Snap On/Challenger Connection Origins?

[Jacobs976]

I've been seeing more posts on marketplace and this one on eBay saying Challenger(made by Proto) is actually Snap On("pre snap on") before they had the Snap On name despite it being obviously 1970-80s tools.

Obviously it's not true, Snap On does apparently own Challenger Lifts now which is something else but is the connection just off a mistaken identity of a newer addition to Snap On's subsidiaries or is there some old conspiracy that's been woken up from the forgotten corners of the Internet?

Pardon Our Interruption...

 

[Private Lugnutz]

Makes ZERO sense.

The "Challenger" name was first used for socket drive tools and sets in print on page 24 in Plomb Tool Company Catalog 18-A, printed October 1940. (The sets were actually introduced in very late 1939, after Catalog 17-B was published.) Then the name disappears from Plomb marketing until 1949, when it was re-introduced. The early sets are fairly rare, though there are some excellent examples on the Plomb thread. The 1950's is when the decades long line of "Challenger" production that most people associate with "Proto" (when Plomb Tool Co had to stop using their name as a trademark) began, through the Pendleton Tool Industries, Inc. era (1957->) and right through the Ingersol-Rand era, into Stanley.

 

[d42jeep]

Plomb Challenger set. Tools dated 1939.
-Don

 

[Jacobs976]

Makes ZERO sense.

The "Challenger" name was first used for socket drive tools and sets in print on page 24 in Plomb Tool Company Catalog 18-A, printed October 1940. (The sets were actually introduced in very late 1939, after Catalog 17-B was published.) Then the name disappears from Plomb marketing until 1949, when it was re-introduced. The early sets are fairly rare, though there are some excellent examples on the Plomb thread. The 1950's is when the decades long line of "Challenger" production that most people associate with "Proto" (when Plomb Tool Co had to stop using their name as a trademark) began, through the Pendleton Tool Industries, Inc. era (1957->) and right through the Ingersol-Rand era, into Stanley.

That's the same info I knew. To add Challenger Lifts, the only possible link I could see made between the two brands, is a higher end car lift company.

The only way I could see the link made would be assuming Snap On buying out Challenger Lifts was actually Challenger tools but how the idea Challenger pre-dated Snap On is a complete mystery.

I assumed there may have been some old conspiracy between the brands like how Craftsman has had some conspiracy about being made by Snap On in the past like with the 3/8 metric and standard crows foot wrench sets that were made by SK for Craftsman but looked identical to Snap On(probably due to basic pattern and limited space for logos leading to basic stampings as well, any tool with no patent protection is going to look the same till someone modifies the design slightly).

 

[Private Lugnutz]

The only way I could see the link made would be assuming Snap On buying out Challenger Lifts was actually Challenger tools but how the idea Challenger pre-dated Snap On is a complete mystery.

I don't know about the other instances you're referring to, but the eBay seller seems to know it's Proto. In that case, the only thing I can think of is that by "Pre Snap on" he doesn't mean 'prior to 1920 and the establishment of the company', but prior to Snap-on acquiring Challenger Lifts. The premise of that, though, is the weird idea that the Lifts company is somehow associated with the tools, and therefore, the idea that Snap-on was making Challenger tools.

The whole thing is nutty.

 

[Jacobs976]

I don't know about the other instances you're referring to, but the eBay seller seems to know it's Proto. In that case, the only thing I can think of is that by "Pre Snap on" he doesn't mean 'prior to 1920 and the establishment of the company', but prior to Snap-on acquiring Challenger Lifts. The premise of that, though, is the weird idea that the Lifts company is somehow associated with the tools, and therefore, the idea that Snap-on was making Challenger tools.

The whole thing is nutty.

The rest were on marketplace. Not a ton but a few that popped up saying "pre snap on". Only one said directly "this is Snap On before they became Snap On".

They probably all originated off searching Challenger on eBay and that listing popping up and ran with it but I figured misinformation took a bit more effort to kick in considering googling the name brings up the Proto history and looking up Snap On brings up pretty much WW2 onwards.

Guess I was probably just too hopeful thinking that something like this would take more than one eBay listing with an improper assumption based on a recent acquisition of a company with the same name.

 

[Jacobs976]

Here's the pic from marketplace. Guy sells a lot of small engine equipment like mowers and such along with tires and a few actual Snap On pieces of equipment.

 

[Private Lugnutz]

"Vintage snap on before they became snap on (the 1816 challenger ratchet is what snap on used to be)"

This makes my head hurt!

WTAF?! It's like a little ******* trend percolating among whacky FBMP/ebay sellers.

 

[Jacobs976]

"Vintage snap on before they became snap on (the 1816 challenger ratchet is what snap on used to be)"

This makes my head hurt!

WTAF?! It's like a little ******* trend percolating among whacky FBMP/ebay sellers.

Exactly! And how someone that at least resells some expensive tools and equipment spits that out is even harder to understand.

Did he read one eBay listing and take it as fact then go further and claim it all in or did he have some random conspiracy from a decade or two ago that would at least justify the stretch?

I could understand if it was at least something like the Armstrong ratchets that were interchangeable with Snap On or the Craftsman-SK crows feet scenario but with no apparent conspiracy on the subject I can't see how he'd make that claim with his portfolio of items.

 

[Farmer J.]

eBay listing descriptions are usually a load of c**p. That's all.

 

[Private Lugnutz]

^ True, in general. Typically outlandish claims of authenticity, rarity, or value, or all three, or, just obvious mistake. What makes this apparent "Pre Snap On" (sic) Mini-trend of Misinformation extraordinarily zany, though, is it seemingly spreading to other platforms, and being used so matter-of-factly, that it comes off like a real thing. To the point where it even had @Jacobs976 wondering a little. It's bizarre.

 

[RTM]

I've seen several things like that over the years, where one person makes an erroneous claim, and then five others copy it word for word.

I caught a buddy copying one that he should have known better, and we did break the chain of BS, at least for one sale.

 

[Beerhippie]

I've seen several things like that over the years, where one person makes an erroneous claim, and then five others copy it word for word.

I caught a buddy copying one that he should have known better, and we did break the chain of BS, at least for one sale.

In the Google world, it's the number of times a post is linked to that determines its standing on the results page (or used to be--now I believe you just buy standing).

In the scientific world, the number of times a paper is cited in other papers the higher its standing--even if the paper is later retracted for errors or outright fraud.

These practices lead to lots of BS getting promulgated out there.

 

[KFBR392]

In the vintage furniture world, we called this a "misattribution"

 

[Jacobs976]

I've seen several things like that over the years, where one person makes an erroneous claim, and then five others copy it word for word.

I caught a buddy copying one that he should have known better, and we did break the chain of BS, at least for one sale.

Sounds kinda like some of the stuff from my Jacobs' Physics of Tools Debate Corner.

In particular what I found with sledge hammer statistics, you have guys going around bragging about hitting 20,000lbs or something because someone did the math wrong a decade ago and it ended up being copy/pasted as fact since then to the point Google and AI spit it out too.

Also this wasn't an intentional "sponsored" comment, your comment just reminded me of the sledgehammer problem and how much people actually bragged about swinging hammers.

 

[Farmer J.]

In the Google world, it's the number of times a post is linked to that determines its standing on the results page (or used to be--now I believe you just buy standing).

In the scientific world, the number of times a paper is cited in other papers the higher its standing--even if the paper is later retracted for errors or outright fraud.

These practices lead to lots of BS getting promulgated out there.

Yup. Google and scientific reports work like that, and I always think it's like the old saying: "Just because millions of flies eat sh*t doesn't mean it tastes good".