Auto-Cle

[Private Lugnutz]

@AntiqueBen & Rest of Auto-Cle Gang,

Here is my first cut at what I had in mind to try to organize facts, findings, and thoughts. Fairly self-explanatory. The shading is meant to kinda sorta, without being anything close to definitive about it, show potential variants that are emerging. I have a verified document for every key milestone. No pride of authorship here. Chop on this at will for errors, improvements, additions, etc. This would be considered "Working Papers" in my business.

 

[AntiqueBen]

@AntiqueBen & Rest of Auto-Cle Gang,

Here is my first cut at what I had in mind to try to organize facts, findings, and thoughts. Fairly self-explanatory. The shading is meant to kinda sorta, without being anything close to definitive about it, show potential variants that are emerging. I have a verified document for every key milestone. No pride of authorship here. Chop on this at will for errors, improvements, additions, etc. This would be considered "Working Papers" in my business.

You beat me to it Lugz. Looks Great. I was putting together a similar timeline, but let's use your timeline as a running document to adjust & change as the information becomes available. One other difference I noticed, which is as minor as minor can get, is the hinges on the box for all French & England sets have a longer hinge with 6 screws & all US version boxes have a smaller hinge with 4 screws. Also, the folding handle on the US version is removable, while the French & England version handles are not removable. It will be fun to tweek this as we learn more.

 

[AntiqueBen]

@AntiqueBen & Rest of Auto-Cle Gang,

Here is my first cut at what I had in mind to try to organize facts, findings, and thoughts. Fairly self-explanatory. The shading is meant to kinda sorta, without being anything close to definitive about it, show potential variants that are emerging. I have a verified document for every key milestone. No pride of authorship here. Chop on this at will for errors, improvements, additions, etc. This would be considered "Working Papers" in my business.

The only other thing I can think of is the US versions have a ball detent on the drive plug, extension & universal joint. The earlier French & England versions only have the tension spring instead of the ball detent.

 

[AntiqueBen]

Nothing necessarily to add to the timeline, but I have noticed another difference between the England set from the US set. Lugz, yours & Patrick's US set has 4 Square sockets where the French & England set only has 1. It's just in the box & doesn't take a place on a peg with the rest of the socket set. Looks like there were some changes on what sockets were included between the different variants. Just going over what differences I had noticed to combine with your timeline

 

[Private Lugnutz]

...the hinges on the box for all French & England sets have a longer hinge with 6 screws & all US version boxes have a smaller hinge with 4 screws.

Oh, you're talking to a GMTK collector. We are hinge element counters! Among other features, the number of hinge elements can help distinguish the box suppliers.

Also, the folding handle on the US version is removable, while the French & England version handles are not removable.

Is this true by design, though? The only reason mine is removable is because it has no end cap on the short leg of the L shaped handle. I thought perhaps it was just press fit and had popped off. If Patrick's handle also doesn't have one, then I would concur it must be by design.

The only other thing I can think of is the US versions have a ball detent on the drive plug, extension & universal joint. The earlier French & England versions have the tension spring instead of the ball detent.

That is a major distinction for sure.

Lugs, yours & Patrick's US set has 4 Square sockets where the French & England set only has 1. It's just in the box & doesn't take a place on a peg with the rest of the socket set. Looks like there were some changes on what sockets were included between the different variants.

I intentionally avoided number, type (hex or sq.), and configuration (sizes) of socketry. I think we have a lot more work to do to figure that out. When I looked over the various sets in a cursory fashion I came away very confused.

 

[AntiqueBen]

Oh, you're talking to a GMTK collector. We are hinge element counters! Among other features, the number of hinge elements can help distinguish the box suppliers.

Is this true by design, though? The only reason mine is removable is because it has no end cap on the short leg of the L shaped handle. I thought perhaps it was just press fit and had popped off. If Patrick's handle also doesn't have one, then I would concur it must be by design.

