SURVEY: PLVMB tools with "Letter-Letter" code stamps (and ONLY those tools!)

[Private Lugnutz]

Will you be asking other contributors if they are certain of their evaluations? I’ve been spending some time going through my pictures that I could use for other tasks. I’ve tried not to let my opinion of the theory slant the pictures I’ve sent in.

Sorry, Don. Didn't mean it that way at all! Me trying to somehow turn a few tools from chrome to not chrome would hardly make a difference given the numbers of clearly chrome-plated tools - including the one I just posted myself, right? That would be silly in the extreme, no? Just curious for the reasons I stated. And yes, I would ask others, again, for the reasons I stated, if I saw satin-y ones. You never know what some of the data will reveal with respect to WHEN some of these were plated or not. As for slanting, the whole purpose of the survey is to prevent slanting. One way or another. It also eliminates the mistake of drawing conclusions based on purely anecdotal collecting experience. The data will be bigger than any one of our collections.

it was obvious that they were all from his personal collection which wasn’t all that large of a sample size.

Agreed! (Although I remember seeing more, which is machts nichts now.) Hence the new survey!

 

[Private Lugnutz]

STAT UPDATE

Guys,
I am going to try to provide these updates aperiodically. Yeah, I'm doing the data entry, as a service to everyone else, but everyone is putting their time in and everyone deserves to see the data. (I need to find a way to easily share a view of the actual database, because the power of visualization for analysis and patterns, as I tried to demonstrate with the sorts I posted upthread, is much stronger than stat summaries.)

Total tools: 109
Total unique letter-letter codes: 24
Total unique letter-letter codes not counting the outliers (the "_C" stamps that have first letters that only appear, so far, on the same tool): 17
Total unique first letters: 17
Total unique first letters not counting the outliers (see above): 11
Total unique second letters: 4 (A, B, C, and D)
Total unique second letters not counting "D", where there is only one (1) single entry in the entire database so far, a very suspect 8183 DBE that AA identifies as "BD": 3 (A, B, and C)*

*(Note on that last stat and going WayBack to the original theory and its examples: I did some double-checking myself and I noticed that there were NO tools with a "_D" stamp. It appears the entire 1944 part of the theory was extrapolated from the 1942 and 1943 parts of the theory. Not good!)

Total chromed: 27
Total other: 82

 

[four.cycle]

... and here I thought I was the card-carrying rabbit-hole spelunker.

only 109 samples? we need ten times that many. anybody on papaw's have a big collection of Plomb that we don't know about?

looking forward to seeing the end results on this, and I'm not even a Plomb collector!

 

[Private Lugnutz]

For a different view of the stats, here are all the unique codes posted so far, multiple examples, multiple types of tools:

AB, BB, CB, DB, EB, FB, GB, HB, IB (could be "1B")
AC, BC, CC, DC, EC, FC, GC, HC, JC, KC

Then there are these that only appear on midget ratchets so far: PC, RC, SC, UC, and VC

Don's DO

And the solo BD (that's the AA 8183 with a very crude stamp, could easily be "BB" or "BC" in my opinion)

Comments:

Devoid of theory (i.e., regardless of whether it's years or something else), whatever the second letter ("_B" and "_C") signifies, there are ONLY two (2) of them in evidence, not four (4), as the original theory proposed, so far. That's not a conclusion. That's a factual observation from the data, so far. In other words, the survey is already working. That could change. I am totally open to leaving the reaching of 'statistical relevance' here open to the group or anyone's personal opinion. Personally, I would like to see several orders of magnitude more. It's possible that there are dozens of tools with a "_D" code that have just somehow managed to elude Don, Roob, me, AA, etc. Starting to seem unlikely, but we definitely need hundreds more examples.

 

[Private Lugnutz]

and here I thought I was the card-carrying rabbit-hole spelunker.

Snerk. It took you this long to realize the real nerd?! (I am an engineer by trade, and all good engineers are good analysts, and nothing is more powerful for analysis than an X-Y matrix!)

we need ten times that many.

I don't know about 1,000. But everyone can decide that on their own. Personally, I think several hundred from a wide geospatial representation of members would be statistically sound.

any body on papaw's have a big collection of Plomb that we don't know about?

I don't think we need to do that. You or anyone else is welcome to spread the word if you want. The Plomb FB group, as well. There are some big Plomb collectors right here on GJ other than Don and Roob. I have asked RagTopTA to chime in. I have also contacted Roy Olson, even though he doesn't post any more. His collection is super organized. There's no rush on this. I have no timetable.

