The Chronicle of the Early American Industries Association

Stanley Garden Specialist Tools for Sash Window Making A Key To Dating Vintage Machinery Made in Philada: No. 4 • Two Burls are Better than One Howland’s Hoisting Apparatus, A Nineteenth-Century “Come-Along” An Unusual Configuration Volume 57, Number 1 March 2004 The Chronicle of the Early American Industries Association, Inc. Vol. 57, No. 1 March 2004 Contents The Early American Specialist Tools for Sash Window Making Industries by Jane Rees------1 Association President: A Key To Dating Vintage Woodworking Machinery David L. Parke, Jr. Executive Director: by Dana Martin Batory------12 Elton W. Hall Made in Philada: No. 4 THE PURPOSE of the Associa- tion is to encourage the study by Carl Bopp------16 of and better understanding of early American industries in the home, in the shop, on Two Burls are Better than One the farm, and on the sea; also by Karl West------28 to discover, identify, classify, preserve and exhibit obsolete tools, implements and mechani- Howland’s Hoisting Apparatus, A Nineteenth-Century “Come-Along” cal devices which were used in early America. by Elton W. Hall------30

MEMBERSHIP in the An Unusual Plane Configuration EAIA is open to any person or organization sharing its by J. B. Cox------31 interests and purposes. For membership information, write to Elton W. Hall, Executive Director, 167 Bakerville Road, South Dartmouth, MA 02748. Departments Stanley Tools: Stanley Garden Tools------23 The Chronicle Whatsits Editor: Patty MacLeish A Tin ?------29 Editorial Board A Trapped Ham?------34 Katherine Boardman Wrap it Up------37 John Carter Or Cut it Up?------37 Jay Gaynor Raymond V. Giordano Book Review: Collecting Houses: 17th Century Houses– Rabbit Goody 20th Century Adventure ------35 Charles F. Hummel Walter Jacob Plane Chatter: The Plane Whose Arms Are Too Long------36 Johanna M. Lewis, Ph.D Michael H. Lewis Dan Reibel Covers: Stanley Garden Tools. During the Depression, the building industry slowed, Bill Robertson and Stanley Tools responded by promoting a line of colorful garden tools. On front Jack Whelan is the special merchandising display that holds an example of each tool. On the back Frank White is a typical set of tools in bright colors with end caps in contrasting colors on the The Chronicle welcomes contri- handles. Walter Jacob discusses the history of Stanley garden tools in his column. butions from anyone interested in our purpose. Submit articles Photograph by Walter Jacob. to: Patty MacLeish, Editor, 31 Walnut Street, Newport, RI 02840. Telephone: (401) 846- 7542; Fax: (401) 846-6675; E- mail: [email protected]. We The Chronicle of the Early American Industries Association, Inc. ©2004 (ISSN 0012-8147 ) is published quarterly by prefer articles to be submitted the Early American Industries Association, Inc. Elton W. Hall, Treasurer, 167 Bakerville Road, South Dartmouth, on disk or electronically. Please MA 02748. POSTMASTER: Send address changes to: The Chronicle of the Early American Industries Association, submit in any commonly used Inc. c/o Elton W. Hall, Treasurer, 167 Bakerville Road, South Dartmouth, MA 02748. USPO Publication Number word processing program. If 560-620. Periodical postage paid at New Bedford, MA and at additional mailing offices. The Chronicle is available on microfilm from: UMI, 300 Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48106. Design: Patty MacLeish, Ideas into Print, 31 Walnut typed, please double space. Street, Newport, RI 02840. Printed by Cayuga Press, 1650 Hanshaw Road, Ithaca, NY 14850. Specialist Tools for Sash Window Making by Jane Rees rom their first appearance towards the end of these can give a detailed insight into how sash windows the seventeenth century right up to the present were made by hand. day, sash windows have been used in every sort of Although from the late years of the eighteenth F 1 building. A walk round any British village, town or city century, there were attempts to develop a variety of makes clear the quantity of sash windows that have been - working machinery,4 until the early years of the manufactured over the last three centuries. For instance, in twentieth century, the majority of sash windows were Bath alone in the period between 1720 and 1820, a rough still made by hand. So it is not surprising that specialist calculation suggests that around sixty thousand sashes tools were developed to assist in the making. were made (three for every working day!). A sash window consists of two main parts, the cased In order for a sash window to work easily and ef- frame or box and the sash itself. A third element, win- fectively, it is important that both the frame and the sash dow shutters, is sometimes added but not necessarily are made accurately. But also, in the days when work- and is not included in the scope of this article. men were paid by piece work, speed was of the essence. When researching the history of the methods of Making the Frame or Box making sash windows, contemporary written sources The construction of the sash frame is relatively simple such as Nicholson’s Practical Builder2 and Skaife’s with little in the way of joints, and the majority of the Key to Civil Architec- tools used would have ture 3 are invaluable, been those found in any but there is another ’s kit. Thomas resource that is often Skaife, writing in 1774, overlooked—the tools states that “sash frames that were used. Many are a part of the business tools still survive from easily understood, and the eighteenth cen- require but little merit in tury and many more the execution,”5 though changed little in form he does draw attention to or use over the next the need to position the Figure 1. Top: a “thin” blade sash pocket . Bottom: Edward Preston pulley block within three 150 years; the study of & Sons interchangeable blade sash pocket chisel.

