Craftsman : series time frame ?

[billymade]

Maybe that was when the steel they used wasn't so SOFT!

 

[lbgradwell]

Heres something interesting

http://cgi.ebay.com/1950-Vintage-Craftsman-1-2-Inch-Ratchet-6-Piece-Set_W0QQitemZ190225716539QQihZ009QQcategoryZ4122QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

Notice its the type without the cutout in the neck and a 1950 dated receipt is included

I emailed the Seller to ask if there's a "V" on that ratchet. I'm guessing there isn't, and we can move the dates to 1950 -1954 somewhere for the appearance of the indent (and probably the "V" code)...

OK, I was wrong (that's not unprecedented; I once married)... The Seller responded saying the receipt was dated May, 1950 and the ratchet is indeed a "V"-series.

So... the "V"-Series was introduced by May 1950 and the non-indent tools appear as both Pre-V (no marking) and V series. The later indentation/concavity on the ratchet handles has nothing to do with the V series...

 

[lauver]

Sorry Gary, but some of this is not accurate...

It sounds like you're describing MDF, Easco, & Danaher as separate, concurrent companies rather than essentially a single, continuous entity. Now, obviously, they were 3 different companies, but for our purposes - trying to determine the manufacturers of Craftsman products - they are for all intents & purposes a single concern. At least, this is my understanding!

Easco Hand Tools purchased Moore Drop Forging in 1968, so I don't know how they "dropped out of the picture about 1986". The actual original MDF only closed its doors within the past 3-4 years, IIRC, but was still a part of Easco/Danaher.

I've also never encountered your lack-of-capacity theory to explain the Taiwanese Stanley ratchets before. Is that speculation or have you discovered something? I always assumed it was an attempt to reduce costs by producing in a lower-wage country rather than a capacity problem...

And Easco certainly produced ratchets for Sears. We've been discussing the fine-tooth, round-head Easco/Craftsman twins all day in the EASCO ratchet thread!

LG,

Sorry it's taken so long to get back to you but I've been busy with other matters. Let me respond to your concerns in the order that you have presented them:

1) Are MDF, Easco, and Danaher 3 seperate companies or 1 evolving company. I think a case can be made for either view and I think it remains to be seen which view is correct or more correct. Further, I'm willing to change my view if the evidence leads me there.

2) Did Easco purchase MDF in 1986? No, Easco purchased MDF in 1968. So yes I stated it incorrectly. Was it because I didn't know the correct date? No, I simply transposed the date as I was writing...my bad!

3) Do I have a lack-of-capacity theory? Yes and no; there is such a theory but it ain't mine. In fact, this lack-of-capacity theory goes back to MDF and continued with Easco. I found newpaper article (New York Times or Washington Post) that included an interview with the president of MDF just before Easco acquired them. When asked why MDF was being sold, the president indicated that the problem was not a lack of tool orders, but rather a lack of productivity and cost issues. He went on to say that MDF had a history of unfilled orders at the end of several recent years. He then went on to say that MDF was then currently running 2 shifts per day, 6 days per week, and was unable to meet demand. He didn't address the issues of a third shift and/or a 7th day. I'm guessing MDF had considered these options and rejected them on the basis of cost and profitablility.

Let's not forget that Easco purchased a new facility (Gastonia) in 1979; this is a clear indication of Easco's need for additional capacity.

I ran across a similar series of posts regarding Easco on a tool/machinery website. There was a thread on the demise of Easco-made Craftsman tools with a post by a former Easco employee. He summarized the situation as follows: Easco was up for a contract renewal with Sears. Sears was well aware of Easco's productive capacity. Sears wanted something on the order of 1.2 million tools per year and Easco's existing capacity was something on the order 650 thousand tools per year. Sears demanded, as a condition of the new contract, that Easco develop a plan that would demonstrate their ability to increase tool production to the 1.2 miilion tool level over an 18 month period. The former employee of Easco said he was hired for the specific task of developing this plan. He said the obvious fixes (i.e. more workers and more machinery) were not feasible because there was no available room in the Easco facilities and because it would have increased the tool costs beyond contract levels. Long story short, he came up with a method that significantly reduced the down time on existing equipment. He sold this plan to Easco and Sears management. The contract was issued to Easco, which carried them over until Easco was acquired by Danaher. He didn't say how well the plan worked over the long run, but given the acquisition of Easco by Danaher, the "big fix" was likely a temporary fix.