 

[RubiconJK]

Lugz, thanks for doing this and I'm glad you reached out to Roy. I'll keep scouring for other examples. It is interesting that the midget ratchets are the only items found with the >L mark. Do we know which plant was making these ratchets?

 

[Private Lugnutz]

It is interesting that the midget ratchets are the only items found with the >L mark.

Very.

Again, we need hundreds more examples of tools to see if what has emerged so far continues to bear out, or if new things emerge with greater volume, but it's very legitimate, reasonable, and actually imperative to observe - based on the data so far, that no other tools have those codes. They could, therefore, signify something completely different than the other codes. If those > LC codes were distributed to all kinds of tools, the same way that the < LC codes are, that would be different.

It seems reasonable to interpret the "C" in these > LC ratchets as something common. That could be factory. That could be year. That could be something entirely other that we are not thinking of yet, such as type. Which would make the first letter something that distinguishes them. What could that possibly be if "C" was year that would not use < L? If "C" is type, does it make sense for Plomb to be using seven different factories to make the same ratchet? Maybe. Their identicalness (as if they all came form the same factory) seems to challenge that, though. Conversely, what could the > L codes mean if "C" was a factory? Not looking for answers from you or anyone. Just saying, those ratchets are a dilemma for sure.

Do we know which plant was making these ratchets?

Not that I know of.

 

[d42jeep]

I checked 16 1/4“ drive ratchets this morning and every one of them has the two letter code ending in C. I’m interested in knowing if there are examples out there that don’t have the code letters. Here is the ratchet from my Plomb based GMTK. GC
-Don
1/4” drive flex handle dark finish badly stamped probably AC
Dark finish 1/4” drive extension AC
1/4” drive 11/32” socket likely Chrome plated EB
1/4” drive dark finish 9/32” socket CC

1/4” drive plain finish 1/4” socket BC
1/4” drive plain finish 3/16” socket FC

 

[RubiconJK]

I checked 16 1/4“ drive ratchets this morning and every one of them has the two letter code ending in C. I’m interested in knowing if there are examples out there that don’t have the code letters. Here is the ratchet from my Plomb based GMTK. GC

Don, the two round handle 4749's I have end in C. There are 4 of them currently on online auction and one you can't tell from the pics, one is DC, one looks like UC, one looks like BB (but hard to read). Do you own 16 of them or did you swab GJ for pics?

 

[Private Lugnutz]

I checked 16 1/4“ drive ratchets this morning and every one of them has the two letter code ending in C.

You have reported ten (10) 1/4-dr ratchets to date, Don. FC (x2), GC, HC, KC, NC, PC, RC, SC, and UC. What are the codes and finishes on the other six (6) so I can enter them in the database?

 

[RubiconJK]

Here is one more ratchet from a real quick search on the Plomb thread that may have not been accounted for yet.
Catfishdan 4749 War Finish HC

Also here is a link to a post by Twertsy from a past conversation on this topic where he noted that the anomalies with the first letter seem to be centered on ratchets.

Plomb tool picture thread - show your stuff!

Re: ~ Plomb tool picture thread - show your stuff! Is this wrong Hard to see what does the stamping say. Sent from my XT1030 using Tapatalk

www.garagejournal.com

 

[Private Lugnutz]

Here is one more ratchet from a real quick search on the Plomb thread that may have not been accounted for yet.
Catfishdan 4749 War Finish HC

Thanks. Dan has not checked in on this thread, so I will add it, and if he does (although I haven't seen hide nor hair of him in awhile here...), I will not double count it.

Adding this 1218 Combo wrench ("EC"). Plain steel.

(It's interesting looking at similar or even same wrenches noting that some had the codes and some did not. As Don and I were talking about offline, whatever the codes are, it's important to keep in mind that not only were they not on every tool they made in the post-1941 PLVMB MADE IN U.S.A. period, wartime or not, they don't seem to even be on the majority of them. In our experience anyway. I do NOT want to expand the survey to explore that ratio. We can spitball that later based on main contributor's estimates. )

Also a 5468 1/2-dr Flex handle ("BC"). Plain steel, possible cad.

 

[d42jeep]

Don, the two round handle 4749's I have end in C. There are 4 of them currently on online auction and one you can't tell from the pics, one is DC, one looks like UC, one looks like BB (but hard to read). Do you own 16 of them or did you swab GJ for pics?

