Vise Info Thread

[KMScott]

Prentiss 355 combination vise. 5" jaws that opens to 6" and weights 120lbs. This one is missing one jaw and the pipe jaws.

 

[genog]

I bought this little teeny-weenie clamp on vise at the Flea Market
1-3/4" jaws
Cute little booger
It's dwarfed by a Prentiss no. 21

No markings anywhere that I can see, except for a cast 18 that's located on the dynamic jaw
Does anyone know who made this?
Country of Mfr?

 

[Outlawmws]

Those were made by many companies, both US and abroad. I think Millers Falls or Stanley had the original 2 shaft slide design.

 

[Dave600]

Those were made by many companies, both US and abroad. I think Millers Falls or Stanley had the original 2 shaft slide design.

I think Goodell-Pratt originally created the 2 guide rod style vise. Millers Falls bought/merged with Goodell-Pratt in early 1931. Here is a 1907 Goodell-Pratt catalog page of one.

 

[Outlawmws]

Good Catch - CRS has set in...

 

[Dave600]

Good Catch - CRS has set in...

I try to stay up on all the short forms. What does "CRS" mean? Obviously not the GJ member.

 

[454ragtop]

can't remember s**t

 

[Outlawmws]

can't remember s**t

Yup!

 

[KMScott]

Littlestown 191. No spec:s yet.

 

[MattGavriloff]

Quiet in here as of late...

I see the information on most of York's on the spreadsheet is incomplete, and I have a recent addition that can fill in/fix some. This little Baby York. (My first, ahem...."bullet"...lol). It is a 60, but one of the earlier, 2nd generation I think, castings. After the 3 screw retainer collar like the Wiltons, but before they added the model number to the body. I think pre 56 if my understanding of the available information is correct.

Specs:
Jaws - 2 3/8" (60mm) Spreadsheet says 2 1/2, not sure if later ones may be 1/8 wider?
Max Safe Open - 1 7/8" (nut and both lower slide locating tabs fully engaged)
Weight - 6Lbs 10.0oz

Wondering if anyone has an opinion on the paint. I'm trying to decide if it's original...and kind of crappy, or redone...and kind of crappy. I've looked at a lot of pictures of them online and the color sure looks right to me. There's a tape overlap line on the slide, the retaining pins are painted over, and there are some "thin" spots, as well as runs...lol.

The only reason it matters is this thing has some of the smelliest, nastiest grease inside the body and swivel base, that I have EVER smelled. I'd rather not go the paper towel/by hand route, easiest clean up is strip and toss in Simple Green, but if the paint is original (doesn't look like it would survive a soak), I may go through the trouble of cleaning it more carefully, and then give it a nice BLO rubdown. Any thoughts are appreciated.

 

[KMScott]

Thanks Matt. You are right about the York spec:s and pictures. I need to work on them. I restored the whole line several years ago and had vinyl stickers made along with the swivel lockdowns that were a option when buying this vise. I wish I saved the spec:s before selling them. I might still have the stickers if you want a couple. Thanks for your help.

 

[MattGavriloff]

Nice York pile sir! Did any of yours come with "original" paint before you restored them? Wondering what you thought of the quality/color of the original paint if they did.

A sticker might be neat, but look too new if I keep the current paint job...lol. I sure like the look of those hold downs though....don't suppose you have any of them kicking around still...:-D

 

[KMScott]

Yes most had original paint except the 150 it had black on top of blue. I can't remember how the original paint looked like and tried to match the best I could. Getting old so even can't remember what paint I used since I restored these back in 2018.

The lockdowns I made myself. I found many pic:s of them and created my own geometry. Happy to share the drawings if you can build these your self. The swivel base swivel portion I totally rebuilt on all 5 of them. I am not a keep it original guy especially when I see a design flaw. I just hated the sloppy swivel base carriage bolt setup they used. I remachined the rough cast slots, built new sliding tee-nuts and then added a center round block like a large shoulder bolt and that made the swivel work like it should. I like to restore a vise back to a working condition as good or better then from the factory. Not like many here who want to keep it as original as possible. I noticed yours is different then all of mine and might be a later model, maybe York added a center dowel. See the repair HERE.

 

[KMScott]

Rock Island 158. No spec:s on this modified Coachmakers vise.

 

[Fred Knox]

One for the spreadsheet:
Woden Swivel Base Machinists Vise #186B/1 S (In the company literature, "S" presumably stands for swivel).
3" jaws,
opens 3 1/4",
21 lbs.
Thanks Kevin,

 

[MattGavriloff]

Thanks for the YORK pictures Kevin! Judging from your "pre" pictures, I'm going to assume mine has original paint and just clean it up and preserve what it there. It definitely fits into that group color wise.