Is this definitive proof of lack-of-capacity during the 1980s and early 1990s. No, but it is suggestive and plausable.

4) Did Easco provide ratchets to Sears? If you read my post carefully, you should have noted I did not say that Easco didn't provide ratchets. I said, I (personally) was not sure if Easco provided ratchets. I'm open to the possibility, but I personally think there are a lot of unanswered questions on the Easco connection.

 

[MAD]

LG,

Sorry it's taken so long to get back to you but I've been busy with other matters. Let me respond to your concerns in the order that you have presented them:

1) Are MDF, Easco, and Danaher 3 seperate companies or 1 evolving company. I think a case can be made for either view and I think it remains to be seen which view is correct or more correct. Further, I'm willing to change my view if the evidence leads me there.

2) Did Easco purchase MDF in 1986? No, Easco purchased MDF in 1968. So yes I stated it incorrectly. Was it because I didn't know the correct date? No, I simply transposed the date as I was writing...my bad!

3) Do I have a lack-of-capacity theory? Yes and no; there is such a theory but it ain't mine. In fact, this lack-of-capacity theory goes back to MDF and continued with Easco. I found newpaper article (New York Times or Washington Post) that included an interview with the president of MDF just before Easco acquired them. When asked why MDF was being sold, the president indicated that the problem was not a lack of tool orders, but rather a lack of productivity and cost issues. He went on to say that MDF had a history of unfilled orders at the end of several recent years. He then went on to say that MDF was then currently running 2 shifts per day, 6 days per week, and was unable to meet demand. He didn't address the issues of a third shift and/or a 7th day. I'm guessing MDF had considered these options and rejected them on the basis of cost and profitablility.

I ran across a similar series of posts regarding Easco on a tool/machinery website. There was a thread on the demise of Easco-made Craftsman tools with a post by a former Easco employee. He summarized the situation as follows: Easco was up for a contract renewal with Sears. Sears was well aware of Easco's productive capacity. Sears wanted something on the order of 1.2 million tools per year and Easco's existing capacity was something on the order 650 thousand tools per year. Sears demanded, as a condition of the new contract, that Easco develop a plan that would demonstrate their ability to increase tool production to the 1.2 miilion tool level over an 18 month period. The former employee of Easco said he was hired for the specific task of developing this plan. He said the obvious fixes (i.e. more workers and more machinery) were not feasible because there was no available room in the Easco facilities and because it would have increased the tool costs beyond contract levels. Long story short, he came up with a method that significantly reduced the down time on existing equipment. He sold this plan to Easco and Sears management. The contract was issued to Easco, which carried them over until Easco was acquired by Danaher. He didn't say how well the plan worked over the long run, but given the acquisition of Easco by Danaher, the "big fix" was likely a temporary fix.

Is this definitive proof of lack-of-capacity during the 1980s and early 1990s. No, but it is suggestive and plausable.

4) Did Easco provide ratchets to Sears? If you read my post carefully, you should have noted I did not say that Easco didn't provide ratchets. I said, I (personally) was not sure if Easco provided ratchets. I'm open to the possibility, but I personally think there are a lot of unanswered questions on the Easco connection.

For a little light reading, here is a link to the 1988 agreement between Easco and Sears to be the primary supplier of wrenches and sockets. You can see the amendments to the agreement up into the late 1990s.

http://sec.edgar-online.com/1998/07/16/07/0000313616-98-000010/Section16.asp

 

[lauver]

Thanks MADD, that was interesting reading but it was anything but light. Why was this contract and amendments filed with the SEC. Is this normal practice or was there some "special situation" that required the filing? I've run across other SEC filings by tool companies and always wondered.

 

[MAD]

Thanks MADD, that was interesting reading but it was anything but light. Why was this contract and amendments filed with the SEC. Is this normal practice or was there some "special situation" that required the filing? I've run across other SEC filings by tool companies and always wondered.

