McKaig-Hatch
- Thread starter HeelSpur
- Start date
d42jeep
Well-known member
Here is a find from an estate sale on Friday. I don’t see very many McKaig-Hatch tools.
-Don
-Don
WisJim
Well-known member
Over in the pliers discussion, @Private Lugnutz suggested that my pliers were McKaig-Hatch, the mark being MH rather than HW that I thought. So here are the 2 pair of pliers that I got in the same box lot at a sale, and looking at the marks while holding the pliers in operating position, one marking is upside down compared to the other.
d42jeep
Well-known member
Sometimes the plier markings aren’t all that clear, at least on mine. The lower markings are upside down 
-Don
-Don
Oregon Dave
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2023
- Messages
- 298
Great find; don't recall seeing that handle grip pattern before on any tool - thanks for the thorough pictures.
four.cycle
Well-known member
wait... what??
Morris Hyman?
Is this another "AI" hallucination?
Morris Hyman?
Is this another "AI" hallucination?
Eric Brown
ALLIANCE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2024
- Messages
- 672
Just got this with a couple others. Wasn't really needing it but it was with the one I really wanted. It's a McKaig-Hatch 6" pair of slip-joint pliers. The only markings on each side is the MH inside a circle. Most other examples I've seen usually have a number close to this marking. This one also has no extra pattern in the grip area. Probably a later time period.
Attachments
3baygarage
Well-known member
So each handle seems to have a number forged into it. Arguably 5145 and 8640, is that what you're seeing? Anyway, they could be something else S145 and 864D or whatever but if they are 5145 and 8640.....different steel alloys on the same pliers?
I’m thinking 5145 & 8840. Don’t know anything more about why the 2 numbers.
OK, well "8840" wouldn't work with my alloy theory. BTW, there is a precedent for M-H ID'ing the alloy used.
I took a 2nd look and it could be 8640…
d42jeep
Well-known member
Private Lugnutz
Well-known member
Private Lugnutz
Well-known member
Odd, for sure, but at least they're not on the same contiguous piece of steel, which would make no sense whatsoever.
It seems crazy, and could just be a matter of using old stock handles from two different batches, assembled together incongruously to each other. In other words, maybe there are M-H pliers out there with '8640' or '5145' on both handles.
Or, maybe these were both made with '8640' or '5145' handles originally and mixed up later.
Seems highly implausible, though.
What's intriguing is that on both sets of pliers, the handle made from AISI 8640 steel is the handle with the long arc-jointed slot in it and the handle made from AISI 5145 steel is the handle with just the pivot pin hole in it.
AISI 8640 is a triple alloy composition made with low doses of Nickel, Chromium, and Molybdenum invented as one of several "New Emergency" 86xx/87xx steels by a WPB-Industry consortium in late 1941 and early 1942.
AISI 5140 is a high content chromium steel that does not jibe with WPB WWII alloy restrictions.
I am suggesting - as complex, nerdy, and over-engineered as it may seem, that perhaps M-H deliberately made each handle out of a different steel composition due to the different respective purposes of each handle.
It’ll be interesting to see if members also have the arc joint pliers and see if the numbers are the same as ours on the handles…
I did a quick search on the internet and found one for sale. Attached are two pictures. They must be from a different era as the logo is different and the 5145 is on the one handle and there is no number that I could see on the second handle
Attachments
Last edited:
Private Lugnutz
Well-known member
Consistently, it's the same handle as yours and Don's.
Oregon Dave
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2023
- Messages
- 298
Not seen this handle grip pattern until Ayrhead’s above, now yours; same deeper/heavier transverse indexing/lines at the rear.Here are mine with closeups of the forging marks.
-Don
There a pair with more symmetry at:
Does anyone know if McKaig-Hatch named the pattern?
Have their pliers in our Model A tool kit; have to imagine they made them in house.
Last edited:
Private Lugnutz
Well-known member
@Ayrhead
For a little twist on the pliers with two different numbers and my theory about two different handles and two different intentional steel compositions, note that we have seen another M-H tool with two different numbers on it, both of which are also numbers for two different AISI steel compositions. In that case, it was a combination wrench, which would seem to eliminate the theory. Further eliminating it was one of the numbers being similar in format and series (15xx) to M-H part numbers. But in your case (the "86") - and in the case of a third tool, also a wrench, owned by me, the tool clearly has a part number, casting doubt on one of the other numbers that seems to be AISI numbers being a part number, because two part numbers is just as befuddling as two AISI numbers. You can read more on that and see the tools I am referencing here. @MR.X was also involved in that discussion.
