3baygarage
Well-known member
Pretty neat. Never seen that one.
Plomb tool picture thread - show your stuff!
- Thread starter GRX
- Start date
Project 2501
Well-known member
Last edited:
Private Lugnutz
Well-known member
I would say that Fayette R. Plumb just rolled over in his grave, but something is clearly amiss.
Ignoring the name, for a moment, all that artwork - the blacksmith, the plane, boat, and car, the oil derrick and facilities, are from prewar (1940-1941 era) marketing material, including the cover of catalog 18-A (1941), and so is that stylistic rendition of the name. In 1968 the company name wasn't even Pendleton Tool Industries, Inc., anymore. They were bought by Ingersoll-Rand in 1964, and Proto Tools was a division and a brand name. Neither PTII or Ingersoll-Rand used the Plomb name.
Are you reading an actual paper copy? Or online? And if online, is the PDF dated anywhere on a page, or are you getting that from a summary of the document?
I suspect it's actually from 1940 or 1941. EDIT: If not, they re-used badly outdated material!
Ignoring the name, for a moment, all that artwork - the blacksmith, the plane, boat, and car, the oil derrick and facilities, are from prewar (1940-1941 era) marketing material, including the cover of catalog 18-A (1941), and so is that stylistic rendition of the name. In 1968 the company name wasn't even Pendleton Tool Industries, Inc., anymore. They were bought by Ingersoll-Rand in 1964, and Proto Tools was a division and a brand name. Neither PTII or Ingersoll-Rand used the Plomb name.
Are you reading an actual paper copy? Or online? And if online, is the PDF dated anywhere on a page, or are you getting that from a summary of the document?
I suspect it's actually from 1940 or 1941. EDIT: If not, they re-used badly outdated material!
Last edited:
honza.vosalik
Well-known member
Hey Honza, I have a little 1/4" ratchet similar to those and one of the more knowledgeable members here (can't remember who at the moment) confirmed to me that it was indeed made by Plomb. The little "O" is a forge mark as I understand it.
Private Lugnutz
Well-known member
It's on most if not all of the WF- series ratchets, which certainly helps confirm it. But the ratchet pattern with the paddle handle and Figure-8 faceplate on that oval head is unmistakable anyway. Mostly considered late war or postwar surplus.
Ricky Joe
Well-known member
Rare, for sure!
d42jeep
Well-known member
Some of the unmarked versions of those ratchets were included in Craftsman socket sets. Here are my 1/4” drive ones.
-Don
Smokeshow69
Well-known member
D42 is correct. Catalog snapshot of the 1/4 drive set he is referencingSome of the unmarked versions of those ratchets were included in Craftsman socket sets. Here are my 1/4” drive ones.
-Don
Attachments
Smokeshow69
Well-known member
Got my top chest put back together and put in drawer liners. I know cork is eta correct but I really like this stuff so in it goes! Top chest still has the original key and I duplicated some missing drawer dividers!
Attachments
Ricky Joe
Well-known member
Aero Digest ceased publication in 1956.Found while thumbing through a aero digest magazine from 1968...... that's nearly 20 years after the lawsuit
Stillgottimefor1
Well-known member
. Good job! I was about to look that up…
Smokeshow69
Well-known member
I also noticed the address listed includes no zip code, not even a 2 digit one. 2 digit versions where introduction in ‘43 and 5 digit in ‘63…
Private Lugnutz
Well-known member
d42jeep
Well-known member
Got this rusty treasure for the GMTK in the mail today. It went right into the evaporust.
-Don
-Don
honza.vosalik
Well-known member
They are BE
Smokeshow69
Well-known member
Glad to be an influence
. The dividers are pretty cool because they can be moved around easily and go all the way to the top of the drawer! The tool mobile has a more difficult divider system with a series of clips and slats which clip into the perforated drawer bottoms. I am debating as to trying to duplicate the clips or maybe going with some more modern magnetic dividers for the moment. The clips don’t look very fun to fabricate 
Smokeshow69
Well-known member
Hit up the swap meet today with Bmwrd0 and found some goodies! Heck, some were spares but I wasn’t passing them up for the prices! I actually found a paschall hammer with original handle!
couple of spare pebbles
wf dbe
2-1/4 drive 6" extensions!
