Pebble Plomb Production Dates

[oldmantaylor]

One should be aware that the VanNatta site is a hosting for Ed Boudinot's old site. I understand that Ed could no longer maintain his site due to terminal cancer and the VanNatta's volunteered to put it on the site they maintain for their own purposes. - - - -

You will note my name on that site, but the e-mail address listed is no longer valid. I started in about 2002.

 

[twertsy]

Ok folks, while I didn't spend an exorbitant amount of time on it, here is what I found in terms of advertisement content with regards to the pebble design.

For Socket Drive Tools: first pebble appearance 11/44
For Wrenches: first pebble appearance 3/46

I found many many Plomb adverts during 1945. All pictures of drive tools included the pebble design, no pictures of wrenches included the pebble design.

 

[Ole Slewfoot]

L 216.d.1 would have prevented them from making pebbles concurrent with any other style.
I wend down the same advertising path
this sep 1945 tool board ad pretty seems to show pebbled drive tools but not wrenches.
My 5449 might have some kind of plating in the pebbling
5649 doesnt seem to have any, it doesnt even have pebbles in the field really.
It also has way less finish work.
My thought is it took awhile for the chroming operation to come up to speed, and at first it worked too poorly to sell to the public. Really I think the plating on all chrome pebbles is a little iffy, and sharp edges on the wrenches especially did not help out.
My WF83 is shiny and chrome though:

 

[Private Lugnutz]

I don't think it is fair to criticize the VanNatta site for accuracy at this date.

I agree. And nowhere in this thread have I criticized them for accuracy. I listed them as the first of three major sources, because they were the first chronologically. Before AA, they were the 'go to' source on the web for the Plomb collector, especially for the markings and WF list. The fact remains that the common conventional wisdom among Plomb collectors that pebbled tools are post-war can be traced to Van Natta and AA. They are easily the sources cited most often by Plomb collectors. These days, Van Natta much less than AA. Anyone challenging that common conventional wisdom who did not cite them as a source would be remiss.

Having said that, I will re-emphasize that nowhere on this thread have I criticized them for anything. What I said is that there was little to no back up, evidence, or explanation for their statement about pebbled tools being post-war, that there was no mention of the WPB Limitation Order L-216 markings, and that without that, there was no way to know how they interpreted the markings in the context of the catalogs in their library. Ditto for AA. I stand by that.

The Tools Archive is an interactive site - the reference material and studies are community-provided and evolving, and hopefully Todd will incorporate my research and analysis so that Plomb tool collectors who may not be reading this thread, which will no doubt be buried in a few days, can update their understanding.

 

[twertsy]

I agree. And nowhere in this thread have I criticized them for accuracy. I listed them as the first of three major sources, because they were the first chronologically. Before AA, they were the 'go to' source on the web for the Plomb collector, especially for the markings and WF list. The fact remains that the common conventional wisdom among Plomb collectors that pebbled tools can be traced to Van Natta and AA. They are easily the sources cited most often by Plomb collectors. These days, Van Natta much less than AA. Anyone challenging that common conventional wisdom who did not cite them as a source would be remiss.

Having said that, I will re-emphasize that nowhere on this thread have I criticized them for anything. What I said is that there was little to no back up, evidence, or explanation for their statement about pebbled tools being post-war, that there was no mention of the WPB Limitation Order L-216 markings, and that without that, there was no way to know how they interpreted the markings in the context of the catalogs in their library. Ditto for AA. I stand by that.

The Tools Archive is an interactive site - the reference material and studies are community-provided and evolving, and hopefully Todd will incorporate my research and analysis so that Plomb tool collectors who may not be reading this thread, which will no doubt be buried in a few days, can update their understanding.

Thoughts on advertising findings? Seems to indicate that while they were in fact producing pebble drive tools along your research timelines, the wrenches came significantly later.

 

[Ole Slewfoot]

Apr '44, dont think ive ever seen this stamp
Nov ,44 crowfoot ad....the hinge handle in the background sure looksba lot like my 3/4 in previous post.

 

[Private Lugnutz]

L 216.d.1 would have prevented them from making pebbles concurrent with any other style.

Correct. And that limitation is precisely what prompted them to eliminate redundant tools of a slightly different style (smaller handle, flexible shank, etc), as I noted above. And here (note the original statement includes italics on "replacing them" for emphasis):

Nothing about L-216 would prevent Plomb from abandoning a ratchet and breaker with a round knurled handle and replacing them with a ratchet and a breaker with a flat pebbled handle.

 

[Ole Slewfoot]

Until this thread popped up, I was blissfully ignorant of my need for a flex spinner, thanks for that.

Ive never heard of a pebble Plomb in cosomoline from surplus. Anyone else?

Another random thought, don't the WF tools violate the anti redundancy act? Unless maybe produced by the contracting company instead of the tool company?