This was part of a normal quarterly SEC 10-Q filing. There are annual filings as well that I think are form 10-K. I don't have a lot of patients for reading these things but I have across a few interesting bits of information when these have come up in a search.

 

[MAD]

moved from the Easco ratchet thread to try to keep that one on topic:

MADD,

Did you see my comment/question in post #94 regarding 1980's EE series ratchets and the possible connection to National Tool Corp/Stanley?

Do you know anything about NTC, their acquisition by Stanley, or a possible link to the EE series code?

Do you have, or have you ever run across, any of the following EE ratchets (PN's 43772, 43582, & 43771)? Just asking because you seem to have a knack for the obscure.
__________________

I do not know much about NTC but I would say that Stanley was the likely OEM for those tri-wing Craftsman ratchets. I have a Master Mechanic socket set from the mid 90s that has extremely similar looking ratchets with no country of origin marked. The sockets that came in the set are marked USA and are identical (other than brand) to a set of Stanley Professional branded sockets I have from the same time period. Those tri-wing round head ratchets are different from all of the ratchets that are from the companies now owned by Danaher so I would say that Stanley is more of an informed guess for the EE marking. I have never seen any evidence to indicate that any Easco related Craftsman tool had a EE marking on it. I think someone just guessed at that one based on Easco being the major contractor and having a name that begins with E.

 

[64merc]

moved from the Easco ratchet thread to try to keep that one on topic:



I do not know much about NTC but I would say that Stanley was the likely OEM for those tri-wing Craftsman ratchets. I have a Master Mechanic socket set from the mid 90s that has extremely similar looking ratchets with no country of origin marked. The sockets that came in the set are marked USA and are identical (other than brand) to a set of Stanley Professional branded sockets I have from the same time period. Those tri-wing round head ratchets are different from all of the ratchets that are from the companies now owned by Danaher so I would say that Stanley is more of an informed guess for the EE marking. I have never seen any evidence to indicate that any Easco related Craftsman tool had a EE marking on it. I think someone just guessed at that one based on Easco being the major contractor and having a name that begins with E.

It is certainly likely that Stanley made those Tri-Wing ratchets for C-man. I would like to find out the truth one day.

While I agree that we don't know for sure if Easco made the EE series, I am far less skeptical than you are about this. If Stanley made the EE series, why have I never seen a Stanley socket with the same chrome color as the EE series? I have some NOS Easco universal sockets somewhere and IIRC they most resemble the EE series.

 

[lauver]

It is certainly likely that Stanley made those Tri-Wing ratchets for C-man. I would like to find out the truth one day.

While I agree that we don't know for sure if Easco made the EE series, I am far less skeptical than you are about this. If Stanley made the EE series, why have I never seen a Stanley socket with the same chrome color as the EE series? I have some NOS Easco universal sockets somewhere and IIRC they most resemble the EE series.

64merc and MADD,

I've always assumed E and EE were Easco, but that's because someone opined that early in this thread; and it seemed reasonable and plausable (i.e. E & EE=Easco). But now that I've read discussions on other tool websites that at least EE=National Tool Corp/Stanley, this gives me reason to be skeptical about Easco, and at least considerate of NTC/Stanley. We know that Stanley was a supplier to Sears in roughly the 1985-1994 time frame, but no one has attributed a series code to Stanley yet. We also know that some of the Stanley tools (Taiwanese/Chinese made) had no series codes (I own a Stanley made ratchet with no series code and have no doubt about its origin).

Further, the "Easco Ratchet" thread has identified a number of Easco made ratchets that clearly have V series or V derivative series codes. And, so far, no one has posted a single example of a Easco made tool with any other series codes.

So, Im going to see what I can find out about National tool corp and see where that leads me. I'll keep you posted.

 

[a390st]

I was going through an old box of wrenches and came across a 9mm combination wrench marked: "9mm Chrome Molybdenum BF Japan" on one side and "9mm = CRAFTSMAN =" on the other. I have never had a Japanese Craftsman wrench, but I'm sure it's probably not so uncommon for certain time frames. There is also an upside down "C9" on the wrench.