**paschall hammer with original handle** never found one in the wild before!
1/2 drive universal
2- 1/4 sockets
1/2 hinge handle!
some puller feet from bmw for my plomb puller board
couple of spare pebbles
wf dbe
2-1/4 drive 6" extensions!
**paschall hammer with original handle** never found one in the wild before!
1/2 drive universal
2- 1/4 sockets
1/2 hinge handle!
some puller feet from bmw for my plomb puller board
Attachments
bmwrd0
Well-known member
What Smoke didn't say was that I had picked up that hammer after seeing the green handle, looked at the cheeks, didn't see a Proto or Plomb logo, and set it back down. I didn't think to check the head, and Smoke promptly snapped it up.
I R 2 Smert.
I R 2 Smert.
d42jeep
Well-known member
I hate when that happens.
-Don
-Don
Oldtuleguy
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2017
- Messages
- 10,457
At least you know where it is!
Smokeshow69
Well-known member
That was super funny
. I didn’t really see you look at it and about lost it when I saw what it actually was. I have been looking for one of these for years! Actually I have been looking for them all but refuse to pay eBay prices and am beyond ecstatic that I actually found one. Now I will probably find the rest next week for $5 or something Smokeshow69
Well-known member
Speaking of paschall hammers- who made them? I believe it was the lathe attachment company but can’t recall their name. I know later hammers were made by vlcheck.
Private Lugnutz
Well-known member
Plomb made them. The name of the company the Plomb Tool Company purchased, strictly for more facility space, was the Paschall Tool Company. The Paschall Tool Company did not make hammers. I did a deep dive on that subject. See posts #31 through #36 on the "Lawsuit" tools thread for more.
Smokeshow69
Well-known member
That's what I was thinking but then got confused
Thanks for helping clarify that !Private Lugnutz
Well-known member
No worries. It's still one of those kinds of areas I'd love to find an internal document in an archive somewhere (e.g., USC, UCLA, etc) that gave more insight, especially from 1925 through 1927.
Smokeshow69
Well-known member
I just went through and reread that section. It answered a few questions and then made me feel all confused and with more questions
. So weird how they retained the paschall name and tried to appease plumb. What did plumb have in their back pocket on plomb? So weird how they didn’t just file for the trademarkPrivate Lugnutz
Well-known member
Founded in 1869, I'd say they had about 58 years of precedence making and selling hammers, axes, sledges, files, and other tools under the name ("Plumb") that was spelled nearly the same and sounded exactly the same as the word ("Plomb") that the Plomb Tool Company was proposing to trademark!
They did! Trademarks are not automatic. It was rejected by the USPTO.
The facts are actually very clear. It's the tool hobby myths and misunderstandings that have always gotten in the way.
Last edited:
Private Lugnutz
Well-known member
Here's the best TL;DR of those five deep dive posts that I can do...
The idea that Plomb bought Paschall explicitly to make Paschall-branded ball-pein hammers, to avoid a TM infringement or a lawsuit, or under some kind of deal with Plumb is not supported by any facts, despite what you'll see on AA, Van Natta, Proto's own website, and even Wiki.
In 1925, when Plomb submitted their TM application to the USPTO, Plomb was already making body hammers, but no ball-pein hammers, and Paschall, who they had recently purchased, was not making hammers of any kind.
In 1926 when Plomb was waiting for their TM to be granted, Plomb was still only making body hammers, and there was no sign of Paschall branded hammers of any kind.
In 1927, when Plomb's TM was rejected by the USPTO, Plomb was still not making anything but body hammers, and still no Paschall.
With little to no doubt, Plumb objected to the TM, but their objection could not have logically had anything to do with ball-pein hammers, because Plomb was not making any at the time their TM was rejected.
In 1928, Plomb started offering more hammers, including drop-forged steel fender hammers branded Paschall, the Paschall lathe attachment, and a note in their catalog that they now owned Paschall.