Yeah, I have 16. Most are in sets plus a few extras. Actually 17 if you count the one from 1941.
-Don

 

[RubiconJK]

(It's interesting looking at similar or even same wrenches noting that some had the codes and some did not. As Don and I were talking about offline, whatever the codes are, it's important to keep in mind that not only were they not on every tool they made in the post-1941 PLVMB MADE IN U.S.A. period, wartime or not, they don't seem to even be on the majority of them. In our experience anyway. I do NOT want to expand the survey to explore that ratio. We can spitball that later based on main contributor's estimates. )

Agreed. I'm guessing the codes are on less than half of my post '41/wartime era pieces.

Here is another piece I had in a user box (of all places, lol!).
5468 BC plain steel

 

[d42jeep]

You have reported ten (10) 1/4-dr ratchets to date, Don. FC (x2), GC, HC, KC, NC, PC, RC, SC, and UC. What are the codes and finishes on the other six (6) so I can enter them in the database?

I think that there are eleven in post #6 plus today’s GMTK ratchet, so that should be 12. I’ll try to run down the other 4.
-Don

 

[Private Lugnutz]

I think that there are eleven in post #6 plus today’s GMTK ratchet, so that should be 12.

I was missing one of your two "RC". I have your 12 now.

 

[d42jeep]

You have reported ten (10) 1/4-dr ratchets to date, Don. FC (x2), GC, HC, KC, NC, PC, RC, SC, and UC. What are the codes and finishes on the other six (6) so I can enter them in the database?

I was missing one of your two "RC". I have your 12 now.

I actually have two War Finish HC ratchets, so you should change the count from one to two.
Here is a plain finish DC that I didn’t post

Here is a dark finish AC ratchet that I missed
Here is a dark finish UC plus I posted a cad plated UC already so you can change that count to two. I think that’s all of them.
I found a couple more letter letter code tools while I was poking around.
Here is a Chrome plated 1/4” drive slotted screwdriver bit EC
Here is a Chrome plated 12 point 1/4” drive 1/2” socket EB

 

[Oregon rock crusher]

I'll add a few...
Pic 1 - #96 1/2" long punch plain AD and 3306 DOE plain AC
Pic 2- 1232 combo plain BC and war finish 3035 plain BC
Pic 3- 3026 DOE polished steel CB and 3021 plain CC
Pic 4- 3035 DOE bright? DC
Pic 5- 3036 DOE plain EC and 3316 DOE chrome EB
Pic 6- 3021 DOE bright finish FC and 1137 DBE plain FC
I also had a few wrenches marked only with a C in that drawer.

 

[Private Lugnutz]

I'm all caught up and correct on your stuff, @d42jeep.

Thanks for contributing, Ed (@Oregon rock crusher). Every little bit helps. And in the case of the "AD" punch, it helps an awful lot. That is the first sure thing "_D" code we have seen. I was casting doubt on the AA example (a "BD" DBE wrench) because it's hard to see and mangled, but yours gives it a little more credence.

All,

REMINDER: Check all tools. Not just wrenches and drive tools. Other tools (screwdrivers, hammers, etc) also had the letter-letter codes.

 

[Private Lugnutz]

In other news, I heard back from Smoke, Roy, and RagTopTA and they are all game as soon as they can make some time.

 

[MisterEd]

3127 Off-Set DBE EC
3018 DOE HC

 

[d42jeep]

I went through my Plomb based GMTK today to determine what tools should be upgraded so I took the opportunity to add some double letter tool pictures to the database. First some 1/2” drive ratchets.
Don
1/2” drive plain finish AB
1/2” drive plain finish lightly stamped EB
1/2” drive plain finish KC
1/2“ drive chrome plated 5466 flex handle CB (which I would happily trade for a dark finish or plain steel example)
1/2” drive dark finish 5468 flex handle BC
1/2” drive plain steel speeder FC
Dark finish DOE wrench 1” x 15/16” DC
1/2” drive plain steel 15/16” socket CC

 

[Oregon rock crusher]

A few more. I hope the group shots are ok...I'll get back to look for more next week. Grand kids staying over a few days calling BS on my shop time. Ed.

Pic 2942- #96 1/2" punch CC, #96 5/8" punch AC, 5/8 caluling iron 0D but oval 0, #86a 1/4" chisel DC, #86a 5/16" chisel GC,

Pic 2944- 1134 DBE plain EC, 1134 DBE plain DC, 1130 DBE bright CB,
1122 DBE plain HC, 1122 DBE chrome GB, 1120 DBE Chrome FC.

