The Lugzsonian - A Virtual Tour

[Private Lugnutz]

I lost patience while waiting for Inter-Library Loan, but I had some luck with Google Books in Snippet-Only View. Here is the page 22 reference from Mr. Shapiro's book cited by Wiki. I still have no idea where the 1918 is coming from, especially since there is no advertising of the Wigginton Voltage Tester before late 1924, or how and who Wiki is using to add the "George P." part, but Shapiro cites no source or date for his vague attribution to a first nameless "Mr. Wigginton."

 

[Fierljeppen]

I found your "Richard J. Parisian" Patent electrical tester to be very interesting and the back story behind it to be even more intriguing. I've always wondered about the origin of the "Wiggy" and now I know.



I copied and pasted all the snippets I could get from, David E. Shapiro_Your Old Wiring_pg.22, which produced no reference to 1918 at all, as you already indicated. It does seem that Richard J. Parisian is indeed the inventor and not George P. Wigginton. I do believe that there's a strong possibility that George P. Wigginton was affiliated with The Wigginton Co., although I'm still trying to find the smoking gun for that one yet.



In my opinion, misinformation has become the greatest threat to accurate historical data for the tool collector community. Too may people are so quick to accepting any historical theories they find on the internet as they pass them along as Gospel. I'm glad you continue to provide sound reasoning and references for all of us, with regard to our hobby.

Good stuff Private Lugnutz!

 

[Private Lugnutz]

I do believe that there's a strong possibility that George P. Wigginton was affiliated with The Wigginton Co., although I'm still trying to find the smoking gun for that one yet.

I agree. Besides being the thought leader and head honcho at the Kalamazoo binder company, and president of the hastily re-capitalized and short-lived third incarnation of the motor car company that was making the Roamer (Buster Keaton, Mary Pickford, and Oscar Wilde all drove one!) and Pennant roadsters in Kalamazoo, he was the president or other high-ranking officer of several Kalamazoo business and social clubs and associations. It seems very likely he owned it.

Too may people are so quick to accepting any historical theories they find on the internet as they pass them along as Gospel.

I cut my teeth on it with the Willys MB toolkit. While deeply indebted to first wave collectors and authoritative figures in that hobby, the second wave collectors and the Military Vehicle Preservation Association developed an unfortunate habit of blindly protecting them, some of which still persists, despite better research and documentation by the third wave.

And thanks. It's appreciated.

 

[Private Lugnutz]

Lugz, I don't think you need to donate to be a "contributing member" and make edits. I've made a couple of edits way back, and no issues.

Thanks, Outlaw. I've never felt the urge before, but just followed through on this last night. It was an interesting experience.

Unsure of the process and protocol, and not feeling right about editing someone else's contribution, if only because the whole idea of community-wide editing seems like a crazy set-up for potential ******* contests to me, I instead added a long paragraph after the apparently erroneous sentence about George P. patenting it in 1918 that uses (misuses) page 22 from the Shapiro book as its reference.

About an hour or so later 'someone' hacked my paragraph up into something much shorter, but unfortunately unintelligible, and, even more surprisingly, left the first entry with the Shapiro reference intact.

That led me to believe 'they' were missing my point. So, I went back into 'Edit' mode and tried again, being slightly more insistent about the Parisian reference, and more direct about the Shapiro entry not including the date, and not including a source citation itself.

This morning I checked the page, linked here for convenience, and I was pleased to see 'they' got it right. It's much shorter than what I had, essentially combining what was there with what sure seems at least for now to be the correct patent attribution, and altogether removing the Shapiro reference, replacing it with the 1925 USPTO Gazette citation I provided.

EDIT: Is there a panel? A hierarchy? A Master Editor? With whom had I essentially had an open, on-line, hours-long back-and-forth Wiki text 'discussion' about the first Wiggy?

 

[RTM]

I’m looking on my iPad, but at the bottom of the page, there is a link to the edit history . One person has made many of them, WTSH….. they explained that some was too wordy, your link referenced entire US patent webpage {satirical summary), etc. if I’d known you were gonna do it, I would have suggested dropping him or her a note first for guidance

Solenoid voltmeter: Revision history - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Private Lugnutz]

Thanks, RTM. I don't plan to make a habit of editing Wiki, and I would've preferred just dumping my findings on someone else or even linking this thread, but it was an interesting 'shoot first, aim second' discovery process that all worked out in the end.

