Black & Decker Workmate
- Thread starter abstamaria
- Start date
j p smith
Well-known member
I am looking to get a workmate that I can use in my shop and also take to the Hit & Miss Engine shows to display an antique corn grinder and corn sheller set up. I see quite a few different models, what is the better model number or models to look for? Thanks
Outlawmws
Well-known member
How much weight will the load be? Will there be a mounting board as well?
Are you looking for vintage, or new?
It any case, for stability I'd stay away from The "TV tray" models. if the weight i low enough most any of the dual height type should do the trick. if you need more space, then that may drive a need the larger ones.
Are you looking for vintage, or new?
It any case, for stability I'd stay away from The "TV tray" models. if the weight i low enough most any of the dual height type should do the trick. if you need more space, then that may drive a need the larger ones.
j p smith
Well-known member
Thanks Outlaw!
Load no more than 40 pounds, more like 25.
would prefer vintage over new
Load no more than 40 pounds, more like 25.
would prefer vintage over new
Outlawmws
Well-known member
So the older 200 series will do fine for that, unless space is an issue,m or the jaw boards are compromised, (think wet particle board..). Earlier models had high grade plywood jaws. You can also go to the older models with the aluminum frames. Wolf's web site will have a lot of info for models to consider.
Trying to clarify the setup—tell me if I'm close. You want to set up the grinder or sheller on top of the Workmate and drive it via a belt from an engine sitting separately on the ground or on some stand of its own, is that right? Or, when you say "display", do you just mean a static display? How high do you want the top surface of the Workmate to be, 30-32" bench height?
j p smith
Well-known member
Wolf, lol, not going to drive it with a Hit & Miss Engine. I have a wood box I put together with a hand crank sheller on one end and a hand crank grinder on the other end of the box. The set up does work and gets a workout at a show, I will get you a picture and the dimensions
Okay, it has a hand crank. And how high do you want the top surface of the Workmate to be, 30-32" bench height? How large a surface do you need to fit the box? Does the box have to be secured to the top, with clamps or otherwise, or is its own weight sufficient to hold it?
j p smith
Well-known member
Outlawmws
Well-known member
You can also just stick a cleat for the WM to grap maybe 4 feet outside the jaw line so it doesn't rock in transit?
Some of my stuff gets stored in a book case and just pulled down adn into a WM for use:
You can see the cleat above the grinder, which also has one:
Some of my stuff gets stored in a book case and just pulled down adn into a WM for use:
You can see the cleat above the grinder, which also has one:
Last edited:
It looks as though the crank handles at the lowest point of rotation may drop below the bottom of the box—is that correct? If so, the best fit would be a Workmate with the 23-1/2" long jaws, such as a Workmate 200 79-032 from the 1980's. I'm not sure how the width would work out; the jaws when closed are 10" wide (vs. 20 for your box). The jaws can be opened 5" for a total width of 15".
It also looks as though the stand you have it on in the photos matches the dimensions of the box quite closely, with vertical legs Be aware that the legs of the Workmate extend outward at 45 degrees to give it a more stable platform. They can be a tripping hazard if you or others are moving around the Workmate during your demo without watching where the legs are.
The stand you have it on looks like a great match; what is unsatisfactory about it?
It also looks as though the stand you have it on in the photos matches the dimensions of the box quite closely, with vertical legs Be aware that the legs of the Workmate extend outward at 45 degrees to give it a more stable platform. They can be a tripping hazard if you or others are moving around the Workmate during your demo without watching where the legs are.
The stand you have it on looks like a great match; what is unsatisfactory about it?
j p smith
Well-known member
Thanks for your help. The stand is not stable, very wiggly. Does the 200 use plywood or particle board? I had not paid attention to the angled legs. I think I will look for one, worst case I have a workmate to use for projects.
Outlawmws
Well-known member
Pretty sure the 200 series were particle board, but decent stuff strength-wise I'd guess a couple hundred pounds capacity. I had a 400 that I parked a bench top DP on for many years with no issues, That particle board topped WM was rated 400 # as I recall.
Moreover, I've stood on them all, many times
Moreover, I've stood on them all, many times
RTM
Well-known member
I think 325# on mine, and a sticker saying not to stand on them.
