I was looking at Alloy Artifacts’ PS&W linemans pliers, which they credit to Utica, based on the nearly identical grip pattern. This has bothered me off and on, partly because I have bought rusted box joint PS&Ws thinking they were Utica, and partly because I thought I’d since learned to distinguish them.
PS&W handles are generally heavier, and the depressed diamonds grip pattern (when present), always has a V-terminating top and never has a speedbump at the bottom. Uticas usually betray the remains of a lower speedbump, even when it is mostly polished away.
(top pair above is Utica)
Further, the head is more like Utica’s lighter No50 than their heavier No1950, but always has a flat-walled (hexish) well for the cutters, whereas Utica 50s always have a round well and Utica 1950s always have the hexish well.
(PS&W at top, above, Utica at bottom)
(all PS&W)
The PS&W cutters are almost always on a convex surface proud of the rest of the head (I have one that is flat flush), while Utica cutters are almost always flat flush (I have one that is convex proud).
(all PS&W)
Most PS&W pivot pins (both lap-joint and box-joint) have five flats locking them - I have not seen this detail on Utica.
(PS&W above)
Lastly, Uticas of the era with V-terminating grip pattern always have a forged-in 3-diamonds logo inside the handles (or shadows if highly polished), but PS&W examples don’t, even when other forging marks remain after finishing.
(Utica at top, above; two PS&W at bottom)
I’m not arguing that AA is necessarily wrong (surely, there’s SOME reason the two grip patterns are so similar), but to me, the preponderance of evidence of every other part of the pliers suggests their conclusion should be phrased in more tentative terms.