 

[harley jim]

Lugs, I was cleaning the shop and found this set and thought of you, just thought I would share.

 

[Fierljeppen]

Thanks, RTM. I don't plan to make a habit of editing Wiki, and I would've preferred just dumping my findings on someone else or even linking this thread, but it was an interesting 'shoot first, aim second' discovery process that all worked out in the end.

Credibility is very important to me, which is why I never use Wiki. I just don't have enough faith in their system of collecting data.

You on the other hand have been proven to be very credible and open-minded. So, when I have a question about a vintage wrench, I just do a Google search with "Private Lugnutz" and then the wrench, (e.g. Giles) and it always leads me to one of your GJ posts.

I don't think you need to do anything more than what you're doing currently. "Private Lugnutz" is already relevant in the Google search algorithms for vintage tools.

 

[Private Lugnutz]

Lugs, I was cleaning the shop and found this set and thought of you, just thought I would share.

Nice example, hj! Unlike a smaller, similar set that I have, your see-through lid actually lives up to the term see-through!

 

[Private Lugnutz]

I just do a Google search with "Private Lugnutz" and then the wrench, (e.g. Giles) and it always leads me to one of your GJ posts.

Hey, I may have to try that myself the next time I can't remember where the heck I posted something!

In all seriousness, the feeling is mutual. Whenever I have a vise history question my first step is the GJ Search function where I type in the name of the vise with 'Fierljeppen', select [Everywhere], hit Search and any instance of that vise being discussed on GJ in which you are part of comes up. Because if anyone has posted a trustworthy reference from a period trade magazine or catalog, chances are good it's you!

 

[gearhead1960]

Too may people are so quick to accepting any historical theories they find on the internet as they pass them along as Gospel.

I find this is also an issue on doing research on fleabay. Too many people accept that info (or facts) on auction items are always correct or error free. I've even seen auctions that repeat the erroneous data. When listing an item, I won't rely on previously provided info unless I can verify it from an independent source. Even when bidding, if something sounds too good to be true, I check it prior to bidding.

 

[Private Lugnutz]

eBay is an interesting case. Many if not most vintage hand tools are often misidentified or misdated, so yes, taking it at face value is always precarious. But it can also be a vast and instantaneous source of research, especially for finding further examples for your own more rigorous analysis, for confirming your own analysis and interpretation, and, as 4.c has amply and cleverly demonstrated, for gathering vintage catalog pages used as excerpts in vintage catalog sales. Not that they would care, but I often wonder if the eBay people (corporate wonks, programmers, etc, all the people 'behind the screen' so to speak) know it's used that way.

What I like about the GJ vintage board is that the standard has pretty much been set now among the regglers that if you're going to make declarative statements about a mysterious or contentious or obscure tool, you need to cite references, at least, and providing them is even better. It's a hobby and we're all here to have fun, but let's face it - we tend to take it seriously, too, which any good hobby deserves, and bibliography is fundamental for any academic writing.

Of course, references can be wrong, too - as the Wiki Wiggy case seemingly illustrates. Just because it's in a book doesn't mean it's right.

 

[gearhead1960]

eBay is an interesting case. Many if not most vintage hand tools are often misidentified or misdated, so yes, taking it at face value is always precarious. But it can also be a vast and instantaneous source of research, especially for finding further examples for your own more rigorous analysis, for confirming your own analysis and interpretation, and, as 4.c has amply and cleverly demonstrated, for gathering vintage catalog pages used as excerpts in vintage catalog sales. Not that they would care, but I often wonder if the eBay people (corporate wonks, programmers, etc, all the people 'behind the screen' so to speak) know it's used that way.

What I like about the GJ vintage board is that the standard has pretty much been set now among the regglers that if you're going to make declarative statements about a mysterious or contentious or obscure tool, you need to cite references, at least, and providing them is even better. It's a hobby and we're all here to have fun, but let's face it - we tend to take it seriously, too, which any good hobby deserves, and bibliography is fundamental for any academic writing.

Of course, references can be wrong, too - as the Wiki Wiggy case seemingly illustrates. Just because it's in a book doesn't mean it's right.