Outlawmws
Well-known member
lolaetype
Well-known member
I spent some time this week replacing the wood on my 200. I had a piece of 1" thick subflooring laying around so. . . . I gave it 5 coasts of urethane. While I was at it I cleaned everything and repainted the framework.
Last edited:
fishwatcher
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2023
- Messages
- 750
That looks great!I spent some time replacing the wood on my 200. I had a piece of 1" thick subflooring laying around so. . . . I gave it 5 coasts of urethane. While I was at it I cleaned everything and repainted the framework.
Well done.
Oregon rock crusher
Well-known member
Here are a few pics of another E type I found at a local swap meet this morning. It was tucked in tight under a tool box and I completely missed it on my first pass but spotted the blue handles on my way back through. Lot's of oxidation on the aluminum frame and not a whole lot of blue paint showing through on the lettering. I've got a clean up project to start on now but at least there are no broken parts and everything still moves. I think I have the two missing front feet. Ed.
Attachments
Oregon rock crusher
Well-known member
I had a few hours over the last few days here and there and cleaned up my new E type about as good as it's going to get. For the dog holes I used a small straight wire rotary brush and flap wheel. That worked pretty well. The frame was really nasty and CLR type cleaners barely touched that oxidation and I had to abrade it off. It was mostly a wire wheel and fiber wheel on the drill job as well.
This workmate has the narrow tab at the center of the footrest as opposed to the wider tab that gave additional support for the front legs pivot point. I believe the wider tab to be an improvement and probably a later production feature. The bottom side of the footrest also has the same finish as my other narrow tab workmate. The wide tab workmate has a much brighter galvanized finish. I've got to order some more feet that will work for the lower height setting. A few pics of this cleaned up E type. Ed.
This workmate has the narrow tab at the center of the footrest as opposed to the wider tab that gave additional support for the front legs pivot point. I believe the wider tab to be an improvement and probably a later production feature. The bottom side of the footrest also has the same finish as my other narrow tab workmate. The wide tab workmate has a much brighter galvanized finish. I've got to order some more feet that will work for the lower height setting. A few pics of this cleaned up E type. Ed.
Attachments
Last edited:
Outlawmws
Well-known member
Looks good ORC!
Oregon rock crusher
Well-known member
Just circling back to this topic wolfcj. I first reported my WM markings backasswards. Cleaning up this most recent acquisition I realized my mistake. I'm not sure how relevant that is but I do see a picture of am FD4 on your site marked WM also with a wide footrest tag. As the original Type E in England was known as the WM325 Type 3 that FD3 marking makes sense to me.
I'll also speculate that there was a second run of E types later in the year that were marked with the FD4 code. The circle with the 12 lines surrounding it could easily be imagined as the 12 months. With the fine detail of all the other markings it seems unlikely that they would randomly align that 74 marking out of square without reason. What if there were two runs of WM's in 74, one early in the year and one late. If that is true, the first run could have started mid January with the second starting mid November by the "clock alignment". Just a theory that I would appreciate your thoughts on. I think they were all marked either FD3 or FD4 but could be wrong. Possibly FD4 had modest changes such as the foot rest tab and step finish? Not sure what to make of the black lettered E types. Ed.
Attachments
I'm not sure I'm willing to conclude any particular meaning to the FD3 vs. FD4. In particular, I'm not convinced that they tell us anything about when the parts were made. My theory would be that FD designates the supplier that made the rear-leg castings. Black & Decker didn't do any casting themselves; they used numerous outside suppliers simultaneously. The FD3 and FD4 would be two different molds the supplier used. I've also seen an FD2, leading me to think there was probably also an FD1. It's possible the FD3's preceded the FD4's, but I would expect they were using both molds at the same time. If you examine the other cast parts you'll see other codes; I remember an S in a circle and a BM, which I think would be examples of other suppliers casting other components. I also think the 72 or 74 is the date the part was cast, not when it was assembled into a Workmate. Depending on just how they managed the parts when they arrived at Black & Decker, those could be very different.
I'll also point out that In addition, as far as I can tell, the same rear-leg casting design was used throughout the entire production run of the WM325 Type 1 through Type 3 (which of course also included the 79-001 Type E), whereas the galvanized step and its tab changed at some unknown time. There's no reason I would expect the FD3 vs. FD4 castings to match up with a difference in the tab on the step.
