Eugene Cornwell

[Private Lugnutz]

Outside hinge.

 

[Oldtuleguy]

Here's a mess of old midget stuff

 

[misterbill]

As reported in the 2024 garage sale thread, I picked up this 3/8" flex handle/breaker bar yesterday. I don't find/have many Cornwell tools and was wondering if there was any way to date this.



Bill

 

[Private Lugnutz]

I don't find/have many Cornwell tools and was wondering if there was any way to date this.

I'll start off by saying as a prelude to everything that will follow that the dating of Cornwell tools has been something of a football lately. See @MR.X posts #140 and #141, for example. I'll quickly follow by saying your hinge handle is a very interesting case, following those discussions, and also coming so soon on the heels of @3baygarage 's post #160, where he also posted a 3/8-drive hinge handle. Note that I called it out as "outside hinge" (where the flex head is forked around the shank of the handle) design in post #161. Note further that it has no letter code whatsoever.

Your 3/8-drive hinge handle is "inside hinge" (where the shank is forked around the flex head) design.

If you're not read up on early hinge handles, a number of mfgrs made "outside hinge" handles to get around being sued for infringing on the Eagle patent, which used an "inside hinge" design. After a number of lawsuits and challenges, etc, the patent was voided in 1935, and almost everyone started making "inside hinge" designs.

What does all this have to do with your hinge handle and the dating foibles?

Using the 'Eagle' thing as a guide, yours would have to be considered later than 1935.

Yet AA would date yours to 1928 because of the "-B" in the "CORNWELL-B" marking, which they are pretty sure started in 1927 with -A.

They probably wouldn't know what to do with 3bay's, or they might think it's later. I don't know.

The point is, dating Cornwell is suddenly an iffy prospect.

 

[Private Lugnutz]

Quick add: I love the slow taper. Note that 3bay's doesn't do that. His bumps up much more abruptly from the shank to the handle. You might be able to use that, with images of appropriate catalogs or ads, and in conjunction with the hinge design delimiter, to better date yours and 3bay's.

 

[misterbill]

So, going from from this snippet from the 1932 Cornwell catalog it looks like @Private Lugnutz may be right. Later catalogs show the other hinge style.



Bill

 

[Oldtuleguy]

Note the handle is a hex

 

[MR.X]

So, going from from this snippet from the 1932 Cornwell catalog it looks like @Private Lugnutz may be right. Later catalogs show the other hinge style.



Bill

Hi. What specifically are you saying Lugz may be right about?

 

[misterbill]

Hi. What specifically are you saying Lugz may be right about?

That the design may predate the "outside hinge". As OTG noted, the catalog shows a hexagonal handle.

 

[Private Lugnutz]

That the design may predate the "outside hinge".

I was saying the opposite, though. Sorry. Probably wasn't very clear. Too wordy. I'll try again.

Eagle's design, patented in 1921, was what we see today on most all hinge handles. Where the shank is forked and the hinge head is pinned inside the fork. My understanding of the Eagle situation is he sued P&C, among others, I think, for copying it, infringing on his design. Plomb was making inside hinges, but they had a license from Eagle. So the story is that mfgrs started making them the opposite way, where the hinge head is forked and it is pinned through the end of the shank.

So, I was actually suggesting that perhaps 3bay's (outside type) was early and yours (inside type) was later, confounding AA's -A, -B, etc theory.

What the catalogs show is that Cornwell actually moved from inside early to outside later. Maybe it's just a latency thing, where they made them inside, got in trouble and switched to outside, and then the Eagle patent got voided anyway. I don't know.

Either way, this discussion has helped date yours and 3bay's, if you go by catalogs. The Cornwell cat collection on IA/ITCL is INCREDIBLE!

Summary:

Cat No. 10 1929 No Flex "L"
Cat No. 12 1930 Inside type Flex "L"
Cat No. 14 1932 Inside type Flex "L"
Cat No. 17 1935 Outside type Flex "L"
Cat No. 18 1936 Outside type Flex "L"

EDIT: That flow shows your inside type is earlier, but doesn't quite jibe with AA's "-B" = 1928 theory. Unless they made them and the 1929 catalog is just wrong.