 

[lauver]

I was going through an old box of wrenches and came across a 9mm combination wrench marked: "9mm Chrome Molybdenum BF Japan" on one side and "9mm = CRAFTSMAN =" on the other. I have never had a Japanese Craftsman wrench, but I'm sure it's probably not so uncommon for certain time frames. There is also an upside down "C9" on the wrench.

a390st,

Thanks for the post and heads up. We do have the BF series code on our list, made in Japan, possibly by Hozan, during the period 1969-1987. This code has been found on open end and combination wrenches. I have two sets of these wrenches. They are the standard raised panel, V series, design that Craftsman has used for years; the only difference I can see are: the alloy they are made from is different, the chrome plating is different (a little brighter or whiter), and if you drop the tools on the floor, they have a different "ring". Otherwise, they are the same as V series tools and are of comparable quality.

 

[a390st]

Well, I was quite sure that you had seen them, but I didn't see it this thread. I probably missed it in all of these pages, but I wanted to chip in where I could. Thanks for the information.

 

[lauver]

MAD,

I've been looking over that link you posted (1988 Sears-Easco Agreement with Sears-Danaher Ammendments for 1990, 1995, and 1997) and there is some interesting **** in there.

In one of the early ammendments (1990 I think), Sears fronted Danaher some money to modernize and streamline Easco facilities and equipment.

By the 1997 ammendment, it's a whole new deal between Sears and Danaher, that sounds more like a partnership than the usuall buyer-seller contract. 1) Danaher has more control of product development and tool design. 2) Danaher and Sears share profits (Growth Share Rebate). 3) Danaher can buy tools from other manufacturers (Buyout Tools I think) and mix them with their tools to make tool sets. And this is where it gets interesting. Remember the Tamper proof bit sets you posted on another thread? You speculated they were made by SK but had a W series code. Item 3 above, says Danaher could buy sockets from SK and combine them with bits from their Allen Division to make complete bit sets. I'm not saying Danaher did this, but it is a possibility under the 1997 ammendment, and it might explain the W series code vs. K series code.

Your thoughts on this possibility.

 

[64merc]

a390st,

Thanks for the post and heads up. We do have the BF series code on our list, made in Japan, possibly by Hozan, during the period 1969-1987. This code has been found on open end and combination wrenches. I have two sets of these wrenches. They are the standard raised panel, V series, design that Craftsman has used for years; the only difference I can see are: the alloy they are made from is different, the chrome plating is different (a little brighter or whiter), and if you drop the tools on the floor, they have a different "ring". Otherwise, they are the same as V series tools and are of comparable quality.

Maybe you touched on this already, but I found some C-man pliers the other day at an estate sale that say "Japan" on them. The series code started with a B for sure, so it might verywell be BF.

 

[lauver]

Maybe you touched on this already, but I found some C-man pliers the other day at an estate sale that say "Japan" on them. The series code started with a B for sure, so it might verywell be BF.

64merc,

Now that you mention it, I have an older C-man plier set from the late 60's or early 70's that were made in Japan. Don't remember if they had a series code or not. I'll check and see what I find. Thanks for heads up 64merc.

EDIT: You're absolutely right, all but one of the pliers in the set are marked BF-Japan except for the 10" groove-joint pliers that is marked WF-USA. So, BF included not only flat wrenches but also pliers. Good catch 64merc.

 

[lauver]

Well, I was quite sure that you had seen them, but I didn't see it this thread. I probably missed it in all of these pages, but I wanted to chip in where I could. Thanks for the information.

a390st,

For a current summary of known series codes see page 7, post #69. This list is updated periodically as new information is posted.

You're right, this thread is long, all tangled up, and constantly evolving; which makes it hard to keep everything straight in your head. That's why we have post #69, it provides one place with everything in short-hand order.

 

[heelsroll]

All,

Here are some pictures of a made in Taiwan set. I do not have a purchase date, they came to me last fall at an estate auction. I hope that these will still be of some use.

