Vintage Combination Square

[RTM]

Looks like the 4R designation was introduced between the 1948 and 57 catalogs, and does carry the Quick Reading description in 1957, as LS and Bob noted above.

Starrett Precision Service Tools : Bulletin No. 802 : Issue No. 7 : L. S. Starrett Co. : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

24 p., illus., 26.9 cm, trade catalog

archive.org

 

[RTM]

And following up, does not appear that Lufkin adopted the R designation, but PEC does use it. Moore & Wright used A-E in 1961,, but without an R type designation.

 

[Mintgrun]

Looks like the 4R designation was introduced between the 1948 and 57 catalogs, and does carry the Quick Reading description

Looking at this example (middle), the extended lines in the 100ths gradation of the 2-3 and 7-8 increments makes it easier/quicker to read. The bottom one's better for my old eyes. (I don't have a square for the BAKER rule).

Then, I notice there are nuts that look really similar to Starrett, but are shorter.

I think the shorter Starrett-style nuts may be Sawyer tools, based on this catalog entry from 1905.



( Borrowed 'for education purposes' from here -- https://archive.org/details/sawyer-tool-mfg-co-catalog-h/page/20/mode/2up ).

Here are a couple of Sawyer tools I have. My protractor is different than the one in that catalog but it is clearly marked on the tool. The one in this image is unique, in that the vail is above the knob.




The square is not marked, but the checkering and round hole for the adjustment nut (as well as the nut) are a match. The nut on the protractor is different though. I think this is an earlier offering.



The shape of the opening around the nut is another interesting thing to study. Also notice the offset from the vail to the edge is different between the Starrett and Sawyer examples.



I haven't seen any Scherr Tumico tools in this thread. Made in St. James, Minnesota. Their tall rounded nuts make them easy to identify. (Shown with a crinkle-coat Starrett square). I wish more companies put brand names on them.





These Lufkin tools were found separately and I was thrilled to find the matching dark green protractor to go with the square. The color doesn't come through in these, unfortunately. The rule is darkened and It's what I've used to identify the maker, so I could be mistaken.





I've got a small assortment of nuts, parts and pieces and noticed that this one has a patent on it. When I looked it up I found it belongs to a Brown and Sharpe protractor. I think they may be referring to the little knurled tip that makes it easy to flip the screw's tongue side to side.

US Patent: 1,529,209 - Protractor

US patent 1,529,209 Protractor was issued to John W. Parker of Barrington, RI. It was granted on 03/10/1925. This patent number was seen on a Brown & Sharpe No. 554 Adjustable Square. The innovation is a protractor that is easily removed based on the longitud

www.datamp.org

I'm actually relieved to have reached my 10 file upload limit. This is a thick topic.

Tom

 

[leg17]

And then the type without the logo symbol. Top one includes “Made in USA,” bottom one is really degraded (also bent, though it doesn’t show in this pic), but obviously different from those at top. The third from top is a No4R GRAD. Have to look that one up yet.

Previous to about 1900, Starrett marked tools " L.S. STARRETT", often with "ATHOL, MASS"
After that approximate time period they used "L.S. STARRETT CO." often with "ATHOL, MASS, USA"
That may shed a little light on the bottom example.

 

[Beerhippie]

My offerings:



Maybe a PEC? Why don't they mark the bodies on these things? The rule is Stanley.

That one is my "daily driver". I reach for it at least once a day, usually more often. I use the square head most of the time--mostly as a marking gauge. I use the center-finder rarely, but I use it. I've never used the protractor that I can recall.

Here's a real Stanley:



This one lived in my tool harness for twenty-plus winters:



The green paint is mine. After many wet winters, the finish was entirely rust. Rule is a Stanley Handyman, but the shape of the head doesn't look like Stanley to me--but what do I know?

Interesting the side edges appear to never have been ground.

 

[Beerhippie]

Here's my pretty blue combo square set when it's at home:

 

[LesserSon]

I wish more companies put brand names on them.