Lugz,

I agree with what you are saying. One thing though about those pictures/catalogue pages, I believe there are copyright issues with borrowing or grabbing them off of eBay. Re-use can make you subject to legalities if re-used without permission. I've in the past have had other sellers steal my photos. I promptly reported them to eBay, but that's been a long time since that happened. Ebay has changed for the worse in my opinion, but some of that is due to changes in Federal laws/regulations and that is now getting away from the original discussion....enough said.

 

[four.cycle]

17 U.S.C. § 107

any and all material used for educational purposes, where no money has been transferred, is exempt from any copyright claims.

"Many if not most vintage hand tools are often misidentified or misdated..."

I would fully agree with that statement, with the caveat that there are a lot of sellers who do go to the trouble to research an item they are selling, clearly (in most cases) for the purpose of getting more money out of the item.
I am always a bit flattered to see items listed on ebay where the seller has obviously paid us a visit here looking for information about some widget he wants to sell. Best example of the week of an ebay seller who's clearly been led to GarageJournal.com via Google. (You'll find my "Gilfillan" entry here.)

On the flip side, gearhead's point is well taken: errors are repeated by other sellers, who pick up some snippet of misinformation and include it in the "description" text of their ad. I see that sort of thing quite often. Some of that misinformation is gleaned from other ad listings, some of it comes from various websites.

As an aside:
There was brief mention above of "Wikipedia". I am more than reluctant to cite "Wikipedia" as an information source in my list, and will include it only when it seems to be the sole source of information.
The first iteration of the list was uploaded to a "Wikipedia" page, and remained there - unchanged - for well over a year. When I attempted to update it, I was "blocked" because the list contained URLs which (for reasons that were not explained and made absolutely no sense) were deemed "objectionable" or "offensive" according to the "Wikipedia" rule book.
When I asked for some explanation, I got no answer. I pulled the list off "Wikipedia". What you will find there now is the URL for the old list - the link to which is dead since NUTTSGT pulled the thread off earlier this week.

My only experience dealing with "Wikipedia" was certainly not what I had hoped for. On a "Wikipedia" page dealing with a subject about which I am intimately acquainted, I went back and forth with one of their "editors" for some time about some trivial details. I don't know anything about working with HTML, and have no plans on learning, so I left it to them to use the information I'd provided. Unfortunately, they chose to use information from God-knows-where as opposed to that of Smitty Parratt, who is considered by anyone who knows the area to be the definitive source.
"Wikipedia" might be okay to use as an information source for a high-school report, but I certainly don't consider it to be 100% reliable, and after the experiences I've detailed above, I would probably never again attempt to make any sort of contribution to the site, monetary or otherwise.

Just my lousy two cents, as always.

 

[Private Lugnutz]

I believe there are copyright issues with borrowing or grabbing them off of eBay. Re-use can make you subject to legalities if re-used without permission.

Copyright can be tricky on the Internet. Especially original photos. Downloading the image of a page from a copyrighted catalog used in an ebay sale or auction or any other public domain doesn't infringe on the copyright, though. Posting scans of pages of copyrighted works right here on GJ, regardless of where I got them, doesn't infringe, either. In addition to the educational purposes clause of the Fair Use section (107) that 4.c cited, "samples and excerpts" of copyrighted works are free from infringement claims even in cases where money is transferred. The eBay sellers posting a few pages as content example of something they are selling is a good example of that. Film clips or a long passage of a new novel in a book review in a fee-bearing magazine you pay to read with a subscription is another god example. Moreover, there are no legal limits establishing a specific number of words or a percentage of a work for this clause, despite conventional wisdom to the contrary. When copyright holders feel it has been abused, they do sue, obviously mainly in the modern music industry. Digital rights is a constantly morphing issue.

I actually just read a strange, mind-blowing novel called "The Making of Incarnation" by Tom McCarthy that explores in fictional form some of the legal tussle occurring with CGI, especially how it is rendered and the rendering and the movements captured, and I was surprised to discover how coveted and protected choreography has been and is still becoming. Review posted on the GJ 'What are you reading?' thread here.

gearhead's point is well taken: errors are repeated by other sellers, who pick up some snippet of misinformation and include it in the "description" text of their ad.