The combination wrenches are as follows:

3/8 E-44693
7/16 E-44694
1/2 E-44695
9/16 E-44696
5/8 E-44697

The extensions:

3/8" short 44261
3/8" long 44264
1/2" 44131

Ratchets:

1/2" 43797
3/8" 43796
1/4" 43795

I hope that this helps, please let me know if more information or better pictures would help!

Best,
Joel

 

[heelsroll]

Here are some comparison pictures of the Taiwanese 1/2" ratchet, 43797, alongside the same-numbered [I always assumed was a ] made in USA version which I believe was purchased when I got out of college in 1990, either as a graduation gift or among my first tool purchases.

Hope this helps!

Best,
Joel

 

[Uncle Buck]

Here are some comparison pictures of the Taiwanese 1/2" ratchet, 43797, alongside the same-numbered made in USA version which I believe was purchased when I got out of college in 1990, either as a graduation gift or among my first tool purchases.

Hope this helps!

Best,
Joel

I had a couple of those ratchets years ago. I don't think the country of origin matters a bit on those, every one regardless the country of origin was complete and utter ****!

 

[billymade]

I remember those ratchets coming in a zippered vinyl case with a ratchet and socket set all in one. The **** factor was high on those ratchets and they still show up as warranty items at the store.

 

[64merc]

Here are some comparison pictures of the Taiwanese 1/2" ratchet, 43797, alongside the same-numbered made in USA version which I believe was purchased when I got out of college in 1990, either as a graduation gift or among my first tool purchases.

Hope this helps!

Best,
Joel

Wow, I've heard of made in Taiwan C-man tools but I've never actually seen any. I'm also suprised to see two different versions of thos tri-wing ratchets. I always thought that since they didn't have a country of origin on them, that they were made overseas, but I now have my doubts. It could have been that they were made in the USA but that they were planning to move it to Taiwan, and in preparation, decided to remove the USA in order to transition the consumer.

 

[lbgradwell]

I'm pretty sure both were made in Taiwan...

 

[Uncle Buck]

I remember those ratchets coming is a zippered vinyl case with a ratchet and socket set all in one.

Yup, that's where mine came from, I tossed it under the seat of the truck for just in case stuff.

 

[heelsroll]

I should not have spoken so strongly, I _thought_ mine had been made in USA, but, now, probably have to reassess! Anyway, hope the pics help.

The set came in a blowmold case, 3 ratchets, 4 extensions, 3 sets of sockets, combination wrenches, even 2 spark plug sockets.

Best,
J

 

[64merc]

I'm pretty sure both were made in Taiwan...

Hey, I wouldn't be surprised either way, I was just thinking that maybe there is a chance they were made in the USA for a time. Either that, or they were warned, and started putting Taiwan on them before they got in trouble.

 

[lbgradwell]

...I was just thinking that maybe there is a chance they were made in the USA for a time. Either that, or they were warned, and started putting Taiwan on them before they got in trouble.

Yeah, a "warning" is the more likely case; I've never seen any of those ratchets marked "USA" & if they were domestic I'm pretty sure they would have been...

 

[lauver]

heelsroll,

Thanks for the posts and photos. Your Taiwanese tool set photos have cleared up an issue we had with the E and EE series tools. I think we can now safely say that the E/EE series tools were not manufactured by Easco. And because of the ratchets, we can now reasonably link the E/EE series to Stanley.

Unless someone can provide a persuasive argument that the E/EE series were not made by Stanley, I'm going to update our working list and change the likely manufacturer to Stanley.

 

[64merc]

heelsroll,

Thanks for the posts and photos. Your Taiwanese tool set photos have cleared up an issue we had with the E and EE series tools. I think we can now safely say that the E/EE series tools were not manufactured by Easco. And because of the ratchets, we can now reasonably link the E/EE series to Stanley.

Unless someone can provide a persuasive argument that the E/EE series were not made by Stanley, I'm going to update our working list and change the likely manufacturer to Stanley.

Sorry, but you lost me. I can sorta see how you made that determination about the E series, but how did you determine the EE series was made by Stanley as well? Plus, it seems odd to me that the E series was made in Taiwan, but the EE series says Made in the USA. Of course, I'm assuming that the EE series would have come after the E series. I'm going by their past history on this one. (G,G1,G2...)