I know that would take the “fun” out of doing research, but I agree entirely for these tools. They are a little too easy to dismantle, lose pieces and mix together, which seems the general condition I see them in at flea markets.

 

[d42jeep]

Here are my Starret pieces together. I have no idea of vintages.
8” square
12” squares
Protractor
Spares
Since the rule had rust spots this one got the cleanup treatment.
These pieces live in the Gerstner box.
-Don

 

[LesserSon]

Very nice, Don! I see two heads at the top and maybe a third at the right of the group photo with the “hump” where the reinforced web meets the 45° face. My thought is these could be very early, but haven’t yet seen a catalog illustration that shows it.
Are the shorter rules thinner (as well as narrower) than the the larger ones?

 

[d42jeep]

I didn’t check that but I think they are the same thickness. I’ll confirm that today. There are two with the hump. One with the long rule and the one I cleaned up. The long rule is pretty rough.
-Don

 

[RTM]

Are the shorter rules thinner (as well as narrower) than the the larger ones

4: 0.638 x 0.065

6" 0.715 x 0.080? (In theory the 6" should fit the 9", but it doesn't, the notch does not fit the tongue, or I'm really clumsy tonight)

9" 0.875 x 0.082

Substantial difference between 4 & 6” , I got slight difference on 6 to 9”, which makes me doubt the tool ( couldn’t be me), and a moderate difference 9 to 12”

12” = 0.090 to 0.096.

Will grab a better tool from work to verify them all on a single standard, and update.

 

[d42jeep]

A quick check of some early catalogs indicates that the hump is only on certain models. Maybe just the hardened heads?
-Don

 

[Mintgrun]

The square heads with a hump at the forty-five degree end are wider at the top and larger overall, with flanges that are thinner than the smaller heads with no hump. The thinner flanges might imply that it's hardened, but it isn't marked on the tool.

The top measurements are roughly 1-1/4" and 1-1/2". (also note the presence/lack of the keyed washer on the bolt).





All of the heads below are the same size as the larger one above, but the hump is half-sized. The one with the center finder is marked hardened in a raised oval, like LesserSon's example above. I don't think the center finder is a Starrett tool, due to the cross-hatch knurling on the nut.


Tom

 

[RTM]

Measuring with a real micrometer, with a clutch to keep my klutzy fingers out of the equation. Inches are calculated from metric, not measured. This is all N=1 from those quickly reachable. I have many more 12-24", one extra 9", an extra 4" rule, plus some B&S, Lufkin, M&W etc that are not included here.

Starrett
	mm		(Inch)
	Thickness	Width	Thickness	Width	Fractional Inch
4"	1.76	16.42	0.069	0.646
6"	2.11	18.30	0.083	0.720
9"	2.13	22.24	0.084	0.876	7/8
12"	2.54	25.38	0.100	0.999	1"

 

[AreBeeBee]

Here are my Starret pieces together. I have no idea of vintages.
8” squar
12” squares
Protractor
Spares
Since the rule had rust spots this one got the cleanup treatment.
These pieces live in the Gerstner box.
-Don

Don, what's your method for removing the black stain spots and areas -- those which Evapo doesn't touch?

(I'm impressed by and envious of your "assemblage" of combo squares.)

 

[d42jeep]

I didn’t actually use Evaporust on the rule. I knocked off the worst of the rust spots with a wire brush and then progressively used my 3M rotary discs starting with the 220 then going to the 400 and finishing with the fine disc. It came out a little more shiny than I liked so I rubbed it down with some fine steel wool. There was some discoloration left on the rule which didn’t really bother me at all. I gave it a nice coating of Fluid Film before putting it away to keep it from rusting
-Don

 

[LesserSon]

I don't think the center finder is a Starrett tool, due to the cross-hatch knurling on the nut.

I think that center head / nut is Union Tool Co.
Archive has the 41 and 53 catalogs showing that nut.
I also looked at the 1921-ish catalog, which shows combination heads that look VERY like the hump-less Starrett heads.