Figure 2. Sticking board from Samuel Wing’s workshop. (Illustra- Figure 3. Design for a sticking board from Ellis’s Modern tion courtesy of Old Sturbridge Village, Massachusetts.) Practical Joinery.

The Chronicle Volume 57, No. 1 1 Figure 4. The first rebate for the glazing cut using a sash fillister Figure 5. The second rebate for the glazing cut with a sash fil- plane. lister plane. inches of the top or there will not be sufficient height for bars, and there is no evidence of specialist tools prior to the weights. this date. The rebate would have been cut with a moving The most complicated work in making the sash box or standing fillister and the ovolo cut with a moulding is cutting out the sash pocket in the pulley stiles through plane that might well have also been used which the weights are reached. It is necessary to make in other more general purpose joinery. both transverse and longitudinal cuts in a position that However, the difficulties of making cannot be reached with general tools. A special chisel—the the bars became more acute as fash- sash pocket chisel—was developed for this job, though the ion dictated thinner and thinner exact way it was intended to be used is still a matter of bars, which ultimately reached speculation (Figure 1). The basic use was to cut the as little as 3/4 of an inch fibres at the end of the pocket that could not be by the end of the eigh- reached by a , but it could also have been used for making the longi- teenth century and 5 tudinal cut at the side of even as slender as /8 the pocket. Sash pocket of an inch by the early come in two types, years of the nineteenth with a thick blade or with century. The shaping a thin. As with many and of pieces tools, by the nineteenth of wood which were in century manufacturers general much thinner were experimenting with than those normally improvements, and the Figure 6. A sash fillis- worked for such items sash pocket chisel was no ter by John Green (York, as doors and panel- 1768–1808). exception. Ed. Preston ling required specialist & Sons (Birmingham, tools that enabled a 6 1825–1934) produced speedy and accurate an interchangeable blade result for the joiner. version, first advertised With the advent in his 1914 catalog as a of the astragal and “new form … supplied hollow mould in the with three different sizes 1760s, sash planes 7 of cutter blades… .” started to appear. It Making the Sash was difficult to cut this Bars mould using the tra- ditional hollows and In the earliest windows, rounds and the need up to the 1740s, the bars for specialist planes had sizeable ovolo profiles became paramount. 1 and were typically 1 /2 Sticking Boards or even 2 inches wide. Figure 7. Using a sash fillister plane. This plane by Greenslade (Bristol, There were three Making bars of this size 1828–1937) dates from the mid- to late-nineteenth century. It differs little from planes of an earlier date, the main differences being that it now has a methods of making presented less of a prob- nicker iron to prevent the wood from tearing, the depth stop is mounted on the bars, but one prob- lem than the later thinner the outside of the plane and the stems are capped with brass. Later versions lem common to all sometimes also had an integral handle. 2 The Chronicle March 2004 from around 1795 to 1810 (Figure 2).8 Designs for sticking boards were occasionally published in woodworking books and magazines; one example can be found in George Ellis’s Modern Practical Joinery (Figure 3).9 Figure 8. The moulding is then “stuck” on one side of the bar with a sash plane. The bar is then turned over and the moulding Cutting the Bars stuck on the other side. The three ways in which a bar could be cut were the was holding the bar whilst cutting. All evidence sug- four-cut method, the three-cut method and the two-cut gests that the bars and frames were made in short method. Each required the use of a different type of lengths—bars no longer than three feet or so were sticking board and a different specialist plane or planes. needed to make a sash. And as the different cuts are made, the bar becomes progressively more difficult to The Four-Cut Method hold. The answer to this problem is the sticking board, Each bar is formed by four separate operations, two the name derived from the traditional term for cutting cuts to form the glazing rebate and two cuts to form or “sticking” a moulding. the moulding. That sash planes were being produced to The board would have been made by the craftsman cut bars by this method throughout the period makes out of whatever wood was to hand and would have been it clear that it remained in use during the whole time considered expendable; consequently virtually no prov- that sash windows were made by hand. enanced sticking boards have been found. The only one The sticking board used to make bars by this that has an eighteenth-century provenance that I am method had two separate positions, one to hold the aware of is an American board found in the workshop bar whilst cutting the rebates and the other to hold of Samuel Wing, a cabinetmaker and chairmaker and the rebated bar whilst it is moulded (Figures 4 and 5). of Sandwich, Massachusetts, which dates The first two cuts for the glazing rebates are made using a sash fillister. This plane, developed about 1770, has a on the arms to guide the plane from the inside edge of the sash bar (the edge that will be moulded). The bar is held in the outer position of the sticking board (Figures 6 and 7). After cutting the rebates the bar is then moved to the inner position of the sticking board where it is held by slot- ting the glazing rebate into the recess. The moulding can then be cut using a sash plane. Sash planes are designed to be used with “spring,” that is, they are held at an angle to the work. The exact angle is often marked in the heel of the plane by a pair of right-angle intersecting scribed lines. The moulding is then “stuck” on one side of the bar with a sash plane. The bar is then turned over and the moulding stuck on the other side (Figures 8 and 9).