 

[heelsroll]

Sorry, but you lost me. I can sorta see how you made that determination about the E series, but how did you determine the EE series was made by Stanley as well? Plus, it seems odd to me that the E series was made in Taiwan, but the EE series says Made in the USA. Of course, I'm assuming that the EE series would have come after the E series. I'm going by their past history on this one. (G,G1,G2...)

My pictures were a little unclear, here's a close-up of the extensions showing series EE and Taiwan.

J

 

[64merc]

My pictures were a little unclear, here's a close-up of the extensions showing series EE and Taiwan.

J

Thank you sir, I can see where he was coming from now.

Ok then, playing devil's advocate here, I can see C-man not putting a country of origin on some of their E series stuff to disguise that they were made overseas, but I don't understand why they put Made in the USA on some of their EE series sockets if they were made by Stanley overseas. Is it that part of this series was made by Easco in the USA, and then production of some of the EE series stuff was filled in by Stanley? We all know that C-man contracts different items to different manufacturers, and then even contracts the exact same item to different manufacturers. Bottom line, I'm not ready to rule out another manufacturer besides Stanley.

 

[lauver]

Thank you sir, I can see where he was coming from now.

Ok then, playing devil's advocate here, I can see C-man not putting a country of origin on some of their E series stuff to disguise that they were made overseas, but I don't understand why they put Made in the USA on some of their EE series sockets if they were made by Stanley overseas. Is it that part of this series was made by Easco in the USA, and then production of some of the EE series stuff was filled in by Stanley? We all know that C-man contracts different items to different manufacturers, and then even contracts the exact same item to different manufacturers. Bottom line, I'm not ready to rule out another manufacturer besides Stanley.

heelsroll and 64merc,

64merc makes a good point, some of the EE tools are marked made in the USA. I own a set of EE impact sockets marked made in the USA. It's possible that Stanley had facilities in both countries at the time. That is, they may have moved some of their production at one point in time, and then completed the migration at a later point in time. This of course, is speculation, but it is reasonable and plausable. This seems more plausable to me than the two manufacturer/one code explanation. Bottom line, though, given Sears history, we've got to remain open minded and see where the evidence takes us.

 

[64merc]

heelsroll and 64merc,

64merc makes a good point, some of the EE tools are marked made in the USA. I own a set of EE impact sockets marked made in the USA. It's possible that Stanley had facilities in both countries at the time. That is, they may have moved some of their production at one point in time, and then completed the migration at a later point in time. This of course, is speculation, but it is reasonable and plausable. This seems more plausable to me than the two manufacturer/one code explanation. Bottom line, though, given Sears history, we've got to remain open minded and see where the evidence takes us.

lauver, let me ask you something, have you ever seen any Stanley sockets that look anything like the C-man EE series (USA) sockets? Personally, I've never seen any Stanley sockets that resemble old C-man sockets. Of course, it is possible that they made a special production run just for these C-man sockets, but it doesn't seem cost-effective to me.

Your theory is indeed reasonable and plausable, but on what basis do you doubt my theory of two manufacturer/one code? If they were trying to hide the fact that they were shifting production overseas, I would consider it very likely that they kept the same code in the transition.

Oh heck, who knows. I could be way off base, but at least I'm making you think.

 

[Willy Victor]

I'm interested in the same info...

The first Craftsman "series" seems to have been C, and they appear to have run from the late 20s through the mid-to-late 30s.

You're right that the BE and H series tools were concurrent. The BEs may have been slightly earlier than the Hs... This theory is supported by the type of Craftsman logo on the tools; the underlined-C logo is present on all BE tools, while the H tools have either the underlined-C logo or the newer double-line logo. These two series ran from roughly 1934-47.

The 1947 catalogue shows both the older New Britain-manufactured BE and H series as well as the new model line by Moore Drop Forging Co. that would become the V series.

I, too, have a recently-acquired vintage 1/4" ratchet set. Like you, my ratchet has no "series" marking (just the newish double-line logo), but the sockets in the set are all marked "V". I believe it is from the late 1940s since the sockets are also cold-broached! I have perused a PDF 1949 Mechanics Tools catalogue and my set appears therein; the ratchet looks like mine, but the sockets don't appear to be cold-broached, leading me to believe my set is from 1945-48.