When we discussed this in 2023, I compiled a list of these characteristics from examples of WM325's and 79-001 Type E's for which I had photos that showed enough info, shown below. It's fairly limited data, but I couldn't see any pattern in it. For example, I found only two Type E's with the long tab, one with an FD3 rear leg and the other with an FD4. With no apparent pattern, I did not continue to try to collect this data after that one compilation.
First, the WM325's:
Type|Mold|Year|Tab length
1 ? 72 NA
1 FD3 74 ?
3 FD2 72 NA
3 FD3 74 long
3 FD3 74 long
? ? 72 ?
? FD3 74 short
Then Type E's
Type|Mold|Year|Tab length
E FD3 74 long
E FD3 74 short
E FD3 74 short
E FD4 74 long
E FD4 74 short
E FD4 74 short
E FD4 74 short
E FD4 74 ?
E FD4 74 ?
I'll also point out that In addition, as far as I can tell, the same rear-leg casting design was used throughout the entire production run of the WM325 Type 1 through Type 3 (which of course also included the 79-001 Type E), whereas the galvanized step and its tab changed at some unknown time. There's no reason I would expect the FD3 vs. FD4 castings to match up with a difference in the tab on the step.
When we discussed this in 2023, I compiled a list of these characteristics from examples of WM325's and 79-001 Type E's for which I had photos that showed enough info, shown below. It's fairly limited data, but I couldn't see any pattern in it. For example, I found only two Type E's with the long tab, one with an FD3 rear leg and the other with an FD4. With no apparent pattern, I did not continue to try to collect this data after that one compilation.
First, the WM325's:
Type|Mold|Year|Tab length
1 ? 72 NA
1 FD3 74 ?
3 FD2 72 NA
3 FD3 74 long
3 FD3 74 long
? ? 72 ?
? FD3 74 short
Then Type E's
Type|Mold|Year|Tab length
E FD3 74 long
E FD3 74 short
E FD3 74 short
E FD4 74 long
E FD4 74 short
E FD4 74 short
E FD4 74 short
E FD4 74 ?
E FD4 74 ?
Oregon rock crusher
Well-known member
Well with conflicting evidence seeming to be the norm it may be impossible to make much of casting marks. I think it would take a larger pool of verifiable individual characteristics to confirm much of anything related to minor production variations. That 74 in the 12 division clock face does seem relevant though, and a second run at the foundry due to higher than expected sales in 74 seems plausible. Hard to find good info online about any Kildare Ireland foundries that may have cast the parts.
On the other hand, the instruction manual for the type E shows a wide tab in the diagram so if that came out with the first e types to hit the market it indicates that feature was early. (On edit I see that instruction manual was carried over from the WM325 with the wooden footboard). In the end I suppose it doesn't make a lot of difference in usability or collectability. Just peaked my interest for a bit after spending some time cleaning one up. Thanks for your efforts documenting WM's Wolf. Ed.
On the other hand, the instruction manual for the type E shows a wide tab in the diagram so if that came out with the first e types to hit the market it indicates that feature was early. (On edit I see that instruction manual was carried over from the WM325 with the wooden footboard). In the end I suppose it doesn't make a lot of difference in usability or collectability. Just peaked my interest for a bit after spending some time cleaning one up. Thanks for your efforts documenting WM's Wolf. Ed.
Last edited:
One clarification regarding "Hard to find good info online about any Kildare Ireland foundries that may have cast the parts." The WM325 and thus the 79-001 Type E was made in Black & Decker's factory in Spennymoor, England. The factory in Kildare, Ireland was built in 1975 to make the WM625, which had the primarily steel frame.
On that same subject, Scott Landis in "The Workbench Book" says (regarding the start of production at Spennymoor in 1972), "Almost overnight, [Black & Decker] became Britain's largest consumer of aluminum castings, outside of the automotive industry."
On that same subject, Scott Landis in "The Workbench Book" says (regarding the start of production at Spennymoor in 1972), "Almost overnight, [Black & Decker] became Britain's largest consumer of aluminum castings, outside of the automotive industry."
Hi, new member here. Hope it's ok to share what I believe is a Type E for sale that I just saw on FB marketplace. It's a little far from me. I believe this is a Type E. It's in Waconia, Minnesota. 