The Three-Cut Method Around 1800, edge-cutting astragal and hollow planes appeared, although the rebates were still cut using the sash fillister. These are two, three, or even sometimes four-ironed planes which cut down from the edge of the bar (Figures 11 and 12). With this method, although it is still necessary to hold the bar in a stick- ing board whilst cutting the glazing rebates, sticking the moulding can be carried out with the bar held in Figure 9. Sticking a moulding.

The Chronicle Volume 57, No. 1 3 Figure 10. A pair of sash planes by Christopher Gabriel (London, 1770–1822). From 1775 it became normal to supply sash planes in pairs. There has been much debate about the reason; the most likely explanation is that one is set coarse for the major portion of the work with the no. 2 plane set fine for the finishing cut. The planes are marked 1 and 2 on the heel. This pair is also marked 5. This is an indication that it was intended to work on a 5/8-inch stock.

Figure 12. Sticking the astragal and hollow moulding using an edge-cutting plane held in a bench vice. is a stick and rebate plane and the bar to be moulded is held in a sticking board with one holding position that is to hold the bar for the first cut and one Fig. 11. A twin-iron plane by Moir & Co. (Glasgow, 1836–75 ); a three-iron plane by Minzies (Glasgow, 1811–16); a four-iron that has been profiled to fit the mould to hold the bar plane by Nelson (London, 1805–52). for the second cut. A favored method in America, the an ordinary bench vice. Samuel Wing sticking board is of this type (Figure 13). However, although in theory this method should be Judged by the number of planes surviving, it was labor saving, with one cut replacing two, the difficulty not as popular in Great Britain, but not withstanding, of setting the irons with sufficient accuracy was con- many of the planemakers’ catalogs of the late-nineteenth siderable and as a normal type of sash plane was still and early-twentieth century, such as Edward Preston needed for the rails and stiles, they did not appear to catch on and are not common. The majority of those known are by Scottish makers.

The Two-Cut Method An alternative and possibly quicker method is to cut the mould and the rebate in one operation, working from the side of the bar. The plane used for this method

Figure 14. A pair of stick and rebate planes by Moir (Glasgow 1836–75) marked 1 and 2 and also 5/8 on the heel, and an adjust- able stick and rebate plane by Greenslade (Bristol, 1828–1937). Figure 13. The Samuel Wing sticking board showing the profiled This plane is also marked “Exhibition Medals, London, Dublin, holding position. (Illustration courtesy of Old Sturbridge Village, Paris & Melbourne.” The Paris Exhibition was held in 1890 (the Massachusetts.) latest of these four), so this plane must date from after that date.

4 The Chronicle March 2004 Figure 16. The same plane being worked.

Figure 15. An American regulating stick and rabbit plane on a stick- ing board in a sash maker’s workshop on Staten Island, New York.