That is a major distinction for sure.

I intentionally avoided number, type (hex or sq.), and configuration (sizes) of socketry. I think we have a lot more work to do to figure that out. When I looked over the various sets in a cursory fashion I came away very confused.

I believe Patrick showed a pic earlier up thread of his ratchet without the handle in it. Here's what both ends of my handle looks like. Looks like if your end came off, then the ends of your handle would be round.

 

[Private Lugnutz]

I did not take notice that his handle was also removed. Again, I am pretty sure my mushroom end cap just popped off. It may seem like a strange coincidence, but I would assume his popped off, too.

 

[Patrick Eubanks]

Here is a good example of why I am preaching caution on creating a named taxonomy of variants (i.e., "French," "British," "Q.M.S.," etc) too soon. In preparation for creating a better timeline, and in the process of double-checking all my previous research, when I first uncovered R.A.C. as Contal's initial US agency, and the progression of the French to British to US patents, I discovered a company called George P. Moore selling the Auto-Cle as early as June 1905. Before R.A.C. claimed to have sole rights for manufacturing it here in the US. I believe the Geo. P. Moore sets would have probably been straight imports, and therefore, 7/16-inch drive - just like the so-called "French" and "British" sets. In fact, you can see that the construction features on the extension and drive plug is exactly like the set FarmerJ. has and the sets you guys subsequently purchased in/from England. Being sold here, in the US! Hence, my resistance to geographical designations.

No knowing if the ad depicts the entire set, the thing that jumped out to me is only 10 sockets are pictured

 

[Private Lugnutz]

Back on the socketry.

Ignoring, for now, that the Auto-Cle sets came in a couple different sizes (at least one smaller set in a leather case with fewer sockets), and focusing only on the large sets, none of the early articles or ads spell out the socketry by number, type, and sizes as I recall. But this figure from the French trade journals in late 1903 and early 1904 is very clear...



...and I count thirty-one (31) hex sockets, and no square sockets. And unless I am mistaken, that's what Farmer J. has in his set.

Has anyone posted the sizes? I know yours aren't marked, Ben, but have you measured the openings? Farmer J.'s England set were marked, but his set is in a museum. I believe the sockets in Patrick's England set are marked. Maybe he will transcribe them.

As for the early pre-Mossberg US sets..., I am pretty sure that the large R.A.C. sets (which we have some terrific very clear ads for), and the large Q.M.S. sets (which we have identical ads and two decent examples of...) was a precursor for the later Mossberg Auto-Cle No. 1. The socketry layout is identical. Those had twenty-three (23) hex sockets from 5/16" to 1" by 32nds, plus 1-1/32", 1-3/32", 1-5/32", and 1-9/32", for a total of twenty-seven (27) hexagon sockets, and three (3) square sockets, 13/32", 17/32", and 21/32". That was kind of the standard, I have other sets (e.g., Syracuse, Miller, etc) with a similar if not identical layout, and it looks like that was what was originally inside my Q.M.S. (Motor Parts Co.) set.

 

[Private Lugnutz]

...the thing that jumped out to me is only 10 sockets are pictured

Different set. There were smaller French Auto-Cle sets, too. Here's one I posted on the first thread.

 

[AntiqueBen]

I agree that figuring out the socketry of the different set variations will be difficult since we have no documentation on the specifics. A good start will be if Patrick can list all the sizes in his set (especially his set from England) since they are marked. It also helps there are a few clear early pics of the set.
The story continues to unfold....

 

[Patrick Eubanks]

I agree that figuring out the socketry of the different set variations will be difficult since we have no documentation on the specifics. A good start will be if Patrick can list all the sizes in his set (especially his set from England) since they are marked. It also helps there are a few clear early pics of the set.
The story continues to unfold....

