in" end date range to be 95-97; I see the possibility for "USA" to start in 94 and "Forged in" to end in 97. Like you said, a dating lottery, that more examples could help but not lock in exactly. If Type10 is "USA" the footnote could describe the possible variation in the date.

Excellent info! If you are looking to add some photos for each of the styles, I just listed several online. Feel free to use my photos as you wish. I likely have some of the others as well from prior listings. (check link in signature)

LNKMK8 said:

Excellent info! If you are looking to add some photos for each of the styles, I just listed several online. Feel free to use my photos as you wish. I likely have some of the others as well from prior listings. (check link in signature)

Click to expand...

That's very generous of you. Thank you! What we are still using photos for is to confirm or correct the definitions in the Type Study. It was lucky to have a Type Study where photos were not required for ID'ing and chronological placement--the verbal descriptions are proving to be more than enough for everybody. The photos are a nice touch, but the various sections are lengthy enough!

The photos I am reviewing now have to do with when the FORGED IN marking was eliminated on the ratchet handles. This would be from the post-V era where the codes are two-character (V + another letter). These could help, or at least any reports from members having seen examples not having the FORGED IN mark and what mfr codes they might have.

Thanks again!

b.well said:

Dad, great picture of the RHFT handles across the series. I hadn't seen the VJ handle before.

We also know "forged in" is not consistent between TD and RHFT ratchets. TD VH is "USA" and RHFT VH is "Forged In USA". RHFT VH could remain the same through 97. Keep the RHFT premier ratchet more premier with the "Forged In" tradition. I see the "USA" start date range to be 94-98; I see the "Forged in" end date range to be 95-97; I see the possibility for "USA" to start in 94 and "Forged in" to end in 97. Like you said, a dating lottery, that more examples could help but not lock in exactly. If Type10 is "USA" the footnote could describe the possible variation in the date.

Click to expand...

Another clue is in the logo. It appears that the double-line logo is associated with the FORGED IN mark on the descriptive panel while the USA-only has a no-line logo. We've already noted some variance in the TD logo vs RHFT logo in the Type 6 era. I personally can't say what the variance might be between the two in the mid-1990s period.

I resorted to trying to find Craftsman catalogs online that could help. Since the descriptive panel is never shown in any catalog, we can only look at the logo panels. The latest full catalog I could find online was 1994-95. All the ratchets are shown with a double-line logo. You can find later catalogs for sale on eBay, but they don't show the contents, and even if they do show a wrench page, the clarity and resolution is insufficient. However, I found a 1995-96 catalog where a socket set with blow-mold case is pictured on the back cover so it's of sufficient size and resolution. The TD ratchets in that set have no-line logos. This is the first 'official' presentation by Sears of the no-line logo. Being prominently displayed on the back cover leaves little doubt that the no-line logo is being displayed by Sears as the 'official' logo on the ratchets. I was also able to glimpse an image from a later 1997 catalog that had the no-line logo.

So from the best I can tell from Craftsman catalogs that can be viewed online, the changeover date to no-line logo (and its associated USA-only mark on the other side) is 1995. This date is in agreement with the one I derived from the non-catalog evidence I talked about in post #29. This kind of correlation from different sources is very significant.

Some variance can be expected from NOS, but based on the available collective evidence, the date looks to be 1995.

As I mentioned before, one has to 'pick a lane and drive in it' with the best data they have. The best data points to 1995. I think there would have to be other compelling hard evidence to suggest a different date, not just speculation. When I was in grammar school and given math problems to solve, the teacher would always say, "Be prepared to show how you arrived at your answer" or to prove your work. I can do that with 1995, but not with other dates. At least, so far. Perhaps someone can come up with an entire catalog from 1995-97 period that shows something inside different from the 1995-96 outside back cover.

I found the attached documents as part of the Roberts vs Sears trial appellate summary. The court summary is dated Nov. 2, 1977. One of the appendices contains these kinds of documents that were apparently part of a Sears stores internal catalog from which stores could order replacement inventory for their stock. Most involve the TD ratchets that were at the heart of the suit. These pages refer to the RHFT. The internal Sears dating for these is 1974-76. So we would imagine they were originally created in 1974 and intended to have a two-year life span. "Apparently" as I'm not 100% certain, but they were probably the latest available prior to the trial. Perhaps they were included in the case to prove Sears was still selling these QR ratchets based on the Roberts design. The quality is not good, but they were mid-70s technology of type-written pages probably xeroxed over and over again.