For a little twist on the pliers with two different numbers and my theory about two different handles and two different intentional steel compositions, note that we have seen another M-H tool with two different numbers on it, both of which are also numbers for two different AISI steel compositions. In that case, it was a combination wrench, which would seem to eliminate the theory. Further eliminating it was one of the numbers being similar in format and series (15xx) to M-H part numbers. But in your case (the "86") - and in the case of a third tool, also a wrench, owned by me, the tool clearly has a part number, casting doubt on one of the other numbers that seems to be AISI numbers being a part number, because two part numbers is just as befuddling as two AISI numbers. You can read more on that and see the tools I am referencing here. @MR.X was also involved in that discussion.
Forgot about that. That was a pretty good one.
Private Lugnutz
Well-known member
Me too, until this morning, revisiting the topic with a fresh invigorating cup of bold strong coffee.
It was.
This whole 'two (and sometimes three) different numbers' thing is getting interestinger and interestinger all the time.
The paucity of McKaig-Hatch catalogs and other literature in the public domain is not helping much. There is a 1954 catalog on IA/ITCL, which is very likely the same catalog as the catalog in AA's library, which he dates to "Mid 1950's" with the same number (24) of pages. But it's inconclusive on the open questions and my theory. While it references composition, not exhaustively enough, and it doesn't mention anything explicit about AISI numbers or marking their tools with them as a practice, and it doesn't show any tools with any numbers, stamped or forged-in.
I have delved into this a little further, but I have to collect my thoughts and I want to get something else out of the way first.
Private Lugnutz
Well-known member
As I mentioned here...
For comparison, here is the grip pattern again...
...and here is the rendering of the grip pattern in the 1954 catalog...
It's not exactly the same, but very similar, with stacked different length lines bracketing chevrons (three on the tool, two in the catalog image of the tool) in the middle. Not to put too fine of a point on it, but the grip pattern on my example of the slip-joint pliers and the grip pattern shown in the 1945 image of the slip-joint pliers are much more similar to each other than they are to the grip pattern on the arc-joint examples.
If you go into the catalog, it's obvious that they put the same grip pattern on the economy slip-joints and the thin-nose slip-joints.
Unfortunately, they don't show the grip pattern for the arc-joints.
...the grip pattern on my No. 438 slip joints is different than the grip pattern on the No. 86 arc-joints that Don and Ayrhead have posted, even though all three pliers share the same era monograph logo.
For comparison, here is the grip pattern again...
...and here is the rendering of the grip pattern in the 1954 catalog...
It's not exactly the same, but very similar, with stacked different length lines bracketing chevrons (three on the tool, two in the catalog image of the tool) in the middle. Not to put too fine of a point on it, but the grip pattern on my example of the slip-joint pliers and the grip pattern shown in the 1945 image of the slip-joint pliers are much more similar to each other than they are to the grip pattern on the arc-joint examples.
If you go into the catalog, it's obvious that they put the same grip pattern on the economy slip-joints and the thin-nose slip-joints.
Unfortunately, they don't show the grip pattern for the arc-joints.
Attachments
I really enjoy the intermingling of the minds from everyone when we’re all trying to to figure out these little mysteries…As I mentioned here...
...the grip pattern on my No. 438 slip joints is different than the grip pattern on the No. 86 arc-joints that Don and Ayrhead have posted, even though all three pliers share the same era monograph logo.
For comparison, here is the grip pattern again...
...and here is the rendering of the grip pattern in the 1954 catalog...
It's not exactly the same, but very similar, with stacked different length lines bracketing chevrons (three on the tool, two in the catalog image of the tool) in the middle. Not to put too fine of a point on it, but the grip pattern on my example of the slip-joint pliers and the grip pattern shown in the 1945 image of the slip-joint pliers are much more similar to each other than they are to the grip pattern on the arc-joint examples.
If you go into the catalog, it's obvious that they put the same grip pattern on the economy slip-joints and the thin-nose slip-joints.
Unfortunately, they don't show the grip pattern for the arc-joints.
d42jeep
Well-known member
As part of this discussion you might find it interesting to check out the Craftsman Circle Y thread.
www.garagejournal.com
Sears was buying from McKaig hatch as a supplier of Dunlap and Craftsman tools. 
Some Dunlap slip joint pliers with the same handle pattern.
-Don
Craftsman Circle Y Tools
A little gathering of Craftsman with the Y in a circle marking. Pardon my rust. Let’s see what else is out there.
www.garagejournal.com
Some Dunlap slip joint pliers with the same handle pattern.
-Don
Last edited:
Private Lugnutz
Well-known member
Some light housekeeping as prelude for more...
// BREAK //
I am consolidating the wrenches from the other thread and discussion here, below, so we have all examples in one thread and the most appropriate thread for discussion.
X, this is from the other thread, but putting it here. I see THIS 5/8 combo wrench that Gerald posted on Sep 24, 2024, but it has no 1555 P/N. Do you remember where he posted another example with the 1555 P/N? (Don't kill yourself finding it if you can't. @Mintgrun has a 1552 upthread here that also helps establish the heretofore undocumented Combo wrench series you (and then @four.cycle) sussed out on the other thread.)