 

[MR.X]

3 comments.....Post 163 has a 3/8 Cornwell B breaker in the opposite hinge style of misterbill's 'B" example. Also, the pics I’m looking at of 3bays are clearly the later marking style with 2digit #’s on either side of Cornwell so that works. Also, I don't see a 3/8" socket tools in the 1930 cat at all.

 

[Private Lugnutz]

Two flex handles with two different hinge designs, both marked "-B", certainly adds to the dating uncertainties! Rgr on 3bay's being later marked and later by catalog. I don't know what the drive size of the flex handle in Cat No. 12 (1930) was. I was just zipping through them looking for flex handles, and noting what type they were. The table is agnostic to drive size. Just showing the flow from inside hinge to outside hinge between 1929 and 1936. If they varied the design by drive I'd be surprised, but it's possible I suppose.

 

[MR.X]

The table is agnostic to drive size. Just showing the flow from inside hinge to outside hinge between 1929 and 1936. If they varied the design by drive I'd be surprised, but it's possible I suppose.

Right, but aside from the hinge issue, If Cornwell wasn't offering 3/8" drive tools til 1931 obviously "B' equaling 1928 isn't just impossible it's not even close, and knowing when the 3/8" drive stuff started could be a significant clue if attempting to revise the code. That's why I said "comments" ref. this thread instead of corrections.

 

[Private Lugnutz]

If Cornwell wasn't offering 3/8" drive tools til 1931 obviously "B' equaling 1928 isn't just impossible it's not even close, and knowing when the 3/8" drive stuff started could be a significant clue if attempting to revise the code.

Rgr. I'm tracking.

Post 163 has a 3/8 Cornwell B breaker in the opposite hinge style of misterbill's 'B" example.

Post #163 is misterbill's flex head. Did you mean a different post #?

I was just going to compare the two, because, as I said, two different hinge types with the same "-B" would be very odd. I would find it very unlikely that they used two different hinge designs on two different versions of the handles in the same year. It would mean two different sets of tooling for both pieces, the handle and the flex head, and a different assembly process. Unless they switched everything (tool, die, assembly, etc) over from inside to outside design in the middle of the year.

A "-B" on two different hinge handles with two different hinge types would also raise questions about potential multiplicity (using the same code in two different years) or worse, that they're not date codes. No?

 

[MR.X]

Rgr. I'm tracking.

Post #163 is misterbill's flex head. Did you mean a different post #?

I was just going to compare the two, because, as I said, two different hinge types with the same "-B" would be very odd. I would find it very unlikely that they used two different hinge designs on two different versions of the handles in the same year. It would mean two different sets of tooling for both pieces, the handle and the flex head, and a different assembly process. Unless they switched everything (tool, die, assembly, etc) over from inside to outside design in the middle of the year.

A "-B" on two different hinge handles with two different hinge types would also raise questions about potential multiplicity (using the same code in two different years) or worse, that they're not date codes. No?

Post 153

 

[Private Lugnutz]

HAHA! Thanks! (Don't know how I missed that before...). So bizarre.

Cad finish (yours) and natural steel (Bill's), crossbar hole (yours) and no crossbar hole (Bill's), and, of course, completely different hinge designs, necessitating completely different hot forge dies (for the production of shank and the hinge piece), but the tapering handles/shanks actually look very similar to me, which might suggest they weren't made too far apart in time, at least.



What are your thoughts on my thoughts in my previous post? To reiterate here, now in the presence of a composite of both handles in the same place, if the "-B" is a date code, it can only mean...

(a) they switched hinge designs and re-tooled mid-year during the same year (and, thanks to your insistence, we know that could not have been 1928...), or,

(b) they re-used the "-B" code during two different production years, or,

(c) "-B" is not a date code.

Does that make sense for at least framing the problem? Am I missing something?

 

[john.k]

I dont see production cost would favor one over the other .........surprising Eagle didnt patent both variations.....which has always been normal practice.