OK Folks.....looks like I may have all the amendments we need for what should be the final update on the RHFT Type Study. The added information has come from various sources including Jim C.'s TD study and additional research. I want to especially thank Todd F. over on Tool Talk for the great photos, the discovery of the small-diameter plunger variation in the Type 6 ratchets, and for actually disassembling three cores in his collection so we can see what's inside!!!! Amazing, Todd--thank you for your contribution to the RHFT knowledge base! The changes are as follows:

--A new Type 10 in the Study List to differentiate the later examples where the "FORGED IN" marks and the double-line logo were removed.
--Change the List entry description for the Type 9 to accommodate the above T10 addition. Also corresponding edits to the footnotes.
--Additions and changes to the T9 and T10 SUMMARY entries to reflect the above.
--Additional notes in the SUMMARY and APPROACH sections for the double-line vs no-line variations in the T3 through T5.
--Additional notes in the SUMMARY section for the T6 regarding the small plunger and double-line logo variations.
--Additional notes in the SUMMARY section for the 'two-ball' mechanism discovered by Todd F. inside the T7 blind stud.
--Add the 1978-81 Craftsman RHFT torque wrenches to the model list in the APPROACH section along with corresponding notes.

No changes were necessary in the Type List for T1 through T8, the T9 description changing only to differentiate it from the additional T10. That's quite a relief! It means we got the job done pretty much right the first time around.

All these amendments will take a little time so not everything will be changed at once. I wanted to cover all these in the above list so at least you know what to expect. Please be patient over the next day or so while I complete the work. As soon as I have the Type List info amended, I'll pass it on to b.well so he can make an updated chart.

Thank you all again!!!

b.well has now updated the chart. The other updates are a continuing process that I hope to have finished today. Thank you.

Thank you for those who thanked and appreciated Dads and My work here. For those lost in the database restore it would be great to post them again if you feel the same

b.well said:

Thank you for those who thanked and appreciated Dads and My work here. For those lost in the database restore it would be great to post them again if you feel the same

Click to expand...

I have to re-post my last essay. I guess I'll do that now. Then I'll go back and review the edits lost in the other essays.

DOUBLE-LINE & NO-LINE LOGO VARIATIONS ON THE RHFT RATCHET TYPES and RELATED TOPICS


In the main CRAFTSMAN RHFT TYPE STUDY chart, Types 3 through 6 are footnoted can be found in both "double-line" and "no-line" CRAFTSMAN logo variations. While this is all that’s needed for confirming a logo variation for these Types, it tells us very little about the reasons for these marks. Because of its breadth, it seemed best to cover the subject under its own essay separate from the APPROACH and SUMMARY sections.

Any discussion about the Craftsman logo as it appears on the tools should probably begin with a historical overview. The earliest logo applied to the tools back in 1927 was the name stamped or forged into the tool in plain block letters. The logo was enhanced in the early 1930s with geometric letters and the C extended to form an underline under the name (this is often called the “long-C” or “underline-C” logo by collectors). The upper sides of the “A” were sharply angled inward to create what we call today the “pointed-A” that persisted on the tools until the late 1960s when it was changed to a “flat-A” version (it’s interesting to note that from the early 1930s the main ‘print’ logo for advertising and catalogs always had a flat-A).

Around 1945 we see a divergence of the way the logo is rendered. In the catalog print version, the underline-C is still the official logo with its “REG. U.S. PAT. OFF.” in the underline. But a new style is introduced on the hand tools with no underline and a C of the same height as the other letters. One can imagine this version was easier to apply on a lot of different kinds of tools and gave a cleaner, more modern look. It wouldn’t be until 1954-55 that Sears adopted it as its official company print logo.

A feature of the new logo as used on the tools was the adding of double parallel lines that were not part of the official print version logo. Sometimes the lines are merely artistic enhancements with very short lengths bracketing the name like on the “Heritage” logo name plates and tools such as pliers. However, when the logo appears on long enclosed areas like the recesses in an adjustable wrench handle or on the raised panels of wrenches, the lines are extended as long as possible. In such applications, the double lines are used as artistic space fillers (apparently, the Sears art dept. abhorred a vacuum). The lines are also applied to the ‘descriptive’ side of the wrench handles, so they are not exclusively used just with the logo. The lines are even seen as space fillers on some Dunlap branded tools. These double lines became a trademark ‘signature’ marking for the post-war Craftsman era.