My set from England is not marked

 

[Patrick Eubanks]

I was checking out a set of Walden sockets, number 6 set I believe, and they were all marked in mm

 

[Patrick Eubanks]

I was checking out a set of Walden sockets, number 6 set I believe, and they were all marked in mm

I take it back. They are marked made in England but sized via sae

 

[four.cycle]

just in case any of you are lacking any of these:

 

[Private Lugnutz]

My set from England is not marked

I'm pretty sure Farmer J. said his set was marked with the sizes. I'll wait for him to confirm. Why that's significant is his ratchet had a lower S/N than yours. If true, it would indicate we need to be careful about assuming a progression in production practices. If not, it would be consistent with all sets made in Europe not being marked at all.

 

[Private Lugnutz]

I was checking out a set of Walden sockets, number 6 set I believe, and they were all marked in mm

I take it back. They are marked made in England but sized via sae

I don't know what a No. 6 set is. I have a No. 8 and a No. 16 set, both in wooden boxes, and the sockets are marked with imperial fractions. Not to get off on a tangent, but I also am not aware of why any Walden sockets sets would be made in England to begin with.

 

[AntiqueBen]

I'm pretty sure Farmer J. said his set was marked with the sizes. I'll wait for him to confirm. Why that's significant is his ratchet had a lower S/N than yours. If true, it would indicate we need to be careful about assuming a progression in production practices. If not, it would be consistent with all sets made in Europe not being marked at all.

Confirmed. FarmerJ & Patrick's set from England do have marked sockets.

 

[Private Lugnutz]

Confirmed. FarmerJ & Patrick's set from England do have marked sockets.

Okay. I'm confused. Didn't Patrick just say...

My set from England is not marked

?

 

[AntiqueBen]

Okay. I'm confused. Didn't Patrick just say...



?

He followed up with another post that said they are. Post #94.

 

[AntiqueBen]

just in case any of you are lacking any of these:

Thanks for.cycle for all the ads. The Marshall Wells Hardware Company ad lists the socket sizes. This will be a big help If you find any more ads, please post.

 

[AntiqueBen]

Confirmed. FarmerJ & Patrick's set from England do have marked sockets.

I think Patrick was saying his England Auto-Cle set was marked, not the Walden set...or that's how I took it.
Patrick, can you confirm your England Auto-Cle sockets are marked?

 

[Private Lugnutz]

The Marshall Wells Hardware Company ad lists the socket sizes. This will be a big help

Note that those are later Mossberg sets.

 

[AntiqueBen]

Note that those are later Mossberg sets.

True. I just saw the date of the ad.

 

[Private Lugnutz]

The timeline chart I posted upthread includes patent and trade journal references. I am not reposting all the patent references from the first thread here. But I'm going to post a bunch of dated trade journal excerpts that tell the timeline story that AA doesn't acknowledge, that is, all Auto-Cle production prior to Mossberg becoming the Eastern sales agent for Q.M.S. (Motor Parts Co.) and, ostensibly, their OEM. If the date is not in the excerpt itself, the file will include it. It's going to take a few posts.

Note that AA does not provide any reference for their contention that Mossberg acquired the rights to Auto-Cle from Q.M.S. and I never found anything that indicates that. Everything points to R.A.C. being Contal's first agency, through July 1906, then Q.M.S., then Mossberg being Q.M.S.'s eastern distributor, and later, much later, acknowledging that they were also their OEM. But well into 1914 Mossberg ads say the sets are made and sold by them for Q.M.S. (Motor Parts Co.).

 

[Private Lugnutz]

Part II...

 

[Private Lugnutz]

Part III...

(One reference in this last batch is from a suit against Sauer, a company that acquired Q.M.S. It's interesting because it cites contracts and value between Q.M.S. and Mossberg.)

 

[AntiqueBen]

Part III...

(One reference in this last batch is from a suit against Sauer, a company that acquired Q.M.S. It's interesting because it cites contracts and value between Q.M.S. and Mossberg.)

