-Don
Sure thing I’ll get a pic todayNice one, Jeff. I’d be interested to see the markings on this area of the jaw, if possible.
-Don
Made in 1952 in Octembruary, the 20th month on Mars.
An estate sale I attended in March of last year really gave credence to that theory. I passed over 30ish pipe wrenches, but only 10 of them were assembled. The rest were a handle here, jaw there, and the wheel elsewhere. Wasn't going to get involved in that game.
Reasonable hypothesis, Lugz, especially if the red paint is factory original.Made in 1952 in Octembruary, the 20th month on Mars.
Seriously now, I'm just going to say straight up what I said to @txlonghorn1989 a couple years ago, and what I said to @AreBeeBee just a few months ago - these are stumpers and I am still not sure what to think about them.
In my opinion, they are not re-painted. I respectfully disagree with @d42jeep about that. I know he thinks my inclinations are more of a stretch. But I think the notion that they were originally painted black in the 1940's, that wore off, and a red re-paint already looks like it was 70 years old is much more of a stretch.
This is now the third one we have seen - and Tex's, a B-3-4 posted here, does have an original decal over the paint.
These wrenches either challenge the theory that red paint is strictly postwar, or something else is amiss.
That 'something else' has two possibilities in my opinion.
They are actually from 1952 (or in the previous cases, 1954), and it's the other features that are confusing, not the paint, which could literally be a red herring, pun fully intended. Let me put it this way. If yours, Tex's, and @AreBeeBee 's wrenches had thumb wheels with a recess in the knurling and the dynamic jaws had a more pronounced rounded end, I would not have any hesitation in assuming the "2" on that date code was 1952 and the "4" on theirs was 1954. Those characteristics could be the anomalies, not the red paint.
Note also that the dynamic jaws are not painted red and not contiguous to the main component (handle, housing, static jaw) that is painted red. Those dynamic jaws could have been made in 1942 and 1944, and the thumbwheels could be wartime as well, but integrated by a PO into a wrench that was made in 1948 or later, when red paint started appearing in ads, and therefore bearing worn and faded but original red paint instead of black.
You might have to circle it or explain better. Nothing looks odd to me. Did you read post #1? EDIT: Are you talking about the raised polygonal sort of hatchet shaped area that the replaceable static jaw pin is through? That's early, but not earliest, just before the trademarked angled shape in that same place. Read post #1. It lays out the sequence.
Given all the other features, especially the split thumbwheel or adjusting nut and the rounded end on the dynamic jaw, almost certainly 1949.
In looking at my red painted examples with the otherwise early features it seems to me that there is more of a bulge around the hanging hole similar to the Heavy Duty marked newer wrenches. I see no reason to think that they aren’t transitional. I think that I stated that upthread after seeing Tex’s red example with theMade in 1952 in Octembruary, the 20th month on Mars.
Seriously now, I'm just going to say straight up what I said to @txlonghorn1989 a couple years ago, and what I said to @AreBeeBee just a few months ago - these are stumpers and I am still not sure what to think about them.
In my opinion, they are not re-painted. I respectfully disagree with @d42jeep about that. I know he thinks my inclinations are more of a stretch. But I think the notion that they were originally painted black in the 1940's, that wore off, and a red re-paint already looks like it was 70 years old is much more of a stretch.
This is now the third one we have seen - and Tex's, a B-3-4 posted here, does have an original decal over the paint.
These wrenches either challenge the theory that red paint is strictly postwar, or something else is amiss.
That 'something else' has two possibilities in my opinion.
They are actually from 1952 (or in the previous cases, 1954), and it's the other features that are confusing, not the paint, which could literally be a red herring, pun fully intended. Let me put it this way. If yours, Tex's, and @AreBeeBee 's wrenches had thumb wheels with a recess in the knurling and the dynamic jaws had a more pronounced rounded end, I would not have any hesitation in assuming the "2" on that date code was 1952 and the "4" on theirs was 1954. Those characteristics could be the anomalies, not the red paint.
Note also that the dynamic jaws are not painted red and not contiguous to the main component (handle, housing, static jaw) that is painted red. Those dynamic jaws could have been made in 1942 and 1944, and the thumbwheels could be wartime as well, but integrated by a PO into a wrench that was made in 1948 or later, when red paint started appearing in ads, and therefore bearing worn and faded but original red paint instead of black.
decal. 
Agreed. There's a postwar hanging hole bulge on Tex's, AreBeeBee's and Jeff's, too, Don. But now I'm confused. Are you changing your mind? That would support my theory that the worn red paint is original and the wrenches are postwar, either with original dynamic jaws that are also postwar, or dynamic jaws that are wartime and put into postwar wrenches.
I'm afraid you've lost me here. I guess it depends on what you mean by "transitional". From what to what?
Yes.
I posted the above on May 11. The transition is from no bulge to slight bulge to even larger bulge on the Heavy Duty marked red wrenches. I didn’t notice the bulge on Jeff’s red wrench at first but it may have had the slight bulge. I’m not entirely sure what to make of his odd date code.
Thanks, Don. I saw that and I agree. What I am confused about is what you think the timeframe is for that evolution. No bulge is clearly prewar to wartime. And I had always considered slight bulge to even larger bulge to be postwar. The transition seems to parallel or at least closely accompany the transition from residual patent number to no patent number. But it seems to me your position on some of the slight bulb examples (such as AreBeeBee's and now Jeff's) was they were wartime, due to the codes on the dynamic jaws, and re-painted red by a PO. Hence my question.
I'm not entirely sure what to make of any of them. I put them all - Tex's, AreBeeBee's, and Jeff's, as well as yours - in the same category. Except for the lack of any trace of a decal, which could've easily worn off, as Tex's is in the process of doing, the latter two and yours are exactly like Tex's. Red, slight bulge, patent number on handle - with ""2" and "4" codes on a dynamic jaw that are only given any credence whatsoever as 1942 and 1944 (versus 1952 and 1954) based on the fully-knurled adjusting nuts connecting them to the frames.
Ahhh! Good. We are in agreement then.
I don't think there's ever been any question about that. Scroll through the thread. I don't recall any pipe wrench with all the unmistakably prewar or wartime features having a bulge.
If they are wartime dates and not a decade later, yeah, it was either Ridge using up old stock, or people using parts interchangeably years and decades later, which is still very routine.
I don't look at the case of these wrenches - red frame (static jaw, housing and handle), slight bulge, patent number on handle, found with dynamic jaws and adjusting nuts that could also be wartime - as counting or discounting them so much as being more precise about what is being counted or discounted. What is the wrench when it has two parts? The dynamic jaw or the frame itself? Treating them as separate assemblies creates the least amount of conflict.