Pic 2945- 1145 DBE Cad DD, 1228 Combo bright ID,
8184 offset DBE bright CB, 1212 combo bright AB

Pic 2946- 5663 3/4 ext plain BC, 5661 3/4 ext bright BC,
5661 3/4 ext plain CC, 5685 3/4 hinge hndl Cad AC.

 

[Private Lugnutz]

Your GMTK letter-letters are recorded, Don.

5/8 caulking iron 0D but oval 0

I'm going to leave this one out for now, Ed. General consensus sez it's a numeral "0", on its side (admittedly bizarre), for 1940.

Group shots are fine. Enjoy the grandkids!

 

[humber2]

I am left wondering why so few are date marked?

My meagre line up

Top to Base

3220 AB
1126 AB
1120 BB
1120 CB
8480 CB


3426 BC
1124 HC

 

[Private Lugnutz]

I am left wondering why so few are date marked?

To be objective, we don't know that the letter-letter codes are signifying date of production. That is one theory. Another theory has postulated that they could be factory codes, again, similar to the tiny single letter subscript codes than accompany some of the WF- tools.
(Interestingly, those don't appear on all WF- tools, either, and, gun to my head, I'd have to say those, too, are largely overwhelmed by tools that do NO have the single letter.) That's the whole point of the survey, to try to determine, if we can, what they might mean, by examining the data for clues and patterns.

To be comprehensive, keep in mind that their perceived low numbers compared to PLVMB MADE IN U.S.A. era tools without letter-letter codes would be equally perplexing whether they're date codes, factory codes, or codes for something we have not postulated yet. Their low numbers could actually be a clue. What tools wouldn't be as important to trace to a particular factory? What tools wouldn't require a date of manufacture? Etc. And which would?

 

[Private Lugnutz]

My meagre line up

Confirm below please.

Top to Base

3220 AB Chrome
1126 AB Chrome
1120 BB Chrome
1120 CB Chrome
8480 CB Chrome? or Cad? That's close to the satin finish I sometimes see that I am not sure of in person, let alone pics.

 

[d42jeep]

Quite a few of Humber’s tools look to be chrome plated.
oops, another cross post.
-Don

 

[humber2]

Quite a few of Humber’s tools look to be chrome plated.
oops, another cross post.
-Don

All chrome except the tappet wrench.

If I can offer theory it might be along the lines of Head Office saying to newly delegated division(s) to add these descriptors whilst HO carried on without. A do as I say, not do as I do.

 

[Private Lugnutz]

All chrome except the tappet wrench.

Got it.

If I can offer theory it might be along the lines of Head Office saying to newly delegated division(s) to add these descriptors whilst HO carried on without. A do as I say, not do as I do.

Could be. We've talked about this before with respect to all the "factories" (by October 1943 it was up to 33) they flaunted, and I'm about to post some new elaborating information on that which we have heretofore only guess around about. My only question about that has been the format. If you wanted to devise a system of codes to track the production from 33 different factories, would you use two letters? And why are there only four second letters (A, B, C, and D), with most - so far, being _A, _B, and _C, and the overwhelming majority of first letters, only A through L? That's not a challenge, or an argument against. I just think all theories need to be scrutinized within and make sense among the actual data.

 

[Private Lugnutz]

Reinvigorated by the thread, I've been doing some more digging on the factories with the 'factories theory' in mind.

The most that Todd and I were ever able to find on this topic before were vague references that we attributed to Penens. Turns out the Plomb Tool Company had another wholly-owned division that nobody knew about. It is not mentioned on AA, Van Natta, or in the historical section of the Proto website. It's name was the Plomb Tools Contracting Company.



It is cited in a string of ads in a slew of magazines. The earliest I can find online is June 1942 (when the number of factories was 27) and the latest is October 1943 (when the number had grown to 36).

Those kinds of numbers and the term "complete sub-contracting system" does seem like it might require some kind of accountability.

Although some of the ads imply that it was for special tools only, while the Plomb main plants were for regular tools.

 

[RubiconJK]

Those kinds of numbers and the term "complete sub-contracting system" does seem like it might require some kind of accountability.

Hmmm. Could be pointing toward the potential for a combination plant/year mark.

 

[Private Lugnutz]

Searching on "Plomb Tools Contracting Company" turned up a very interesting puff piece article by Plomb's own sales manager in the July 1942 issue of Sales Management magazine. It was a snippet-only view and I've been waiting 3 days for Google Books to come back with a decision on my request to have it unlocked. Beyond a paragraph that provides a little more insight into the activities of this division's operations and purpose, and, more importantly, how the factories in the system were operating, it is a terrific article that all Plomb fans would probably enjoy reading. Linked here.