 

[Private Lugnutz]

Thoughts on advertising findings? Seems to indicate that while they were in fact producing pebble drive tools along your research timelines, the wrenches came significantly later.

My thoughts are that yours and Slew's advertising google confirms my analysis and conclusions. I'll have to go back and double-check, but I don't think the catalogs at the heart of my inquiry (#19-R REPRINT and FOURTH PRINTING) included DOE or DBE wrenches with pebbled backgrounds. From recall, I believe just the drive tools and a flare nut wrench. If I inadvertently included DOEs and DBEs in this, I will go back and clean that up.

Thanks for your work!

Facts are one thing. Reversing a long held conviction in the minds of the collecting community at large - especially one as dug in as Plomb, is quite another, no matter how erroneous. Including this in the Tools Archive will help.

You seem to have a better rapport with the guy behind AA than I do. That would also help.

 

[twertsy]

You seem to have a better rapport with the guy behind AA than I do. That would also help.

Unfortunately, no. I'll be polite and just say "not receptive to collaboration." I used to send him research results contradicting AA and was bluntly told to stop.

 

[Private Lugnutz]

Unfortunately, no. I'll be polite and just say "not receptive to collaboration." I used to send him research results contradicting AA and was bluntly told to stop.

That makes two of us - and I would characterize my emails as refinements.

 

[Private Lugnutz]

Ok folks, while I didn't spend an exorbitant amount of time on it, here is what I found in terms of advertisement content with regards to the pebble design.

For Socket Drive Tools: first pebble appearance 11/44
For Wrenches: first pebble appearance 3/46

I found many many Plomb adverts during 1945. All pictures of drive tools included the pebble design, no pictures of wrenches included the pebble design.

This is perfectly consistent with my catalog analysis and conclusions, Todd.

I never mentioned DOE, DBE or combination wrenches by name upthread, but there is enough potential conflation and implication with my generic use of the term “wrenches” that it needs clarification, especially because it was a large part of the pebble production. Thanks for the prod.

This should suffice:

All,

I just double-checked the catalogs with the wartime WPB Limitation Order L-216 markings (#19-R REPRINT, and #19-R FOURTH PRINTING)

Here are the Plomb tools in those catalogs shown with pebbled panels - and therefore, the Plomb Pebble tools that can now be dated with assurance to at least February 1944:

- Ratchets: 4749 (1/4"), 5249 (3/8"), 5449 (1/2"), 5649 (3/4"), and 5849 (1")

- Hinged Handles: 4766 (1/4"), 5265 (3/8"), 5466 (1/2", 9-1/2" long), 5467 (1/2", 15" long), 5468 (1/2", 18" long), 5668 (3/4"), and 5868 (1").

- Flare nut wrenches: one shown, implication is all sizes.

- While the cross-arms of the pullers and the tie rod separator ("pickle fork") are not shown as pebbled, collected examples are pebbled, and the figures in these Pebble Era catalogs are identical as those in Catalog 19-A. No doubt re-used, despite production, because they are shown as pebbled in Catalog 4820 (1948). They have to be 1944-1947 production.

 

[Private Lugnutz]

Todd,

Even though this was only a necessary byproduct of my analysis, your 3/46 advertising date for pebbled wrenches (DOE, DBE, Combination) helps confirm that catalogs #19-R REPRINT and FOURTH PRINTING were first published in wartime, and confirms (and refines) the way I date those catalogs in more detail than the 1942-1947 date range assigned to these catalogs by Van Natta, AA, and the Tools Archive (at the moment).

Note again that Catalog #19-R REPRINT includes the same illustration of the Utica-made adjustable wrench as the earlier #18-A, #19, and #19-A. And that Catalog #19-R FOURTH PRINTING includes the illustration of the J.P. Danielson-made adjustable wrench. This will play a role.

In November 1944, when Plomb was advertising only drive tools with pebbled handles, Plomb Catalog #19-R REPRINT – which I dated in my discussion and chart above to no earlier than February 1944 (one month after a January 1944 Price List found in Catalog #19-A) to October 1946 (a month before Plomb acquired J.P. Danielson), was also showing only drive tools with pebbled handles and included the Utica adjustable wrench illustration. We can move that October 1946 date back to at least March 1946 now, since Plomb was also advertising wrenches with pebbled fields by that date, and Plomb Catalog#19-R REPRINT shows wrenches without pebbled fields.

I date Plomb catalog #19-R FOURTH PRINTING to November 1946 (when Plomb acquired J.P. Danielson), to at least March 1948 (date of Price List included with it), because it includes an inserted page (63B) showing an illustration of a J.P. Danielson-made adjustable wrench instead of the old Utica illustration. Most of the rest of that catalog was first printed in wartime, because it includes WPB Limitation Order L-216 markings that were revoked by May 1945, and dates to no later than March 1946, because the drive tools are pebbled, but the wrenches are not.