In 1929, 1930, and 1931, Plomb expanded their line to include a large array of drop-forged steel body hammers branded Plomb and Paschall.
In 1932 - five years after their TM was rejected - Plomb finally introduced a line of ball-pein hammers, branded Paschall.
My theory goes like this...
Rather than accept their TM loss in 1927, Plomb decided to ignore or flout the USPTO and Plumb, continuing to use their name like a TM without it actually being registered as a TM. Just to make as little noise about their flouting as possible, so as to avoid a lawsuit, when Plomb finally started making ball-pein hammers - in 1932, five years after their TM was rejected, and after four years of making other kinds of hammers! - they decided to brand the only tool they thought they had in common with Plumb production with the Paschall name instead.
It worked for 15 years. In 1947, when Plomb was one of the biggest toolmakers on the planet, Plumb filed suit. Why would Plumb file suit and win when Plomb was not making any ball-pein hammers marked Pomb?
BECAUSE IT WAS NEVER ABOUT THE DANG BALL-PEIN HAMMERS FOR PLUMB!
It was always about the name, in general, on any tool.
The idea that Plomb bought Paschall explicitly to make Paschall-branded ball-pein hammers, to avoid a TM infringement or a lawsuit, or under some kind of deal with Plumb is not supported by any facts, despite what you'll see on AA, Van Natta, Proto's own website, and even Wiki.
In 1925, when Plomb submitted their TM application to the USPTO, Plomb was already making body hammers, but no ball-pein hammers, and Paschall, who they had recently purchased, was not making hammers of any kind.
In 1926 when Plomb was waiting for their TM to be granted, Plomb was still only making body hammers, and there was no sign of Paschall branded hammers of any kind.
In 1927, when Plomb's TM was rejected by the USPTO, Plomb was still not making anything but body hammers, and still no Paschall.
With little to no doubt, Plumb objected to the TM, but their objection could not have logically had anything to do with ball-pein hammers, because Plomb was not making any at the time their TM was rejected.
In 1928, Plomb started offering more hammers, including drop-forged steel fender hammers branded Paschall, the Paschall lathe attachment, and a note in their catalog that they now owned Paschall.
In 1929, 1930, and 1931, Plomb expanded their line to include a large array of drop-forged steel body hammers branded Plomb and Paschall.
In 1932 - five years after their TM was rejected - Plomb finally introduced a line of ball-pein hammers, branded Paschall.
My theory goes like this...
Rather than accept their TM loss in 1927, Plomb decided to ignore or flout the USPTO and Plumb, continuing to use their name like a TM without it actually being registered as a TM. Just to make as little noise about their flouting as possible, so as to avoid a lawsuit, when Plomb finally started making ball-pein hammers - in 1932, five years after their TM was rejected, and after four years of making other kinds of hammers! - they decided to brand the only tool they thought they had in common with Plumb production with the Paschall name instead.
It worked for 15 years. In 1947, when Plomb was one of the biggest toolmakers on the planet, Plumb filed suit. Why would Plumb file suit and win when Plomb was not making any ball-pein hammers marked Pomb?
BECAUSE IT WAS NEVER ABOUT THE DANG BALL-PEIN HAMMERS FOR PLUMB!
It was always about the name, in general, on any tool.
honza.vosalik
Well-known member
honza.vosalik
Well-known member
No idea, probably try to complete my Thorsen board and maybe open end pebble plomb wrench set?
RagTopTA
Well-known member
This is type of things I think need to be saved and put with all the other info gathered here. "The GJ Book O Plomb" Lugz you do such a great job with your research. I know everyone here appreciates the time and effort you put into this.
Smokeshow69
Well-known member
Outlawmws
Well-known member
This came up a few weeks ago - any volunteers?
RubiconJK
Well-known member
A plomb faq section or perhaps a cliff notes for collectors
Lol! Sounds like there might be two volunteers!
RagTopTA
Well-known member
Myself and Smoke could give it a shot!!!!
mritchie77
Well-known member
Nah, we need a full on reference book LOLA plomb faq section or perhaps a cliff notes for collectors