When interpreting the various markings on raised panel wrenches like the RHFT and teardrop ratchets, it’s helpful to keep in mind this idea of the lines being more space fillers than an intrinsic part of the logo. An example illustrating this perspective are the smallest 1/4” and 5/16” sizes in the vintage raised panel end wrench sets during the “=V=” era (more on the V in a moment). Because the stampings are not always perfectly centered, a vertical misalignment of double lines on such a skinny panel might cause a portion to travel off the panel or make any crookedness much more noticeable to the eye. Sears solved this by employing only a single line on both the logo and descriptive sides of these small wrenches, which are clearly used as space fillers like the double lines on their larger siblings. We also see this same single-line usage on the Type 3 RHFT panels where the descriptive side contains two lines of textual content where there’s no room for the usual symmetrical double lines, and so a single line is used on either side of the top text line merely as an artistic space filler. These single lines would be highly inappropriate if a double-line was actually an integral part of the company logo.

This leads us to briefly mention the mfr code “V” for Moore Drop Forging, maker of most post-war end wrenches and ratchets. At the beginning of this modern period, the panel wrenches had CRAFTSMAN on one side and FORGED IN U.S.A. on the other, each flanked on both ends by long double filler lines extending to the side edges of the panel, interrupted at their far ends only by size markings where needed. When Sears decided to stamp Moore’s V code on the panels, it made a small opening in the double lines to the right of the FORGED IN U.S.A. and stamped the V in it. For the small panel wrenches mentioned before, the same kind of opening was made in the single line to receive the code letter. What this means is that the double or single lines were never an intrinsic part of the V code, no more than they were part of the Craftsman name or the “Forged in USA” text. They are artistic filler lines in which these figures were embedded.

Since the lines are not a part of the code, there really is no such thing as a double-line “=V=” mfr code. In most cases, the V is not even centered in these lines, looking more like ====V===. We find the same thing in the small-sized wrench examples previously noted where the V is embedded off-center in a single spacer line like ------V----. We use the terms “=V= “and “–V–“ as a convenient device for dating even though it’s somewhat of a misnomer, and cannot be accurately applied to single-line Vs found during the “=V=” era.

A change in design took place with the introduction of model numbers on the panel wrenches around 1970. Because of the extra space required by the number, the filler lines could no longer be relied on to provide enough space inside them to accommodate a code letter. So the code was moved from the filler lines and repositioned between FORGED IN USA and the newly applied model number. Small lines were added at each side of the code letter as a kind of separator to keep it visually distinct from adjacent content. This is what we normally call a “–V–“code. But the lines are used like a pair of brackets or quotation marks to isolate the letter—they are still not actually part of the mfr code.

A misconception brought about by our common usage of these terms is the belief that “=V=” signifies Moore Drop Forging while “–V–“ was a new code made for Easco when it bought the company. It’s well known that Easco acquired Moore in 1967, whereas “–V–“ didn’t come online until about 1970 with the addition of model numbers. That’s about a 3- to 4-year discrepancy. The real distinction was not between Moore and Easco, but the decision by Sears to add the model numbers.

And so there really isn’t a “=V=” or a “–V–“ mfr code. There is only V, from about 1946 to 1986, while the lines are merely design elements. We still use these terms for convenience sake (as we do in the RHFT Study), but we shouldn’t lose sight of what they actually represent.

A note before beginning the double-line vs. no-line variation discussion. During the period covered by Types 3 to 6, Moore/Easco was making both the RHFT and teardrop ratchets with virtually identical raised panels on the handles. The stamps for these were two separate pieces of tooling, one for the ‘obverse’ logo side and a ‘reverse’ stamp for the descriptive side. This means that an obverse stamp for the teardrop could feasibly be struck on the RHFT obverse and vise versa. For many years, the workers needed only one obverse logo stamp for all handle panels of the same size, so that both the RHFT and teardrop ratchets could be struck with the exact same double-line logo stamp. Suddenly in 1970, there was now for the first time a single no-line logo stamp dedicated to only one particular tool in the entire wrench line—the RHFT ratchet. You can imagine the confusion this caused among different shifts of workers in up to four plants robotically accustomed to using the same double-line stamp on all the handles for many years. Mistakes were surely made, as the artifacts tell. This kind of error would have probably been allowed to pass by quality control since the wrenches did have the correct size logo, lines or not. A double-line logo occasionally appearing on the no-line Types 4 and 5 RHFT is no doubt from having been struck with the obverse stamp still in use on all the teardrop ratchets and other drive tools.

Now on to the RHFT logo variations……

Type 3 [1969-70]: The primary or “majority” logo format for this type is the traditional double-line. A few rare examples are found with a no-line logo. The probable reason for this will become more apparent in the Type 4.

Type 4 [1970-71]: This is the very first raised panel wrench issued with a no-line logo during the double-line era. Sears must have had a very specific purpose in mind for the removal of what had been an essential part of its signature panel wrench design for decades. The artifacts themselves provide no clue as to why this change was made.