The next catalogue year I have been able to find is 1954. By then, the ratchet is different and so is the box!

Moore Drop Forging Co. was acquired by Easco in 1968. Therefore, I would expect the V series (V, VV, and V-with-a-small-upside-down-V?) to have run from roughly 1945-68, when it would have been replaced by the E-series (which you didn't mention).

It was around this time too that the tools started being marked with part numbers. Does anyone have a V-series tool marked with a part number too? I don't know if such a thing exists, but if so, it's a later V-series.

Easco was bought by Danaher in 1990. Therefore I assume the Es and EEs ran from 1968-90 or thereabouts. E = "Easco"?

The Gs are the most recent (and current) series, and the "G" may stand for the Danaher plant in Gastonia, North Carolina.

Interesting!

I have a V series 1/4 ratchet marked 43175.


Willy

 

[lauver]

I have a V series 1/4 ratchet marked 43175.


Willy

Willy,

Welcome to the black hole of the Craftsman universe. One question for ya: Approximately when did you acquire this ratchet of yours?

And thanks for posting! Depending on what you tell me I may need to get back with you. You of course are welcome anytime you feel like exploring the mysteries of the Craftsman universe.

 

[lauver]

64merc,

As I said before, you make a very good point. Now you bring up a conspiracy. I love conspiracy; if you had brought this up from the git go, I would have agreed with you immediately.

More seriously though, I'm not ruling out your theory, I'm just sharing my "working theory" (subject to change with new and more compelling information) with you. If we ever get to the thruth of the E/EE series, you and I will probably be laughing our asses of at how wrong we both were.

Keep your theories coming and remember, it's not about me or you. It's about a bunch of folks collectively and incrementally mulling this series code thing over and moving towards consensus and something "resembling the truth".

 

[64merc]

64merc,

As I said before, you make a very good point. Now you bring up a conspiracy. I love conspiracy; if you had brought this up from the git go, I would have agreed with you immediately.

More seriously though, I'm not ruling out your theory, I'm just sharing my "working theory" (subject to change with new and more compelling information) with you. If we ever get to the thruth of the E/EE series, you and I will probably be laughing our asses of at how wrong we both were.

Keep your theories coming and remember, it's not about me or you. It's about a bunch of folks collectively and incrementally mulling this series code thing over and moving towards consensus and something "resembling the truth".

Very well said Gary. And thanks for welcoming my theories. Honestly, I don't have a lot of real data to contibute, but I like a good discussion every now and then. Plus, I really would like to know the truth about the E/EE series, even if it means I'm dead wrong.

 

[64merc]

Lauver, I was reviewing your list on post #69 (very well done BTW), and it looks like you left off G1 series code. I'd have to confirm, but I'm almost positive that I've seen this on a socket before.

Also, be aware that there is a G code and an upside down G code. I noticed this last night while looking at some sets that I pieced together from pawn shop tool bins. Except for this detail, the sockets look identical.

Lastly, I found a G series socket that is different that the other G series sockets I have. The engraving is much much deeper than the others and the color reminds me of the EE series of sockets. At first I was thinking that there was an EE series and then a "preliminary" G series made from the same basic tooling, but I was mistaken. I compared the strange 18mm G socket to the metric EE sockets and they are totally different. The EE series lacks the band of notches around the bottom, signifying that it is metric. Can I assume that the band was put on their somewhere between the EE series and the G series? Does this finding support my most recent theory of multiple manufacturers/same series code? Just food for thought.

Sorry if I am discussing something that has already been discussed. I got lost a long time ago.

 

[lauver]

46merc,

Back to your EE chrome sockets; can you post a photo or describe them in a way that would point out how they are substantially different from standard C-man sockets.

I only have a few Stanley sockets to use as a point of reference. The standard grade Stanley sockets (sold at Wal-mart) are pretty much the same general design as C-man Sockets (straignt cylinders, except for the real small ones that are necked down at the business end and of pretty much the same length as C-mans). The Stanley Pro-grade sockets are of a different design, especially the larger sizes, which are necked down at the drive end. The Pro-grade sockets are also significantly shorter than C-man sockets of the same drive and socket size.