I haven't been able to find pictires of one with the same swivel base as mine either. Rest assured it has the same degree of slop/play in it that it sounds like they all do. I haven't torn it down to see what's underneath, but I have kicked around some ideas for improvement based on what I've seen others do. The hold downs I will likely replace with simple, but nicer looking, acorn nuts and live with that.

Not to disagree, but I actually think mine is earlier than yours. The earliest design had screws and a retaining collar (as Wilton), then they changed to the cross pin. Based on my digging (here on GJ) they dropped the patent from the side and replaced it with the model numbers around ~1956.

York vise history thread

Following information comes mostly from an email conversation with York. Some information also comes from their website. This is work in progress in will be filled in with more details later on, especially I'll be trying to add pictures. There are multiple versions of the York vise with...

www.garagejournal.com

Assuming the information in here is correct.

 

[KMScott]

York 80. 3.150 (3-5/32) wide jaws. One of my restorations.

 

[KMScott]

York 100. 3-15/16 (100mm) jaw width. One of my restorations.

 

[KMScott]

York 150. 5.905 (150mm) jaw width that opens to 5" and weights 64lbs. One of my restorations.

 

[KMScott]

Mystery vise. 5-1/2" jaws.

 

[KMScott]

Charles Parker 216 swivel jaw. 1-7/8 jaws that opens to 2" and weights 4-1/2 lbs. Rare vise.

 

[KMScott]

Hollands L (Keystone) 8" jaws that opens to 12" and weights 255 lbs.

 

[Outlawmws]

Mystery Vise has an English smell to me....

 

[Balejeune84]

This is the closest I have to the mystery vise. Not exact but I think very close.

 

[KMScott]

Mystery Vise has an English smell to me....

In another group one mentions it might be Russian.

This is the closest I have to the mystery vise. Not exact but I think very close.

It does look close. Note the square mortise and Tenon which I believe to be the nut. Interesting vise for sure.

 

[Fierljeppen]

If this is the new price for original vise manufacturer catalogs, I'll be watching the auctions with a bucket of popcorn and for entertainment purposes only.

Yikes!

 

[MattGavriloff]

And I thought I was the only one doing that...lol. Do you yell at the bidders too? (Go! Go! Don't let 'em beat you!! etc...)

May be that part is just me...

 

[Fierljeppen]

The much higher prices for the rare vises and catalogs are a double-edged sword for me. It's an indication of the strength of the current "vise collector market", which is phenomenal right now. Vintage American vises and their historical items are in great shape for many future generations to enjoy, if they're interested.

However, those same prices have got me outside, looking in for a lot of auctions I'd usually be competitive in. I don't believe it's a "vise bubble" either. It seems to me that there are quite a few new collectors with much deeper pockets for this hobby than myself.

Either way, I'm going to continue with this hobby until it doesn't bring me the enjoyment I currently receive. Vise on!

 

[Fierljeppen]

I just found this on a current auction, an absolute "top shelf" vise for anyone's collection!

Joseph H. Lewis Patent Vise
jaw width...........2-1/4"
jaw opening......2-9/16"
patent date.......May 4, 1869

 

[MattGavriloff]

Saw that nifty little thing too, very cool...tis a tad bit pricey though...lol

 

[KMScott]

Standard 3-1/2. 3-1/2" jaws.

 

[KMScott]

Charles Parker 34. 4-1/2" jaws and weights 35lbs.

From the owner ''Guys, I found this very rare ( I think) Parker No. 34 and it ain't bad''

 

[MattGavriloff]

That Parker 34 looks great! Most of those oval slide ones are just trashed...

 

[KMScott]

Matt. That one was Nicks. He sold it before I could get the spec:s.

 

[454ragtop]

Columbian 605M3 I just picked up. 5" jaws, opens to about 8", weighs about 70 lbs. Appears to be pretty minty under that hideous blue paint. Design of the swivel base leaves something to be desired, kind of reminds me of a York, I may have to modify/improve it. Sellers pics.

 

[Fierljeppen]

Columbian 1004 Hydraulic Swivel base Vise. Will try to get more spec:s.

Here's some 1959 catalog specs. for the Columbian model no. 1004 hydraulic vise.



It appears to have been first introduced around 1949, well after the Studebaker Machine Co. offered their hydraulic vises, but before the Wilton "WiltOmatic" introduction around 1954.



I find these hydraulic versions to be very interesting and wouldn't mind adding any one of these vises to my collection.