I believe the answer lies in two related catalog events that took place during the same year. Although the RHFT had been selling in the stores since 1968, its first Craftsman tool catalog appearance was in 1970. The second event was in its presentation. During the late 1960s, Sears designed a CRAFTSMAN COMMERCIAL logo to label those power and hand tools it was promoting as heavy duty. In its large consumer catalog, Sears was also using a white oval with the words Sears Best in script to indicate its premium products in various categories like clothing, electronics and appliances. In 1970, Sears applied this Sears Best oval for the first time in the Craftsman tool catalog in addition to its existing commercial labeling, but assigned it exclusively to only one item in the whole book—the RHFT ratchet.

Sears had been selling the quick release ratchets like hotcakes in its stores. The RHFT was the premium flagship of its drive tool fleet, and Sears would want to make a big splash for its catalog debut. How could Sears visually distinguish this Sears Best tool from all the other wrenches, ratchets and breaker bars? By removing the old traditional double lines, which gave the RHFT handle a modern, more polished and sophisticated appearance than its counterparts. It was the only raised panel tool at the time to lose its double lines, and the only tool in the 1970 catalog to receive this special designation. And the only explanation that appears to makes any sense—the connection here is too compelling.

Customer orders from the 1970 catalog for the RHFT would have been filled with those ratchets in production at the time: the later Type 3 and the Type 4. This could explain why a few Type 3s can be found struck with the new no-line logo stamp. The Type 4 was intended to be struck entirely with no-line logos, so the occasional examples of a double-line logo in these were probably struck inadvertently with the stamps still in use for the teardrop ratchet handles.

Type 5 [1971]: The Type 5 is essentially a continuation of the Type 4 story line. For the 1971 Craftsman tool catalog, the RHFT is once again the only product in the entire book to be distinguished with the oval Sears Best label. It is still the only Craftsman drive tool to have a no-line logo. Here too, examples with a double-line logo would have been struck with in-house teardrop ratchet stamps.

Type 6 [1972-81]: The Type 6 begins its reign with the same no-line logo as Types 4 and 5. However, it was soon joined by teardrop ratchets and breaker bars also having no-line logos for no apparent reason.

Once again, the catalogs offer valuable insights. Starting with the 1972 catalog, the RHFT no longer has an exclusive to the Sears Best oval. In an apparent move to begin eliminating the Craftsman Commercial label, Sears was now applying the Sears Best oval to a small number of other power and hand tools. Here we find the very kind of one-to-one correlation we’re looking for—Sears takes away the RHFT’s exclusive to the Sears Best label in the catalog by spreading it to other items, while at the same time it takes away the RHFT’s exclusive to the premium no-line logo on the tools by spreading it to breaker bars and the teardrop ratchets. When you have two different witnesses telling the very same story, you tend to believe them. It’s the best explanation we have for no-line logos appearing on other tools around this time. Over the next several years, Sears replaced more and more of the Craftsman Commercial crowns in the catalog with the Sears Best oval until it finally discontinued the commercial label in 1976.

Then suddenly, for some inexplicable reason, the premium no-line logo simply vanishes! The teardrop ratchets, the RHFT and the breaker bars all magically appear with the old double lines again sometime in the latter half of the 1970s. There had to be a very good reason for this.

Can the catalogs give us a clue this time too? They do. It can be found at the very top of the first inside page of the 1976-77 50th Anniversary catalog. It announces: “1976-77 marks the 50TH ANNIVERSARY of our famous CRAFTSMAN Trademark!” This is a bit odd since it doesn’t celebrate 50 years of the brand as you would normally expect from a company, but celebrates the trademark itself. Displayed throughout the catalog is a celebratory logo of the Craftsman name in 3-dimensional letters ascending on an incline. But it’s not the original block-letter logo from 1927, nor is it the underline logo from the 1930s through the wartime—it’s the modern lettering style introduced in 1945. And what was the design element seen on all the tools with the newly minted 1945 logo? The double lines. If you’re going to celebrate the trademark anniversary with the 1945 rendition, then it’s only natural to bring back the double lines that went with it. And so in this instance also, we have two different witnesses—the catalog and the tools—that seem to be telling us the same story. There’s no question that Sears returned the lines to the tools at some point around this time, and so the trademark-celebration explanation makes perfect sense. We see a good quantity of Type 6 RHFT in both no-line and double-line logos, and so it’s not surprising to find a date somewhere near the middle of its lifespan. Jim C.’s extensive Teardrop Type Study photos also indicate a return of the double lines about 1976. There are a couple of other supporting factors. When the no-line logo was first introduced on the RHFT, it was an exclusive premium marking that went along with the Sears Best labeling. It was less a distinction once the label began spreading to other catalog items along with the no-line logo to other drive tools. When Sears did away with its “commercial” labeling in 1976 and instead applied Sears Best to all its top-end catalog items, any remnant of the RHFT’s unique status among the entire Craftsman product line was gone, and with it the original purpose of the no-line logo. One can also imagine that Easco benefited by a return to the days when only a single logo stamp was needed to strike all similar-sized handle panels. It’s a perfect storm. So I think we can finally assign dates to the no-line (1972-76) and the historical double-line (1976-81) Type 6 logo variations.