But here is the insightful paragraph.

 

[Private Lugnutz]

On the other hand, and before we get carried away prematurely, have you guys seen the roll-up that landed up with @saukit on its way to @mritchie77 via @jabberwoki in this thread here? I see 2 wrenches with letter-letter codes in a set of 6 DBE wrenches that we would be hard-pressed to argue against coming together originally in that roll-up. So 4 of the wrenches were made in LA and 2 came from subcontractor factories? Or they all were made in the LA plant but they only decided to date code 2 of them? We could get 500 examples and still never answer these kinds of headscratchers.

 

[RubiconJK]

On the other hand, and before we get carried away prematurely, have you guys seen the roll-up that landed up with @saukit on its way to @mritchie77 via @jabberwoki in this thread here? I see 2 wrenches with letter-letter codes in a set of 6 DBE wrenches that we would be hard-pressed to argue against coming together originally in that roll-up. So 4 of the wrenches were made in LA and 2 came from subcontractor factories? Or they all were made in the LA plant but they only decided to date code 2 of them? We could get 500 examples and still never answer these kinds of headscratchers.

Still scratching my head too, but perhaps the sub contracting entity was consolidating inventory in one or more centralized facilities for packaging. Third party plants may have been required to stamp codes while company plants didn't. I don't think we are there yet either, but your findings about the number of plants being utilized by the sub contracting unit is helpful.

 

[Private Lugnutz]

All great thoughts. And concur. I was very excited. We could be getting warmer. I just don't want to jump to conclusions or lose momentum on the survey.

 

[RTM]

The part about some plants only providing partial operations, vs some were complete operations is intriguing. (Oops, Rubicon started this idea while I was ruminating.)

Maybe someone was forging the bodies, then sending them on for milling, and another plant for assembly of the ratchet with the guts from another factory and the direction switcher from yet another site.

This allows smaller operations to compete / complete the process, taking the strain off a single Plomb facility. As ratchets are a simple one to imagine outsourcing the work, maybe that’s why the have the larger than M letters.

Would / could you logically do that for a wrench? I guess stamp, then deflash, mill, and polish and plate?

Dunno, rambling to avoid cleaning up after dinner.

 

[Private Lugnutz]

That's why I highlighted it, RTM. There is no supposition needed here. No maybes. The paragraph in that article flatly states that some of the tools were being made in steps, which we did not know before. We knew about the large number of factories, and we guessed that they were temporarily leased or subcontracting. We did not know the legal, labyrinthine extent to which Plomb had gone to organize them into their operations. And yes, there are multiple steps involve in making end wrenches (forged, then milled, then die-stamped, then finished) and other tools as well.

Making sense of the data we have on the codes out of that insight is easier said than done, though.

Take the > LC codes, for example, since you mentioned them. Out of twenty-one (21) total 4749 1/4-dr ratchets, only nine (9) of them have codes that are > LC. Specifically, N, P, R, S, U, and V, so far. Twelve (12) of them have codes that are < LC. Specifically, A, D, F, G, H, J, and K, so far. That's thirteen (13) different combinations of _C. How do you get manufacturing process steps out of that? Or is that 13 different factories feeding factory C? Or, 13 different factories in 1943 (C)? On top of that note that many other types of tools have the same < LC codes. But only the 4749's have the > LC codes. Were the > LC codes latecomer factories to the system but only making midget ratchets?

We need more examples. And even then we may need a document or two to explain it.

 

[d42jeep]

More pictures.
1120 War Finish 3/8” x 5/16 CC
1122 plain finish DBE 7/16” x 3/8” BC




1125 War finish DBE 1/2” x 7/16” FC

1220 5/8” combos plain finish DC & JC
1216 1/2” combo plain finish KC

 

[Private Lugnutz]

All,

While we're waiting for some of the other heavy hitters to check in with their tools and data, I will provide another stat update.

Total Tools: 180
Total Unique Codes: 29
Total Unique Codes without outliers (i.e., the > LC codes that only appear on 1/4-dr rats): 23
Total Unique First Letters: 18
Total Unique First Letters without outliers (i.e., the > LC codes that only appear on 1/4-dr rats): 12
Total Unique Second Letters: 4
Chromed: 39
Not Chromed: 141