That looks great in the photo. If it's as complete as it looks and everything is working properly, that's one incredible bargain at $15. And get this—the ad says the seller is selling because they have another and don't need to have two!
Outlawmws
Well-known member
Too far away from me or I'd be on that in an instant.
Thanks to this site and also @wolfcj 's excellent site and youtube videos, over the weekend, I did purchase a barely used WM 200 which is a perfect size and feels sturdy and robust enough for me.
I searched this thread and didn't get any hits for Phil Collins, so I also wanted to share this old Phil Collins youtube link that I recently came across, where you can see what he is using as a keyboard stand at about 29 seconds into the song (and also near the end of the video too): I Don't Care Anymore.mpg
I searched this thread and didn't get any hits for Phil Collins, so I also wanted to share this old Phil Collins youtube link that I recently came across, where you can see what he is using as a keyboard stand at about 29 seconds into the song (and also near the end of the video too): I Don't Care Anymore.mpg
Last edited:
FullRaceMerc
Well-known member
Nice find!
Lol, thanks. I found two more. The first one shows his stand better. In the Air Tonight 1 In the Air Tonight 2
Wow, I never heard about this before!
In "I Don't Care Anymore" he's using the mid-size model WM536, sitting at the side of it with the keyboard sideways across the Workmate and with his feet on the floor. In the first "In the Air Tonight" he's using the full-size WM625, sitting in front of it, with his feet on the footrest. The second "In the Air Tonight" doesn't show the Workmate as well, but it appears to be the WM625 also, but it looks as though he might have one foot on the floor and one on the footrest
In "I Don't Care Anymore" he's using the mid-size model WM536, sitting at the side of it with the keyboard sideways across the Workmate and with his feet on the floor. In the first "In the Air Tonight" he's using the full-size WM625, sitting in front of it, with his feet on the footrest. The second "In the Air Tonight" doesn't show the Workmate as well, but it appears to be the WM625 also, but it looks as though he might have one foot on the floor and one on the footrest
Outlawmws
Well-known member
"Workmates in the "movies"! 
In the Coleman forum i'm in there is a thread 'Coleman in the movies" Amazing how big that thread got, and how Hollywood uses the wrong stuff for the era, like 1960s lanterns in "The rifleman" long before Coleman even existed as a conpany...
In the Coleman forum i'm in there is a thread 'Coleman in the movies" Amazing how big that thread got, and how Hollywood uses the wrong stuff for the era, like 1960s lanterns in "The rifleman" long before Coleman even existed as a conpany...
We certainly can't come close to that benchmark, but as a start, about five years ago, I posted a couple of examples of "Workmates on TV":
https://www.garagejournal.com/forum/threads/black-decker-workmate.92136/page-33#post-8213337
https://www.garagejournal.com/forum/threads/black-decker-workmate.92136/page-35#post-8302881
https://www.garagejournal.com/forum/threads/black-decker-workmate.92136/page-33#post-8213337
https://www.garagejournal.com/forum/threads/black-decker-workmate.92136/page-35#post-8302881
Found a couple of pics of the Rookie one at a Fandom dot com Rookie wiki site (not so sure if that is a workmate in the 1st pic
):
Outlawmws
Well-known member
I don't think so in Pic 1. I can't even find it in pic 2.
The Workmate in the first picture is mostly hidden by other stuff sitting in front of it. It is sitting sideways to the camera and the only readily visible part of it is the base, with the distinctive folding legs and the footrest. Here is an enhanced view of it, with a box around the base.
However, I'm certain that the Workmate was much more readily visible in the actual episode, in a shot that they did not happen to capture for the Wiki.
However, I'm certain that the Workmate was much more readily visible in the actual episode, in a shot that they did not happen to capture for the Wiki.
Attachments
Last edited:
Outlawmws
Well-known member
Yeah, likely a WM in pic 2 - good luck on the model..
Found a free place to watch the Magnum PI one (archive dot org): MangumPI-Heal_Thyself
I had to click to the 4th page and there it was, listed as the 50th episode. The ~48 second or so workmate scene starts around 19:20 of the 48 minute video. Here's a screenshot from that scene.
Last edited: