Pliers; How Many Is Too Many?

[four.cycle]

Here are two combination pliers, both from Germany.

That fancy chrome-plated job was made by:

Wusthof / Wusthof, Kronprinzenstrasse 49, 42655 Solingen, Germany / edge tools, knives / "Dreizack" multi-tool / ("dreizack" = "trident") /

The company is much better known for their cutlery.

 

[four.cycle]

I have a set also marked with the 1939 date.

RE: "Super Grip Tool Co., Jefferson, IA"

patent 1915404 Jun 27 1933 Gilbey M. Clifton

catalog snip from TRUTH Tool Company and specmens marked with incorrect patent dates:

 

[GaryM909]

I picked up these ETF 870 pliers today at a Habitant store for a couple bucks. I'm not sure how old they are.
They aren't rusted but they are dirty.

 

[Private Lugnutz]

Nice find. I've never seen an ETF parrot head before. I'm pretty sure there's not one on the ETF thread.

 

[MisterEd]

Found this Smith & Hemenway 50-5 today.

 

[GaryM909]

Nice find. I've never seen an ETF parrot head before. I'm pretty sure there's not one on the ETF thread.

I never have seen or noticed this brand before. I did check out the thread a bit and I didn't see any.

 

[Eric Brown]

Here are two Koeth plier sets. The first set is in a box with the Currier-Koeth name on a label on the end. The second one is in a similar box but is marked with a printing on the top of the box indicating it was made by B.E. Hedges of Auburn N.Y. The tools themselves are the same except for the name markings. The first set has two sets of pinchers, large and small, and does not have the leather punch. The second set seems complete. Not real sure about the timelines. Seems that Koeth made them and was calling them Koeth's Kombination Kit (KKK). Next was the Currier-Koeth relationship. Not mentioned by either DATAMP.ORG or Alloy Artifacts, is the B.E. Hedges production. Found that Hedges was incorporated on Jan. 17, 1919.

 

[MisterEd]

A couple of "specialty pliers".
- Ken-Tool Terminal Clamp Spreader, Reamer and Post Cleaner
- Blue Bird No. 20 Spreader

 

[four.cycle]

- Ken-Tool Terminal Clamp Spreader, Reamer and Post Cleaner

@MisterEd -
any possibility you could take a closer look at that patent date on those Ken Tool battery pliers? I cannot make sense of that date stamp no matter how much I enlarge the image.

 

[MisterEd]

a closer look at that patent date on those Ken Tool battery pliers?

Gladly. Looks like "PAT 8-26 PEND".

 

[RTM]

Gladly. Looks like "PAT 8-26 PEND".

Striking out at DATAMP for 08-26-???? And 08-??-1926. Ken as the company was also a miss. Only went back to about 1920 on the two items with open years

Wondering if that was an application date.

Only pliers seen were for ear tagging.

 

[four.cycle]

^ But they're not really "pliers" by definition. They are a "battery tool" used for cleaning the terminals on the battery cable.
So what did they call it on the patent document? "Battery Tool"? "Tool for spreading battery terminal"?
That model @MisterEd posted appears to be lacking the half-loop thing at the bottom end of the handle for cleaning the battery terminal ON the battery like on this Indestro model 129:

 

[d42jeep]

I checked mine for a patent number but all they have is the Snap-on part number.
My battery pliers are a common Blue Bird 25 pair
The Blue Bird battery terminal spreader is No. 20 as well.
-Don

 

[rooster59]

A person needs a Channellock needle nose, a Channellock ****, and a Channellock water pump.

There are a few other brands and types that are useful.

Anything more is just ballast for the toolbox bottom drawer to keep the box from falling over.

Forgot Vise Grips. Oh, right, and fencing pliers …

 

[d42jeep]

Striking out at DATAMP for 08-26-???? And 08-??-1926. Ken as the company was also a miss. Only went back to about 1920 on the two items with open years

Wondering if that was an application date.

Only pliers seen were for ear tagging.

Those markings look to me like they were done by hand with some sort of engraving tool. They certainly don’t look factory.
-Don

 

[LesserSon]

I don’t think so, Don. I think your eyes are fooled by the oxidation. There are a couple identical examples in different condition with exactly the same forged-in Patent notice on WorthPoint, etc.
example
I casually searched DATAMP for Ken-Tool as a “company,” with no luck, then tried finding a matching patent by “pliers” category, also with no luck, despite finding three or four other battery terminal tool designs within a few years of 1926. My guess is the application was Aug1926, but the patent was not granted.
I actually didn’t find ANY patents associated with Ken-Tool on DATAMP, including 5343921 granted 1994 to John H Kusner - wierd.

 

[Private Lugnutz]

I don't know what's going on with that "PAT 8-26 PEND" marking, but note that Ken-Tool was not formed until 1938. The Kennedy Tool Company was formed in 1925, funded by Cornwell, as a subsidiary of Cornwell, to make the rim tool its namesake, John A. Kennedy, designed and built. By 1938, the relationship soured, Kennedy split off to form his own company with a partner, but was prevented from calling it the Kennedy Tool Company by Cornwell. Hence, the shortened Ken-Tool was born. More info on that history with references and links (including one to Ken-Tool's history page) in the Ken-Tool thread, which can be found in the A-Z Index of the Sticky at the top of the forum.

 

[d42jeep]

I don’t think so, Don. I think your eyes are fooled by the oxidation. There are a couple identical examples in different condition with exactly the same forged-in Patent notice on WorthPoint, etc.
example
I casually searched DATAMP for Ken-Tool as a “company,” with no luck, then tried finding a matching patent by “pliers” category, also with no luck, despite finding three or four other battery terminal tool designs within a few years of 1926. My guess is the application was Aug1926, but the patent was not granted.
I actually didn’t find ANY patents associated with Ken-Tool on DATAMP, including 5343921 granted 1994 to John H Kusner - wierd.

Thanks for the link, LS. How about the possibility that the markings indicate patent pending with the number in the middle being a part number? Maybe the patent was never granted. It’s not like the tools are super common. Here are a couple of screenshots from the link.
-Don
Edit…. Just spotted this example on eBay.

 

[Outlawmws]

Odd the Eprey example looks like "B-26" not 8/26... or is it a patent date with another patent pending?

Isn't there a federal registry of patents applied for?

 

[LesserSon]

Don’s edit supports his part number theory.
“B-26” not 8-26 or 8-28 as some have seen it.

 

[MisterEd]

In the 1953 Ken-Tools Catalog, the "Ken universal battery post and terminal cleaner" was "B-23". Just sayin' . . . Don's probably correct.

Ken Quality Tools : Catalog No. 50-51 : Ken-Tool Manufacturing Co. : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

30 p., illus., 27.9 cm, trade catalog

archive.org

 

[Private Lugnutz]

Jibes with the fact it couldn't be a year.

Legally, note that Patent Applied For and Patent Pending are two different designations. The latter means a patent has been assessed and approved, but not yet granted or assigned a number. I can provide textbook definitions later. I am NOT saying that means they used it correctly, or that we should find it. It would provide me a little more reason to look a little if I were looking.

 

[four.cycle]

including 5343921 granted 1994 to John H Kusner

patent 5343921 Sep 6 1994 J.D. Kusner assigned to Ken Tool.

do we know whether or not this item was actually produced? it is somewhat similar to the model T143 Ken Tool shown in this catalog supplement, which was obviously published long prior to 1994. there seems to be something of a shortage of "Ken Tool"catalogs available.

 

[four.cycle]

okay, back to the battery tool:
I would think it reasonable to assume - perhaps to conclude - that "B26" is the part number, as Don has suggested.
So at present, all we know is "PAT PEND", but no idea whether or not a patent was actually issued, correct?

 

[LesserSon]

Page 17 of the 1953 Ken-Tool catalog has an illustration of the “new” B-23, bearing “pat appl for.”
Page 19 of the 1961 Ken-Tool catalog shows the B-26. The main differences seem to be the location of the B-23 cups/prongs behind the pivot, and the shape of the grips of the B-26 becoming symetrical. The 1961 B-26 illustration does not show a patent notice.
I think that narrows a patent search to 1953-1961, though.

EDIT - Ah-ha, page 4 of the 1958 Ken-TOOL supplement describes the B-26 as “new.”

 

[LesserSon]

By 1938, the relationship soured, Kennedy split off to form his own company with a partner, but was prevented from calling it the Kennedy Tool Company by Cornwell. Hence, the shortened Ken-Tool was born.

Yet the 1955 Kennedy Quality Tools claims these tire tools are “made by Cornwell.” Maybe not a personal friction but a regulatory/legalistic arrangement?

Oh, never mind - I just read the “Ken-Tool company history.” Different companies with a tangled past.

 

[Private Lugnutz]

Different companies with a tangled past.

To say the least. Basically, Cornwell refused to let it go, and continued selling tools that Kennedy designed under the Kennedy name when he was with them, long after he left and formed Ken-Tool. Just a few years later, he bought his old company from Cornwell and reunited that line with Ken-Tool.

 

[Private Lugnutz]

Page 17 of the 1953 Ken-Tool catalog has an illustration of the “new” B-23, bearing “pat appl for.”

That would lead me to conclude they understood the legal differences I pointed out here...

Legally, note that Patent Applied For and Patent Pending are two different designations.

...and would not mark the tool with PAT PEND incorrectly or cavalierly, and give more hope that a patent was indeed granted.