 

[d42jeep]

I got out my square with the 18” rule. The head seems identical with the 12“ rule and both heads have the hump and both rules are marked hardened. I started trying to clean the excess paint off of the head. I have no reason to believe that these two squares don’t have their original rules.
Comparison pictures
A little less excess paint.
-Don

 

[Mintgrun]

I got out my square with the 18” rule. The head seems identical with the 12“ rule

Aside from the thickness of the flanges, for lack of a better term. The yellow one has thicker edges (flanges).



It's fun trying to spot differences. It wasn't until this morning that I noticed that one of these nuts is rounded over at the bottom. I went up and checked the ones in the drawer and only have one more with the rounded bottom nut. The rest are all squared off like the one on the left.



This No. 490 protractor with reversible head was in the Habitat scrap bin.



This was after a short swim in the electrolysis bucket.



Here it is after a little scrubbing with a toothbrush and Lava hand soap.
(the toothbrush works better if you shorten the bristles with scissors)



At least this tool is well marked!

 

[d42jeep]

I noticed the edge thickness difference as well. It may just be that they were made at different times. They are certainly difficult to date since they didn’t often make changes in the models over the years.
-Don

 

[LesserSon]

I agree Don, on both points. But as to edge thickness, even two made sequentially could vary (maybe not so much as we see), as that is where the cast surface would be ground to make them perfectly square.

 

[wrench136]

More square fun. Looking to I.D. scribe in photos 3 &4. In photo 5 top 2 are Starrett. Left side is the unknown. Right side is Athol MCH Co. The bottom one is Union Tool. The Union tool square is non metallic . Aluminum? Also the unknown scribe in photo 1 is the square with no rule (6").

 

[LesserSon]

I’d guess the nonferrous Union square might be pot metal (mostly zinc).

 

[RTM]

Hey all, been poking around in the old Starrett catalogs, looking at pictures, and reading model numbers. Turns out there is some method to the madness. The size difference as shown by @Mintgrun above in post 53 could be one of two different heads, the #8 or probably #17. The standard head is #11. I looked for the hump, but did not see it in my digging so far. Wonder if it’s an age issue to be discovered as I dig more.

The description/ picture for the #11 did not change 1895-1938, dimpled finish.

#23 is the same as #11, but a non-hardened blade

Looking in the 1919 catalog, scroll down a few pages from where the link drops you.
#11 dimensions not easily found
#8, 8-1/4” stock, 5” miter, only offered w 18 & 24” blade (big boy) this blade is bigger than normal also.
#17, 6” stock, 4” miter

The hardened unit is a #33, and in the early years only had a circular opening for access to the nut. All the other ones had an irregular shape with generally straight edges.

The #94 was the Carpenter’s version, with a blade only marked to 1/8”, and a more cylindrical nut, no curved fancy bits.

These were offered from 1902 to at least 1938, got a few more decades to dig thru, but I need to get off the iPad and do it right.


Oh, and a side note, the patent from 1879 shows a flat nut, almost disk like. There is a picture at link from DATAMP, at slot #2.

 

[d42jeep]

Is there a timeframe when tools were marked “The L.S.S. Co.” vs ”The L.S. Starrett Co.”?
-Don

 

[RTM]

Is there a timeframe when tools were marked “The L.S.S. Co.” vs ”The L.S. Starrett Co.”?
-Don

I will defer to more knowledgeable people.

I have seen the LSS due to space restrictions, not necessarily age, so it may not be a sure thing.

 

[AreBeeBee]

I will defer to more knowledgeable people.

I have seen the LSS due to space restrictions, not necessarily age, so it may not be a sure thing.

Also, a combo square rule from one era (or even maker) can be swapped into the head from another. I've swapped Union, Brown & Sharpe, and Starrett parts from time to time. If it fits, locks up, and is square — good enough for me.

 

[RTM]

Also, a combo square rule from one era (or even maker) can be swapped into the head from another. I've swapped Union, Brown & Sharpe, and Starrett parts from time to time. If it fits, locks up, and is square — good enough for me.

Which unfortunately makes it a PITA to determine who made some heads, as they all swap across much too easily. Unfortunately for some, a Stanley unmarked head fits on a Starrett rule, and you pay good money for an OK tool.