Thanks Lugz for posting all these ads. All really good stuff. So, I have what might be a ridiculous question. When Mossberg started making the Auto-Cle in house at Attleboro Mass. in 1908, did they have full rights of Auto-Cle at that point? If so, when & to who did Auto-Cle sell out their rights to first?

 

[Private Lugnutz]

Ugh. I hate this site sometimes! It's loading the thumbnails out of order, instead of how I attached them, which was chronologically! Well, it will be less impactful, and harder to read, but you guys will figure it out.

 

[Patrick Eubanks]

My England set is not marked. Us set is marked

 

[Private Lugnutz]

When Mossberg started making the Auto-Cle in house at Attleboro Mass. in 1908, did they have full rights of Auto-Cle at that point? If so, when & to who did Auto-Cle sell out their rights to first?

That notice and one other are a little contradictory. If you keep reading the excerpts, you'll see that they are very consistent about being a distributor for QMS or making the sets and selling them for QMS. Why would they do that at all if they owned the rights? As for who had them first, R.A.C. At some point between 1906 and 1907 it looks like Q.M.S. bought R.A.C. They have the same address as the R.A.C. address in Chicago. That's when Q.M.S. would've obtained the rights from R.A.C.

 

[AntiqueBen]

That notice and one other are a little contradictory. If you keep reading the excerpts, you'll see that they are very consistent about being a distributor for QMS or making the sets and selling them for QMS. Why would they do that at all if they owned the rights? As for who had them first, R.A.C. At some point between 1906 and 1907 it looks like Q.M.S. bought R.A.C. They have the same address as the R.A.C. address in Chicago. That's when Q.M.S. would've obtained the rights from R.A.C.

Gotcha

 

[AntiqueBen]

My England set is not marked. Us set is marked

So, FarmerJ's set from England is older than yours (not by much) and his sockets are marked (pic below). Yours is slightly newer than his & is not marked There could be a couple of scenarios. Your ratchet was put in an older set, or since your ratchets are close in serial number it could be a transition point when they went from not marking them to marking them. Will have to think about this one. More research is definitely required.

 

[four.cycle]

@Private Lugnutz - thanks. I knew you had more material on this than me.
And yes... the way the site posts the photos is maddening - they come up in reverse order it seems!

 

[Private Lugnutz]

There could be a couple of scenarios. Your ratchet was put in an older set, or since your ratchets are close in serial number it could be a transition point when they went from not marking them to marking them.

Your first scenario makes sense. I'm not understanding your second scenario. If the S/N's on the ratchets imply chronology, which is a logical inference, you would expect the sockets in FJ's set, which is older, to be unmarked, and PE's to be marked, but it's the opposite. This assumes that all the pieces in each set were manufactured at the same time as the ratchets, which may not be the case.

Another explanation, in my opinion, is different sources for the sockets. Of all the pieces in an Auto-Cle set - ratchet, drive plug, extension, and sockets, the sockets are the easiest to farm out and could tolerate the most variety. The other pieces are integral to each other. The sockets in your set and PE's set came from one supplier, and likely the same supplier, where the line was not set up for die stamping imperial fractions, and the sockets in FJ's came from a different supplier, where they were. They could be two different suppliers in France. It could mean a supplier in France and a supplier in England. As I said, we don't know enough about his company and its manufacturing capabilities or the production of the sets found in boxes bearing British patent numbers on the badges but French patent markings on the ratchets and we don't have nearly enough examples to be drawing too many conclusions too soon.

More research is definitely required.

And more sets.

 

[Private Lugnutz]

Update:

 

[Private Lugnutz]

I found a very interesting Auto-Cle reference in an article reporting on "The Automobile Show at the Crystal Palace", in a British trade mag, The Automotor Journal, Feb 7, 1903.