 

[four.cycle]

Page 17 of the 1953 Ken-Tool catalog has an illustration of the “new” B-23, bearing “pat appl for.”
Page 19 of the 1961 Ken-Tool catalog shows the B-26. The main differences seem to be the location of the B-23 cups/prongs behind the pivot, and the shape of the grips of the B-26 becoming symetrical. The 1961 B-26 illustration does not show a patent notice.
I think that narrows a patent search to 1953-1961, though.

EDIT - Ah-ha, page 4 of the 1958 Ken-TOOL supplement describes the B-26 as “new.”

The B-26 example from a current ebay listing - clearly marked "B-26" - matches the illustration in the 1958 supplement No. 4, but not the illustration in the 1961 catalog No. 900.
The Worthpoint example (cited above by @LesserSon post #736) - matches the illustrations for the B-26 in the 1961 catalog No. 900, but not the illustration in the 1958 supplement No. 4. It also seems to match the illustration for the B-23 shown in the 1953 Catalog No. 50-51. This is also the case with another specimen from a 2021 ebay listing which is clearly marked B-26.

I am confused.

 

[LesserSon]

I disagree - the B-23 grips are different from the B-26.
I do see variation in examples of the B-26, in the placement of the cups and prongs - coaxial or offset, which is likely a transition, either gradual from the B-23 to the B-26, or a synthesis of the two after trying out the new B-26 and finding some virtue present in the B-23 was lacking in the B26. It also appears some B-26 examples have a spring.
The placement in front or behind the pivot determines whether the cup or tongs open or close when gipped in the hand - coaxial position means that you would have to spread the hand or use both hands to achieve one of the two functions - the spring makes this easier. Offset position means both functions can be achieved by one hand closing, so no spring required.

 

[four.cycle]

the B-23 grips are different from the B-26.

I hope you're talking about the curvature of the handles (as opposed to "grip pattern") - otherwise you've completely lost me here.
I'm not trying to be thick - sometimes I manage to be thick without even trying.

I do see variation in examples of the B-26, in the placement of the cups and prongs - coaxial or offset, which is likely a transition, either gradual from the B-23 to the B-26, or a synthesis of the two after trying out the new B-26 and finding some virtue present in the B-23 was lacking in the B26. It also appears some B-26 examples have a spring.

And THAT is party the cause of my confusion on this one. (And your speculative statement makes perfectly good sense.)
And we don't have a physical example of the B-23 - only that catalog illustration, right?

I shot all this to datamp.org - not sure if I'll get a response any time soon. This one seems to be something of a puzzler, or maybe I'm just stupid.

 

[LesserSon]

Yes, by “grips” I mean handles.

I have not seen a photo of B-23.
EDIT - okay, there was one that sold on eBay that has great pics.

Before this, I’ve never had my attention caught by Ken-anything (Well, Ken Jenning’s Smithsonian puzzles a few years ago), but the apparent lack of DATAMP attention to Ken-Tool does strike me.

 

[MisterEd]

As usual, SigO found the interesting stuff this morning; Flash Sales Corp Eifel Flash Plierench

 

[MisterEd]

And this Bell System Plier(s) from F.E. Lindstrom that's 19 inches long! Resisting plunging in to the Bell System Practices Rabbit Hole.

 

[Mike'smeatshop]

And this Bell System Plier(s) from F.E. Lindstrom that's 19 inches long! Resisting plunging in to the Bell System Practices Rabbit Hole.

Let me know if you want to trade? Man, those would make my fingers 19 inches longer. Love em.

 

[Outlawmws]

Flash Sales Corp Eifel Flash Plierench

Nice find Sig other!

Bell System Plier(s) from F.E. Lindstrom that's 19 inches long!

WOW!

 

[Outlawmws]

So color me embarrassed! I asked this a couple weeks back, and got the right answer.

But never caught up to this -

I know I've seen this pattern shown in the past few weeks,

- until I cleared my side table clutter - See below:

I know I've seen this pattern shown in the past few weeks, but could not find any reference in the past couple of months in this thread.

They are Wilde production - or do you think not?

They are Wilde production

Wilde also supplied some pliers to Plomb.

I think you guys nailed it! thanks!

It was ME!: I had picked up this pair of Wilde narrow bent nose, as I liked the jaws and narrow cut, and had set them aside for my Coleman tools kit I'm re-grouping on - I think both pair will land there. I have not found any referencees to the use of these other than as "bent nose pliers" - and in fact the original patent holders for bent nose pliers - and the small square opening in the jaws is for small nuts:

 

[MisterEd]

19 inches long!

Could they be . . . uh . . . modified? I'll work on some images of the place where they MIGHT have been lengthened.

 

[Outlawmws]

Could they be . . . uh . . . modified? I'll work on some images of the place where they MIGHT have been lengthened.

Is there a brand and part number on the pivot of the NN? if its a *** - 7 or something , almost certain to be a mod.

If its an ***-19 on the other hand...

 

[LesserSon]

@MisterEd
I’m sure Bell System had a use for them, but they look like they could save some trouble disgorging hooks in certain species.