Agreed, obviously. The rapid repetitive spread of misinformation on the internet, which I first brought up related to the Wiggy's year and source of invention, echoed by Fierljeppen (I wonder what percentage of GJ users knows what that word means!), is certainly not a phenomenon exclusive to Wikipedia, and eBay is indeed a major culprit.

I am always a bit flattered to see items listed on ebay where the seller has obviously paid us a visit here looking for information

The most amusing case of encountering an eBay seller using my own research was a purchase I made several years ago. You and anyone else familiar with the 'Randolph Tool Equipment Corp' thread will recall it. The R.T.E.C. midget set arrived via US Post Office and when I opened the box there was a piece of paper stuffed inside with the set. When I unfolded it, I discovered that it was one of the many Excel-based charts I have developed and posted, this one on G503.com, capturing WWII 1/4-inch drive socket set information, showing specifications and manufacturers, including R.T.E.C. It was the longest long-distance print job I ever did, and I didn't have to push a button or use my own paper!

 

[Private Lugnutz]

Speaking of charts, I got this from RTM a long time ago and pasted it on one of my cabinets.

 

[Private Lugnutz]

Re-use can make you subject to legalities if re-used without permission.

Oh, and here's a less wordy, more light-hearted reply...

"Jan had told him many times,
'It was you to me who taught,
in Jersey anything's legal,
as long as you don't get caught.'"
Bob Dylan
Tweeter and the Monkey Man
Travelin' Wilburys Vol. I
3rd verse, 2:20-2:40

But it's better listening in
full context!

 

[Private Lugnutz]

When the Acquisition Dept dumped a heavy-duty leather bag on the Curator's "In" table on Thursday morning, he was super excited. It is thick leather, sewn and riveted construction, with some neat features, such as the brass turn-clasps to secure the lid flaps. It is not marked, he has no idea what it was originally used for, but he can imagine it holding tools, he is official referring to it as a tool bag, and given its robustness, durability, and ample size - 13" x 5" x 7", it will hold some antique tools when he is done with it. The only eyesore on it is the handle, which had obviously been wrapped with black electrical tape that, by the looks of its impenetrability, had been there a long time.

 

[Private Lugnutz]

When the Curator noticed the unmistakable outlines of buckles underneath...

 

[Private Lugnutz]

... he decided to remove the aged offensive wrapping this morning.

As anyone who has ever done anything like this before knows, old electrical tape that has coalesced itself into a hard mass, doesn't easily cooperate. Probing at the ends, making some initial, careful cuts, peeling back a little a time until he could separate the many tough and stubborn layers of adhesive skin from the subcutaneous brown leather handle underneath. As anyone who has ever done anything like this before also knows, it requires good, sharp tools (in this case, small curved WISS and large curved Joest Solingen steel shears), strong fingers, and surgical care and precision!

 

[Mintgrun]

Wow. I never would have guessed that you'd find such a nice handle underneath the tape. Good job! That it a very cool find.

Tom

 

[Outlawmws]

NOW the Curtor is just teasing...

 

[Private Lugnutz]

Assuming that the original handle was badly desiccated, at the very least, and possibly torn or falling apart or completely separate, at the worst, necessitating the foul electrical tape repair - the Curator was overjoyed to discover none of the above. The handle is in fact intact and in decent condition!

Who in their right mind would wrap the hell out of something like this for no good reason!

 

[Private Lugnutz]

Wow. I never would have guessed that you'd find such a nice handle underneath the tape. Good job! That it a very cool find.

Right?

NOW the Curtor is just teasing...

Just typing slow - with maybe a little suspense! See post #663.

 

[Outlawmws]

Well Final pics killed my guess off - I was thinking it was heavy and the straps were cuttng into the PO's hand, but it HAS a load spreader originally.

 

[Private Lugnutz]

We have one repair to do (the threads on the right clasp tab was very loose and came off in handling), but otherwise, this gorgeous bag is ready for loading.

 

[Private Lugnutz]

Tools of the task.

 

[gpw_42]

Lugz that bag is sweet! Thanks for posting the tools of the leather TLC. Thought for a moment you'd also include some "Vintage X-Acto Exactly" to get the old tape off.