 

[MR.X]

I think that makes sense. I know at one point, I experimented with starting the single letter code "A" at later years, for example 1930 and 31 instead of 1927 to see what that would have to look like to end by 1935's new coding system..I think AA was using A-G as being 1 year each 27-33 ( I don't know what the theory for 34 was they were already changing over prior to it showing up in the 35 catalog or what?) Anyway, if the letters were date codes there's not enough years between the introduction of 3/8" drive tools and the 1935 new coding system for the letters to be one year each IF we're trying to use letters through "G".
Another issue, pushing the letter codes to a later start date ( IF they are date codes) is that part of the rationale for the letter codes starting point was that "A" coded wrenches had the older size conventions which would supposedly indicate 27 or earlier and that "B" coded ones had switched to modern wrench size convention change taking place at that time indicating 28. However the catalogs continue to list the sizes in S.A.E up thru at least 1930. So if Cornwell didn't switch in 27/28......

 

[misterbill]

FYI - the one I have does have the hole for the crossbar.



Bill

 

[Private Lugnutz]

Curiouser and curiouser!

 

[Oldtuleguy]

B may just be for bantam? Or 2 designs in same year? Midyear change perhaps from lawsuit? Cornwell date codes seem iffy

 

[d42jeep]

I like my 3/8” drive short ratchet that I’ve had for many decades so well that I couldn’t resist this 1/4” drive version when it popped up on eBay.
Cleaned and lubed
Cornwell ratchets
-Don

 

[MR.X]

Picked up a Cornwell brochure recently. Seems to be basically abbreviated version of the 1926 cat. …still in Cuyahoga Falls. However, check out the rounded gullet of the DOE wrench on the white brochure. I was going to chalk that up to artistic license but did find this pic on the Alloy Artifacts site ( doesn’t appear to be worn or user modified)All the other early wrench pics on the Alloy site were the standard Cornwell hex. Additionally an even earlier Popular Mechanics Ad from 1925 also shows the rounded gullet. The significance being that it's possible that besides the shape, size conventions used, and lack of suffix after the Cornwell stamping, maybe the jaw internal configuration could be used in determining the earliest Cornwell wrench offerings. Maybe. If this was addressed before I missed it.

 

[Oldtuleguy]

Some pretty old cornwell

 

[INSP380]

While not a “Tool” it is one of the earliest Cornwell chests I have seen….I’d like to place it in my Cornwell collection…

Steve

 

[four.cycle]

^ it is, by definition, a tool: a device that is used to assist in the performance of a task.

 

[d42jeep]

I ran across some Cornwell tools at sales on Saturday. I cleaned them up yesterday.
Metric 3/8” drive 12 point socket set.

1/2” drive push through ratchet.
Before.
After.
-Don

 

[Oldtuleguy]

Picked up another 1/2" t-handle

 

[3baygarage]

Finally got the elusive early 1/4” “Tiny Ratchet”.

TR1 as per the catalogs. It appears through the 40’s and gone by 1950, replaced by the recognizable hourglass handle.

21 tooth.

5-1/4” long.

The part number does not appear on the ratchet. It has a stamp below the Cornwell name of 19-1, exactly the same as I’ve seen on another example of this ratchet.

Over all looks and works quite similar to, but is not the same as Craftsman 1/4 of that time.

I like the high knurling.

 

[3baygarage]

Some pretty old cornwell

Nice! Got to love that old stuff of theirs. Here are a few I posted years back. Couldn’t believe how they looked.

 

[Oldtuleguy]

Looks prehistoric, nothing fancy about them

 

[3baygarage]

They sure do.

Btw I have to post this drawing of the 1/4” TR3 in the 1950 catalog. Totally done as a plug rat.. Has to be a mistake. If not, that would be pretty sweet.

 

[Oldtuleguy]

Maybe an early variation

 

[Snaparxon]

An oldie,

 

[Steven 33]

Recent purchase. Lots of similarities between the old Cornwell and some of the old husky stuff. This particular piece isn't that similar. Although it does have the hex handle like the early husky

 

[3baygarage]

Picked up a 3/8” ratchet the other day.

Probably the JR1

 

[Steven 33]

Looks like Cornwell to me

 

[3baygarage]

Some old 3/8 drive Cornwell sockets. The two on the left look a bit earlier.

 

[Private Lugnutz]

Not a new find, but I just realized I never posted it on the Cornwell thread. Offset screwdriver SDS-43. Very unusual design. Looks more like a scraping tool. Odds of running into the rest of the set in the wild are slim, but I have learned to never say never at my flea markets.

 

[d42jeep]

I found this cold chisel at yesterday’s estate sale. Dressed up the striking end and sharpened.
-Don