// BREAK //
I am consolidating the wrenches from the other thread and discussion here, below, so we have all examples in one thread and the most appropriate thread for discussion.
Attachments
Private Lugnutz
Well-known member
Because I'm an engineer, a nerd, and because the entire universe can be captured in an xy matrix (as well a circle of 5ths, but that's a whole 'nother discussion...) and it was driving me crazy skipping around all over the place, I compiled some data on 'the numbers issue' for better visualization in one place and to facilitate further analysis and discussion.
) and it was driving me crazy skipping around all over the place, I compiled some data on 'the numbers issue' for better visualization in one place and to facilitate further analysis and discussion.Private Lugnutz
Well-known member
Oh, and off topic, while I was immersed in the 1954 M-H cat, I couldn't help but notice the catalog depiction of this...
...that @wrench136 found and posted a couple years ago!
Oregon Dave
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2023
- Messages
- 298
Went back to your link; after you displayed the Dunlap handle grip patterns, found this image from a pair of Dunlap s/j pliersAs part of this discussion you might find it interesting to check out the Craftsman Circle Y thread.
Sears was buying from McKaig hatch as a supplier of Dunlap and Craftsman tools.Craftsman Circle Y Tools
A little gathering of Craftsman with the Y in a circle marking. Pardon my rust. Let’s see what else is out there.
Some Dunlap slip joint pliers with the same handle pattern.
-Don
Would be interesting to see a road-map of contract production.
Thanks again for your great images.
Oregon Dave
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2023
- Messages
- 298
Another scenario to consider is:
Your assembling pliers in Archibald McKaig Jr.’s factory and the Scottish air of frugality permeates the whole plant.
You have bin/box/tote each of right and left handles; one box empties and you have 11 left in the other; the last of that production run - you reach the ‘waste not-want moment’, there’s a bin of the next lot, remember a penny then was worth today’s quarter - no problem; they go on down the line; and your thinking, wait till somebody comes across these guys !!!
Last edited:
It’s a possibility…
Private Lugnutz
Well-known member
Agreed. And that's the possibility I described in reply to you here...
I think it would be more plausible if the numbers were part or sub-assembly numbers. We HAVE seen that with handle halves on Crescent and other pliers.
The coincidence of them being AISI numbers is one major source of doubt for me. It would be very odd to have a batch of plier parts made out of 5145 steel laying around long enough for them to be mixed in with pliers made out of 8640 steel or vice versa. These compositional changes usually occurred across time. Another steel choice is price point, but that's usually carbon vs any high end alloy steel. In this case, we have two alloys. I don't know that they'd be near the same line.
The other cause of doubt about this is my observation about the consistency. If all 5145 handles are the pivot hole handle and all 8640 handles are the handle with the arc-joints notched in it, the guy on the line reaching into an empty bin could not simply reach into the bin that has some handles in it to put two 5145 handles or two 8640s together to make a plier. So far, we have still not seen an example in which the numbers are interchangeable.
Oregon Dave
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2023
- Messages
- 298
I don’t really see an issue; Great Depression mentality in a Scotsman's factory - throwing perfectly good product in the scrap; no way.
If the operator didn't know the location of the other side handle; the floor supervisor likely did or just put them in a bucket and wait for the next run to show up.
Henry Ford came from an Irish background, a neighbor of Scotland; look how he utilized inventory.
Private Lugnutz
Well-known member
^ If you don't see an issue with trying to assemble two left (5145) handles or two right (8640) handles to result in a complete pair of No. 86 arc-joint pliers because one or the other handle bin is empty, we must be misunderstanding each other or envisioning different scenarios, O Dave. As for scrap, I haven't seen any scenario suggesting that waste would be a result.
Maybe I've been unclear. I only see a few explanations for two different numbers.
(1) If there is no correlation between the numbers and left and right handles and they are just esoteric but insignificant die codes, it's entirely possible for pliers to have randomly come off the line with 8640 on both handles, with 5145 on both handles, or with 8640 on one handle and 5145 on the other.
(2) If there is no correlation between the numbers and left and right handles and the numbers represent different production runs (in time and sequence), it's entirely possible for a batch of pliers to randomly come off the line with handles bearing both numbers if they were using up all the 8640 stock before they were into using the 5145 units, or vice versa.
(3) If the numbers deliberately correspond to left (5145) and right (8640) handles, whether that's merely for assembly, or compositional (AISI)(and in my postulation, probably also mechanical), it implies contemporaneous parallel production, and you obviously need both handles to assemble the pliers.
If there are others, I am all ears!
Just to re-iterate and re-emphasize my opinion, in case I was being unclear or confusing...