 

[Private Lugnutz]

I had considered it, along with a couple other blade options, but they were either too fragile or too awkward. I found controlled snipping best.

 

[RTM]

is in fact intact and in decent condition!

Who in their right mind would wrap the hell out of something like this for no good reason!

Someone trying to age a replacement handle to match a bag? Just a wild guess here, not sure where I got the idea. Does the handle have the metal strap inside?

 

[Private Lugnutz]

Someone trying to age a replacement handle to match a bag? Just a wild guess here, not sure where I got the idea.

HAHA! Oh, you noticed the resemblance, huh?!

For those who aren't getting the winky wink and the sardonic inside joke language in RTM's post, see my post on the Hinsdale thread, linked here, or the photos below. Long story short, the original vintage double buckle handle on this leather tool bag that my surgical removal just revealed is identical to a modern reproduction from a company called Brettuns Village that RTM tipped me off to for my Hinsdale kit box, which I promptly "aged" to match my box last year! Go figure the odds!

Does the handle have the metal strap inside?

No. The reinforcing piece inside the authentic one appears to be wood or possible very hard fiberboard. It sure looks like Brettuns Village used this or one very similar to this as a model, though.

 

[Arne73]

Any interior shots Lugz? Is it one large pouch?

 

[Private Lugnutz]

Any interior shots Lugz? Is it one large pouch?

It is. No compartments, no tool pockets or holders or anything like that. But it was clearly intended to carry something heavy. This was a utility bag, not cosmetic.

See pic 6, post #658.

 

[Private Lugnutz]

The Acquisition Dept tickled the Curator's fancy with 10-piece hex key kits in cases bearing 11-digit 1950's Federal Stock Numbers by bringing home yet another example (see Pics 1 & 2) from the flea this morning.

Or so he thought. Upon closer examination, the Curator noticed that this kit - made by Allen Mfg Co themselves, called a Handi-Pac, and given the devilish part #666 - has a different FSN (5120-973-0780) than the others (5120-203-7064), made by Upland and Hartwyck. That sent him scurrying to the books, where he learned that the Allen set had the standard ten (10) wrenches from 1/16" to 3/8" that the Army had been issuing since the end of WWII, but also included five (5) additional sizes: .028, .035, .050, 7/64", and 9/64" - all of which are missing!

Military hex key set nerds (and anyone else still reading...) can see the entire collection, including a prized canvas pouch possession with pockets populated with UNBRAKO's in Pic 3.

 

[Private Lugnutz]

Since there isn't really any better or more appropriate place to post this, the Acquisitions Dept also brought home this Austin Western Company (AWCO) Gold Nugget No. GN 35 tie rod adjusting tool. The Curator knows he did it only to infuriate him, because the Acquisitins Dept knows the sad state of messy affairs that the Lugzsonian is in right now, and it will drive the Curator crazy trying to find the AWCO Gold Nugget No. GN 45 tie rod tool that he has laying about somewhere. They came in pairs offering a total of four different sizes. But where do you store a tool like that? Certainly not by brand! The other "things" that AWCO made were road graders and steam rollers. Certainly not by type, because it's very likely the only tie rod tool we have. It's not in the various Odds & Ends drawers and cubbies!

 

[Private Lugnutz]

To relax and get the missing AWCO No 45 off his mind on this fine Friday night, the Curator put the No 35 to much more effective, practical, and important work!



Whatever you're drinking, here's a toast to you, dear readers, and to the return of Bubo (that's Boo-beau), the Lugzsonian's official mascot, who is back in our linden tree for a visit, looking bigger and better than ever!

 

[RTM]

Looking very stoic there. (Bubo, not the curator)

 

[Private Lugnutz]

Oh, Bubo is unruffleable. I knew he was back when I heard a mob of bluejays going crazy outside. They were divebombing him one at a time and he never even flinched. When he got bored he just backed into his hole.

 

[Old Radar]

Oh, Bubo is unruffleable. I knew he was back when I heard a mob of bluejays going crazy outside. They were divebombing him one at a time and he never even flinched. When he got bored he just backed into his hole.

Hmmm... Has Mrs. Lugz commented on anyone displaying similar characteristics?

 

[Private Lugnutz]

That's why he's the official mascot! She definitely doesn't think it's because of my wisdom.