It has been suggested that the return of double lines on the Type 6 and teardrop ratchets were to indicate the change from the large to small diameter QR plungers. But there’s no good reason why the entire drive tool line was changed back to a double-line logo for a detail so small that hardly anyone would even notice. We also find enough minority examples of a double-line handle with a large plunger (both parts appearing to have uniform wear) to show the plunger change occurred after the return of the double lines, around 1977-78.
_________

Some final thoughts about the catalogs. Our use of them primarily to associate artifacts with the ad campaigns provides an opportunity to discuss the limitations of trying to identify variations just from their photos. There was no Photoshop back in the day. Typeset strips of paper containing text were pasted (where the term “cut and paste” originates!) onto a master sheet alongside photos that were also pasted. Then the paste-up layout was photographed as a whole (remember camera-ready art?), and the final image ‘burned’ to a plate. It was very costly and time-consuming. Because of catalog size and cost restraints, large catalogs were printed on thin porous paper that made poor surfaces for photo rendition. Looking at any older catalogs from the era we’re studying and before, it’s easy to see that every single b&w shot is artist enhanced or even skillfully drawn from scratch, all by hand, so that the lettering and edges of the hand tools would be crisp and black in the finished book. The point is that the image you’re seeing is not the native image of the tool itself. Moreover, the art was drawn according to an individual artist’s conception of the item. In a recent mid-1960s catalog search for possible flat-As, we not only found both pointed and flat As, but also square, conventional, block and even arched As, none of which appeared on any Craftsman tool of the day. Or the three different hand drills side by side having the EXACT SAME cord, just like the four soldering pencils on 1970 Pg. 73 (some of the fanciful renditions are rather amusing). There are many hundreds of examples, all hand-drawn according to that artist’s interpretation. So we can’t fully trust the tool markings seen in these catalogs.

Then there are the photos themselves. Photo shoots were also costly and time-consuming. Companies re-used as many photos as possible from previous shoots. A photo in a 1965 catalog might have been shot back in the 1950s. For example, two pointed-A sockets pictured at the upper right on Pg. 8 of the 1964 catalog are the very same images on Pg. 106 in the 1971 book. Again, there are many, many examples.

Take the RHFT. The b&w photo on Pg 107 in the 1971 catalog (reused from 1970) and the color photo from the back cover both show double-line logos. Yet we know for an absolute fact from the artifacts and the patent dating that from at least October 1970 until well past 1971, all RHFT had a no-line logo. The variation shown in the catalog simply didn’t exist anymore.

The 1976 Pg. 50 b&w ratchet photo shows a large RHFT in the foreground with separate photos of both a standard and flex-head teardrops arranged in the background. The same three images are shown in both the 1977 and 1978 catalogs at differing pose angles and scale. However, the 1978 RHFT is also flipped vertically. Why can you still read the Craftsman name without needing a mirror? Because the logo was hand-drawn by an artist. Just like it was for the 1976 and 1977 catalogs. Nobody can tell for sure from these photos which handle logo was actually shipping. When you look at the background ratchet images, you see the standard teardrop was inked with a double-line while the flex-head has a no-line logo. Well…which is it? And finally, the reused image in the 1978 catalog shows oil ports on the teardrops. Weren’t those discontinued by this time? They’re missing on at least three of the six TD ratchets pictured on Pg. 123—which three are correct? Or did the artist simply forget to draw the others in?

Catalogs were created to sell products, just like any sales literature. They were not designed as historical or archival records. What is depicted in them can only be trusted so far. We must seek corroboration wherever possible from alternative authoritative references as well as the artifacts themselves.

My post disappeared, so I'll try to repeat it:

My compliments to those who put this report together, and to those who contributed. This is academic-quality work! It is probably better researched and comprehensive than most theses for graduate degrees nowadays. Great work!!!!

This study is one of several I have seen on GJ that meet these high standards. It is impressive that "ordinary" folks put together research and findings of such high quality. I say "impressive" and not "surprising" because I have always known that "ordinary" people are capable of doing amazing things.