/ I find the plausibility of these numbers not being AISI numbers (i.e., merely a coincidence that they match AISI numbers) extremely low.
/ I find the plausibility of M-H producing No. 86 arc-joint pliers with mixed AISI compositions because they were using up old surplus (e.g., from the 8640 wartime production era to the 5145 postwar production era, or prewar 5145 to wartime 8640), and Ayrhead and Don both just happening to find examples made in the same batch during this transitional overlap, low.
/ I find the plausibility of M-H producing No. 86 arc-joint pliers in two different quality classes or grades at the same time, one made of 5145 steel and the other made of 8640 steel, and some pliers being mixed up on the lines, to be not quite as low as the other two scenarios, but also not great, again, because there's not a top of the line and economy line difference between those two steels.
/ I think the idea of M-H deliberately making No. 86 arc-joint pliers with two different steels, one for the left handle and other for the right, to be very outlandish - as I prefaced when I first mentioned the idea, but heaven help me, I do have to admit I find this one more plausible than the others.
More examples and/or research may eventually make me eat crow, or watch someone else eat it.
Maybe I've been unclear. I only see a few explanations for two different numbers.
(1) If there is no correlation between the numbers and left and right handles and they are just esoteric but insignificant die codes, it's entirely possible for pliers to have randomly come off the line with 8640 on both handles, with 5145 on both handles, or with 8640 on one handle and 5145 on the other.
(2) If there is no correlation between the numbers and left and right handles and the numbers represent different production runs (in time and sequence), it's entirely possible for a batch of pliers to randomly come off the line with handles bearing both numbers if they were using up all the 8640 stock before they were into using the 5145 units, or vice versa.
(3) If the numbers deliberately correspond to left (5145) and right (8640) handles, whether that's merely for assembly, or compositional (AISI)(and in my postulation, probably also mechanical), it implies contemporaneous parallel production, and you obviously need both handles to assemble the pliers.
If there are others, I am all ears!
Just to re-iterate and re-emphasize my opinion, in case I was being unclear or confusing...
/ I find the plausibility of these numbers not being AISI numbers (i.e., merely a coincidence that they match AISI numbers) extremely low.
/ I find the plausibility of M-H producing No. 86 arc-joint pliers with mixed AISI compositions because they were using up old surplus (e.g., from the 8640 wartime production era to the 5145 postwar production era, or prewar 5145 to wartime 8640), and Ayrhead and Don both just happening to find examples made in the same batch during this transitional overlap, low.
/ I find the plausibility of M-H producing No. 86 arc-joint pliers in two different quality classes or grades at the same time, one made of 5145 steel and the other made of 8640 steel, and some pliers being mixed up on the lines, to be not quite as low as the other two scenarios, but also not great, again, because there's not a top of the line and economy line difference between those two steels.
/ I think the idea of M-H deliberately making No. 86 arc-joint pliers with two different steels, one for the left handle and other for the right, to be very outlandish - as I prefaced when I first mentioned the idea, but heaven help me, I do have to admit I find this one more plausible than the others.
More examples and/or research may eventually make me eat crow, or watch someone else eat it.
Private Lugnutz
Well-known member
I was thinking it would be helpful to date AISI 5145 as specifically as we can date AISI 8640, but I could not find a reference online for when it was designated as a standard. However, I was able to determine that it definitely pre-existed WWII. My copy of a publication titled "Wartime Data Supplement to Machinery's Handbook" (dated 1944) contains a table of AISI-recommended steel substitutes for WPB restricted steels. AISI 5145 is in the table (with 8442 or 8447 as the recommended substitutes). Note that they would not make 86xx or 87xx recommendations because it was impossible to get without a priority order.
misterbill
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2015
- Messages
- 664
Welcome to GJ. That's a nice find anywhere on the planet but I'd love to know the story on how it made its way to Germany!
four.cycle
Well-known member
Hallo und herzlich willkommen auf der Website!
Die sehen ja richtig schick aus!
Frohe Weihnachten!
Die sehen ja richtig schick aus!
Frohe Weihnachten!
Hallo, leider kann ich keine Geschichte dazu bieten,wie das Set nach Deutschland gekommen ist.
Aber am wahrscheinlichsten über das Militär.
Ich habe nicht einmal ein Fahrzeug wofür ich das Set nutzen kann.
Ich hatte lange einen Schulbus in der Gegend von spokane.die idee war diesen nach Deutschland zu Verschiffen ,ist dann nie umgesetzt worden.
Ebenfalls frohe Weihnachten
Aber am wahrscheinlichsten über das Militär.
Ich habe nicht einmal ein Fahrzeug wofür ich das Set nutzen kann.
Ich hatte lange einen Schulbus in der Gegend von spokane.die idee war diesen nach Deutschland zu Verschiffen ,ist dann nie umgesetzt worden.
Ebenfalls frohe Weihnachten