 

[AreBeeBee]

Which unfortunately makes it a PITA to determine who made some heads, as they all swap across much too easily. Unfortunately for some, a Stanley unmarked head fits on a Starrett rule, and you pay good money for an OK tool.

Yes, indeed. However, Starrett rule heads, even when unmarked, can be ID'd: they are distinctive if you have seen several from different eras. The knurled doube-ridge lock nut for example, is definitive, as is the "woven" appearance of the head's sides on examples that are (???) pre-WW2. See post #65 above. It gets trickier with Union and B&S, though.

People with large collections of combo and double squares should be able to lay them out on a table and sort them into a temporal sequence, even if dates of manufacture remain fuzzy. Catalogues help, even when the illos are steel engravings or retouched photos.

Close looks at details are useful. For instance, I have a 4-inch Starrett double square (eBay buy years ago) that I recently noticed has a square-bottom channel in the rule, not the rounded bottom that has been standard for probably a century or more. When did the change happen? I dunno for sure. And why did the company change? I learned that the round bottom channel is less prone to breaking if dropped than a square-sided channel. The corners of the square bottom are an inherent weak zone that makes the channel more vulnerable to fracture along those corners.

Anyway, it's fun to see what you can deduce from a type collection of a given tool.

 

[RTM]

However, Starrett rule heads, even when unmarked, can be ID'd: they are distinctive if you have seen several from different eras.

Assuming you are a collector, and not someone just starting out, all that is true. The newbies often buy unmarked ****, hoping.

 

[d42jeep]

I found this rusty Craftsman square at an estate sale this morning. It cleaned up pretty easily without using any power tools.


-Don

 

[Snip's]

Starrett Factory Tour...

 

[AntiqueBen]

I'm new to combination squares. I've been wanting to buy one but I wanted to wait & pull the trigger when I found the right one. I almost bought a nice 4 piece Union, but I finally decided on a 4 piece Starrett No. 492. It looks to be in decent shape & it has an original 18" rule & the original scribe. I've never done much research on these. When would have this model been made? Was this a better choice over the Union capatible?

 

[RTM]

492 is just the protractor head.

If the right angle head is square to the rule, and the rule is readable and straight, all nuts are workable, and each locks the right things down, and releases them appropriately.

Are the finishes on all three the same to say they’ve been together since new?

 

[AntiqueBen]

492 is just the protractor head.

If the right angle head is square to the rule, and the rule is readable and straight, all nuts are workable, and each locks the right things down, and releases them appropriately.

Are the finishes on all three the same to say they’ve been together since new?

I bought online, so these are things I took a chance on. I just had the pics to go by. I should have it in a few days. I'm anxious to inspect all this when I get it. I've heard so many people say that Starrett is superior vs other brands. I guess I'll find out soon
Edit: Based on the pics, the finish looks uniform on all pieces.

 

[RTM]

Starrett, Brown & Sharpe, Lufkin, Moore & Wright, Union, Athol, Millers Falls, Goodell Pratt, all good brands back in the day. Most of them are gone now. Maybe even more that I don’t know about.

 

[AntiqueBen]

Starrett, Brown & Sharpe, Lufkin, Moore & Wright, Union, Athol, Millers Falls, Goodell Pratt, all good brands back in the day. Most of them are gone now. Maybe even more that I don’t know about.

I suppose Starrett gets all the attention since he patented the first one.

 

[RTM]

I suppose Starrett gets all the attention since he patented the first one.

Also bought Athol, maybe Union, and others more recently.

 

[AntiqueBen]

Also bought Athol, maybe Union, and others more recently.

Interesting. I also found this Lufkin in the same tool box full of taps.

 

[AntiqueBen]

Just a quick look on Google Books I see the 492 protractor head mentioned throughout the 20's. There is a 1913 ad in the Starrett catalog that mentions the 492. Of course it can't be opened so you can only see the info in the initial listing. I'm guessing there's no variations and it stayed the same throughout its life.