If I were buying sockets, I wouldn't give the Stanley standard grade any consideration, their cheap ****! I like the Stanley Pro-grade sockets, they are well made, seem to hold up well, and the shorter length works out to my advantage more often than not.

So, of the two grades of Stanley sockets I've described, and am familier with, which grade sounds the most like your EE's? Or, do you have sockets that are totally different than what I have described?

 

[64merc]

lauver, I'll see if I can get a couple pics of the sockets in question. It's frustrating because, without getting into too much detail, I'm finding it hard to get anything done in the evenings. By the time I have a chance I'm really tired and it's bed time for me.

I'll have to take a look and let you know if they compare to Stanley sockets. Once again though, all of the USA made Stanley (pro) sockets are different than the Craftsman USA made sockets. They look more like older Husky USA sockets than C-man. I still find it hard to believe that Stanley would make a special run of different sockets just for this EE series. I'll stop guessing though, and see if we can actually do some comparisons.

FYI, I have an NOS set of 3/8" drive SAE sockets and Metric sockets with the EE code on them. They are not really sets though I guess, just 8 or so of each. They came on these little plastic strips. I also have some deep sockets that came with them. In the same box were a couple of those unmarked Tri-wing ratchets, which I sold already.

 

[lauver]

Lauver, I was reviewing your list on post #69 (very well done BTW), and it looks like you left off G1 series code. I'd have to confirm, but I'm almost positive that I've seen this on a socket before.

Also, be aware that there is a G code and an upside down G code. I noticed this last night while looking at some sets that I pieced together from pawn shop tool bins. Except for this detail, the sockets look identical.

Lastly, I found a G series socket that is different that the other G series sockets I have. The engraving is much much deeper than the others and the color reminds me of the EE series of sockets. At first I was thinking that there was an EE series and then a "preliminary" G series made from the same basic tooling, but I was mistaken. I compared the strange 18mm G socket to the metric EE sockets and they are totally different. The EE series lacks the band of notches around the bottom, signifying that it is metric. Can I assume that the band was put on their somewhere between the EE series and the G series? Does this finding support my most recent theory of multiple manufacturers/same series code? Just food for thought.

Sorry if I am discussing something that has already been discussed. I got lost a long time ago.

64merk,

Ok, let's take it one thing at a time:

G1 series code--I suspected there was a G1 series code simply because there is a known G2 series code (I've seen the G2, and they are still on the racks at my Sears). But I have never seen a G1 and nobody has posted one, so I left it off the list. If you or someone else can confirm the G1, I'll add it to the list. Also, while on the G2 series, the G2 sockets look pretty much like the V,G, & VV sockets I have. It has been suggested that G is Danaher, but to date we have no working theories on who produced H.

Upside down G-- I have seen the upside down G's on tools, but always assumed it was just a stamping variation of the G, not a different series code. If there is some evidence that G and upside down G are different manufactures I'm open to any and all discussions.

Metric Banding on sockets-- My earliest (early 1960's) V series metric sockets have no bands. My later (late 1960's & 1970's) V series sockets do have bands. Of course later series like G and H also have the banding. If memory serves, the latest laser etched, Hi-Vis, no series code (probably Danaher made), metric sockets have no banding. So, in my mind, the metric banding began at the tail end of the V series, which preceeded or maybe slightly overlapped EE, and preceeded G, and H.

Multiple manufacturers same series code theory-- I'm hoping your wrong about this because it would really complicate an already complicated thing. At this point, however, I can't rule out the possiblity. And, you are talking serious detective work to prove this theory.

Post #69, page 7-- I don't own the series code list, I'm just the compiler and data entry clerk. I'll put anything you guy's want on the list. I would, however, like to see some plausibility, and some persuasive evidence, if possible, before adding or ammending series code entries. The list is already huge, and is full of missing (manufacturers) or incomplete data (date ranges). So any help fleshing this list out would be very useful and much appreciated.