Note that this is before the French patent was even issued and before the big spreads on the Auto-Cle in French trade mags in late 1903 (Le Chauffeur) and early 1904 (Le Vie Automobile), which would help explain its popularity and market in England. Note that there is no information on production and no advertisement about how to buy the tools, just a brief description of them and a figure. The setting was magnificent. As @Farmer J. can no doubt attest, the Crystal Palace was a massive cast iron and plate glass Victorian structure, originally built in Hyde Park, London, to house the Great Exhibition of 1851 and it continued to serve as an exposition hall for turn of the century inventions for decades.

Here's where it gets even more interesting, though. The outfit that was exhibiting and demonstrating the Auto-Cle toolset at the show was the Electromobile Company, an early British car maker. They were exhibiting it along with their new electric car, a laudette. The chassis, motor, and batteries were all Contal components, standardized on all Electromobile cars, all manufactured in Leeds, in England. I am providing the link for the entire article here. Scroll up from there for more on the Contal-based car. He was obviously as shrewd of a businessman as he was an inventor. Using his relationship with Electromobile to show off his revolutionary new toolset.

 

[AntiqueBen]

I found a very interesting Auto-Cle reference in an article reporting on "The Automobile Show at the Crystal Palace", in a British trade mag, The Automotor Journal, Feb 7, 1903.



Note that this is before the French patent was even issued and before the big spreads on the Auto-Cle in French trade mags in late 1903 (Le Chauffeur) and early 1904 (Le Vie Automobile), which would help explain its popularity and market in England. Note that there is no information on production and no advertisement about how to buy the tools, just a brief description of them and a figure. The setting was magnificent. As @Farmer J. can no doubt attest, the Crystal Palace was a massive cast iron and plate glass Victorian structure, originally built in Hyde Park, London, to house the Great Exhibition of 1851 and it continued to serve as an exposition hall for turn of the century inventions for decades.

Here's where it gets even more interesting, though. The outfit that was exhibiting and demonstrating the Auto-Cle toolset at the show was the Electromobile Company, an early British car maker. They were exhibiting it along with their new electric car, a laudette. The chassis, motor, and batteries were all Contal components, standardized on all Electromobile cars, all manufactured in Leeds, in England. I am providing the link for the entire article here. Scroll up from there for more on the Contal-based car. He was obviously as shrewd of a businessman as he was an inventor. Using his relationship with Electromobile to show off his revolutionary new toolset.

Contal was quite the guy. Inventor & Business Man rolled into one. I'm looking forward to reading that whole article. Cool find Lugz. I also found an ad dated February 18, 1905 of R.A.C. obtaining the patent rights to manufacture the Auto-Cle in the US. Didn't know if you had seen this one yet.

 

[Private Lugnutz]

I also found an ad dated February 18, 1905 of R.A.C. obtaining the patent rights to manufacture the Auto-Cle in the US. Didn't know if you had seen this one yet.

I posted the same announcement from an anthologized edition dated Jan-June in post #105, so I used June. Yours is earlier and I will use that date on the timeline. I have still not found anything more definitive than the announcement upthread that Q.M.S. had "succeeded" R.A.C., but together with the fact that Q.M.S. was claiming the same address as R.A.C. in the Old Colony Building in Chicago, I am surmising Q.M.S. acquired R.A.C., and with it, the Auto-Cle rights.

I didn't want to muddy the waters or go off on a tangent on something that is only marginally relevant to our core interests quite just yet, but in many of the Q.M.S. (Motor Parts Co.) ads I posted upthread you will see that a Factory Sales Corp in Chicago is identified as their western distributor, and Mossberg as their eastern distributor. My hunch is that is the old R.A.C. crew, now owned by Q.M.S., with a new name. I just haven't confirmed it yet.

It has to be said, while there are a few early US production Auto-Cle sets in Motor Parts Co. marked boxes (e.g., mine, Patrick's, etc), none have popped up in a box marked R.A.C.

 

[Private Lugnutz]

Looks like Q.M.S. acquired R.A.C. at least as early as January 1907.