 

[KMScott]

Fierljeppen, thanks a bunch for all this info. Gonna fill a bunch of holes in the Spreadsheet.

 

[ranger08]

Boley Swivel base Model. 1-3/4 jaws that opens to 2-1/4 and weights ?

what does the writing on the nose say
my vice has the same construction, same jaw plates, anvil, dovetail nose and tommy bar

 

[PierceA]

Either way, I'm going to continue with this hobby until it doesn't bring me the enjoyment I currently receive. Vise on!

Fierljeppen: it will be a very sad day in the vise collector's world if you ever discontinue with this hobby! Your contributions are legendary and irreplaceable!!

I think that the collecting of vises and other smaller items [smaller than cars, trucks and boats] is driven by available space and that most very collectible vises or smaller items rarely need a mortgage to purchase, and can be stored in most folk's homes.. one doesn't need thousands of square feet of storage like for cars and trucks..
And while a rather extensive collection of vises may add up to many, many thousands of dollars, they are reletively indestructible.. so having expensive insurance covering damage due to fire or flood is rarely needed.. Unlike antique cars. where even the least valuable of my teen's, twenties or thirties cars if lost due to fire, the loss would far exceed my entire collection of over 200 vises..
And of course I do carry insurance on my shop, contents, and each individual antique car.. The $$#$%^%!! insurance on my cars costs more per month than my mortgage and property taxes.
Yeah, I do realize that I could reduce that insurance expense, either by going partially or totally uninsured, or to greatly reduce the number of cars in my collection.. BUT which ones to sell? For me it's like which son or daughter to sell?

So I think you are right: the vise collecting world will continue, at least for a decade or two. Until the newer generations who don't know how to use a hammer or screwdriver [much less a vise! ] become the prominent collector population.. And I'll be pushing up daisies by then..

PierceA.

If I didn't say it clearly enough: Fierljeppen: THANK YOU for your contributions to this group of vise collectors !!

I certainly do NOT mean to minimalize the contributions from so many other knowledgable and helpful members, certainly not to minimize the time and efforts of KMS, without whom the vise database would be seriously lacking in content.

I know that if I attempt to list all of the major contributors, I will forget dozens of very helpful people.
So you guys know who you are!! And my heartfelt thanks go out to you too !!
PierceA.

 

[PierceA]

I haven't contributed much to this vise info thread lately. So I thought I'd post these images and ask for some help trying to figure out what this Parker might be.


Sorry for the clutter, but I think you can see the very large 6" jawed Parker fixed base vise clamped in a small-looking Athol 615, on a wonderful iron vise stand.


It is clearly a Parker, and a 6" or larger one that [usually] has a two-screw collar. And the handle friction tensioning screw in the meatball. The jaws measure 6".


As you can see, this big Parker has NO name, model number, patent info or other on it's sides


The only name is on the collar. The only number I found was on the underside of the swivel jaw round 'peg' that fits into the top of the static jaw. That very faint number is '275'. I've looked up 275, and that isn't this vise.. But it is logical that the same swivel jaw casting could and would be used on a Parker 375.
I thought that it might be a 375, but that doesn't match either, because of the jaw width.

If the jaws were 6-1/2"wide, then I'd call it a Parker 375. I have looked carefully, and I do not think the jaws were narrowed by 1/2", this is a well used vise, but I see no indications of any grinding on the ends of the jaws or jaw towers. And when I got it, there were no indications that this vise had ever had any cosmetic or functional 'cleanup' work done on it. only some grease on the slide and mainscrew.

So: My best guess is either an unknown retailer wanted a 6" swivel jaw vise so a 375 was cast without lettering or numbers on the vise.
Or maybe it was a bad day at the foundry and someone cast the vise without adding the numbers and letters.. But why the narrower jaws?

It isn't a true 'no-name' since it has 'Parker' on the collar.

Of course, an original no-name collar might have broken and a named collar was the replacement.
I have inspected very closely with a bright light and a magnifying glass at the sides of the static and dynamic, and it never had numbers or letters that were ground off.. There are distinct casting lines and marks that extend through the flat areas that would have had to be ground smooth. Even using various methods to imitate cast-metal surfaces, the casting lines or flaws would not continue through the areas.
So: I'm looking for suggestions of it's possible origin? or maybe it's just an 'oops' at the foundry and it became an odd-ball 6" Parker..

Kevin: the protruding slide measures 9-3/4", jaws 6" wide. and it's weight I will have to get for you. Even when separated, the static and dynamic's weights exceed my electronic scale's capacity, I'll have to take a bathroom scale out to the shop..

I have a lot more recent acquistions, I hope to add to this thread soon..

PierceA.