Together with the wartime markings analysis, and the adjustable wrench analysis with your J.P. Danielson acquisition research, your advertising dates now help show in a little more detail how these catalogs were first published in wartime, then apparently re-used until the Proto/Plomb Catalog #4820 was copyrighted in 1948.

I’ll let you figure out how to handle that complexity in the Plomb sections and the catalog library on the Tools Archive.

The timeline (for first pebbled tools introduction) should be much easier to handle by tool category.

 

[twertsy]

That makes two of us - and I would characterize my emails as refinements.

Yes, I should clarify, I was OVERLY respectful / tactful about it, but it didn't matter.....

This is perfectly consistent with my catalog analysis and conclusions, Todd.

I never mentioned DOE, DBE or combination wrenches by name upthread, but there is enough potential conflation and implication with my generic use of the term “wrenches” that it needs clarification, especially because it was a large part of the pebble production. Thanks for the prod.

This should suffice:

All,

I just double-checked the catalogs with the wartime WPB Limitation Order L-216 markings (#19-R REPRINT, and #19-R FOURTH PRINTING)

Here are the Plomb tools in those catalogs shown with pebbled panels - and therefore, the Plomb Pebble tools that can now be dated with assurance to at least November 1944:

- Ratchets: 4749 (1/4"), 5249 (3/8"), 5449 (1/2"), 5649 (3/4"), and 5849 (1")

- Hinged Handles: 4766 (1/4"), 5265 (3/8"), 5466 (1/2", 9-1/2" long), 5467 (1/2", 15" long), 5468 (1/2", 18" long), and 5668 (3/4").

- Flare nut wrenches: one shown, implication is all sizes.

You're right, you didn't discuss the DBE/DOE/Combos, I just lumped them in with the term "pebble."

 

[Carla]

You will note my name on that site, but the e-mail address listed is no longer valid. I started in about 2002.

My name is still there, also, I was another of the folks who were participating in Mr Boudinot's Plomb tooling site, in the early 2000's.

It should be remembered that Ed was 'starting from scratch' with that site, and accumulating inferred historical data from catalogues, as the old catalogues were found, and from first-hand observations sent to him by his site participants.

Its only to be expected that some of the earlier observations could be somewhat inaccurate in detail, and subject to later correction.

cheers

Carla

 

[Carla]

Until this thread popped up, I was blissfully ignorant of my need for a flex spinner, thanks for that.

Ive never heard of a pebble Plomb in cosomoline from surplus. Anyone else?

Another random thought, don't the WF tools violate the anti redundancy act? Unless maybe produced by the contracting company instead of the tool company?

Well, these weren't in the cosmolene, to be sure, but I did have a set of 'pebble style' Plomb combination wrenches which were surplus items. This was the common set of 3/8 to 1in. sizes, in a green cloth roll, the roll marked in black ink with its item number (Fed stock number??). The wrenches were black oxide finish.

We got it from a surplus dealer, at a military vehicle meet. It was in with a batch of USAF misc tooling and equipment he had purchased at a base surplus sale. Some of the sizes were missing, so I replaced them with wrenches of other makes, and we carried the set as OVM on our comms vehicle. Unfortunately, the set was 'borrowed' at a comms event, and not returned.... : (

cheers

Carla

 

[Private Lugnutz]

It's only to be expected that some of the earlier observations could be somewhat inaccurate in detail, and subject to later correction.

Heck, that happens to me from last month to this month!

Seriously, it's an honor to help carry the torch for just awhile and to confer with pioneering predecessors. But I will emphasize that this is not simply a case of new Plomb catalog or other factory information popping up that wasn't there before. I am looking at the same catalogs everyone else has been looking at for years. Again, the key to breaking the code on this is the WPB markings. Recognizing what they were and what they meant, and the obvious anachronostic contradiction between that and the unanimously held Pebble = Post-War conviction, was easy. Tracking down all the historical details to back it up, not so easy. About 2 and a half years of WPB research before we finally had and understood it all. And it doesn't only impact Plomb, obviously. The Pebble issue was just one of the more blatant. It has been the most rewarding sidetrack I ever took.

It's a shame that AA probably won't ever be corrected. But that's okay. GJ (and the Tools Archive) can lead the way!

EDIT: Still looking forward to seeing your partial potentially somewhat originally intact set with the pebbled rat.

 

[d42jeep]

Here are a couple more plain finish 3/8" drive pebble tools.
-Don

 

[Private Lugnutz]

Those are very nice examples, Don. You probably didn't notice, but someone grinded down the drive stud on my wartime pebble 5265.

http://www.garagejournal.com/forum/showpost.php?p=6501377&postcount=7