& Sons of Birmingham, William Marples of Sheffield, and Alexander Mathieson of Glasgow, list stick and rebate planes. An adjustable, or regulating, stick and rebate plane, which gives some variation in the size of the bar, was also available, though this too was more common in America than in Great Britain. These planes are made with two separate stocks held together with either metal or turned wooden screws. Scottish Practice There are two planes that are used only in nineteenth- century Scottish practice. The glass check plough cuts both rebates at once, from the back edge of the bar. The surviving planes all date from the latter half of Figure 17. Left: A counter check plane by D. Malloch & Son the century. (Perth 1878–1913). Right: a glass check plough by Moir (Glasgow 1836–75). The other is the counter check plane (Figure 17). This is a , usually with an adjustable right- and left-hand profiles can be included enabling fence, which cuts a tapering rebate in the meeting rails. the user to always work with the grain. They can also This development gives a tighter and more weather- be used for a wider range of radii. proof join between the two meeting rails, a reflection By the late-nineteenth century, all the major plane- perhaps of the conditions to be found in Scotland. makers were offering a wide variety of sash plane pro- files and the other sash making planes, as can be seen Curved Work from these extracts from the 1879 catalog of Varvill Windows with arched tops or bowfronted windows & Sons of York and the 1899 catalogue of Alexander required their own specialist tools. Until around the Mathieson & Sons of Glasgow. mid-nineteenth century, arch top sash windows were made using compassed moulding planes (Figure 18). Al- Jointing the Bars though planes continued in use after this date they were Having formed the sash bar, the next process was as- frequently replaced by sash shaves, the earlier made of sembling the sash. Not only do the sash bars have to be wood, but from the 1880s onwards, metal shaves were jointed to the stiles and rails, but they also have to be more common. The advantage of a shave is that both jointed at their intersections. Glass is a heavy material and sliding the sashes up and down also puts a strain

The Chronicle Volume 57, No. 1 5 Figure 18. A pair of radiused sash planes for curved work by John J. Harley (Liverpool, 1875–1922) and a boxwood sash shave by Chapple (Manchester, 1876–1881) with a blade that is sharpened on both sides to enable it to be used in either direction.

Figure 19. Preston’s Improved Circular Sash Shave from the 1909 Preston catalog.

on the joints. One of the more complex problems was to produce satisfactory joints between the elements. This in turn generated a number of specialist tools to simplify and speed this job. There were three ways by which profiled bars could be jointed, but one of these, the mason’s mitre, was sel- dom used in woodwork, so only mitring and scribing Figure 20. Sash plane profiles offered by Varvill & Sons (York, will be discussed here. 1793-1904) in their 1879 catalog. Mitring Of these two methods, this is the preferred as the on ovolo moulded bars of reasonable thickness as these bar is held from twisting. It is the method described by have sufficient depth not to rotate (Figures 24 and 25). Skaife10 and by Nicholson.11 The mitre can be square, To help with accurate mitring and scribing, sash which is suitable for use with an ovolo mould, which planes often came supplied with matching templets has a flat at the apex, or it can be canted, i.e. tapered, (guides). These were used with a sash scribing gouge, back from the point of the bar, the type of mitre shown which has the handle extended to form a stop. by Nicholson (Figures 21 and 22). To speed up the scribing method, a sash scribing plane could be used. These are reasonably common Scribing and could be used in a number of ways. The ends of a The alternative method was that of scribing one board could be profiled before being sawn up into the member over another. It is most appropriate for use required width for the bars to be moulded; alternatively, a group of moulded bars would be clamped together 6 The Chronicle March 2004 Figure 21. Sash planes offered by Alex Mathieson & Sons of Glasgow in their 1899 catalogue of woodworking tools.

Figure 23 (below). A canted mitre illustrated by Peter Nicholson’s The New Practical Builder and Workman’s Companion (p. 155).

Figure 22 (left).Diagram of a mitred joint showing (top): elevation of a square mitre; (center): plan of a square mitre; and (bottom): a canted mitre.

and the plane used to scribe the whole group together; or it could have been used in conjunction with a sash templet (Figures 26, 27, 28, and 29).

Reinforcing the Joint Whichever form of joint was used, traditionally it would be located and reinforced with a . A special- Figure 24. Diagram of a scribed joint. ist , known as a sash dowelling box, was frequently The Chronicle Volume 57, No. 1 7 used to assist in this. For reasons not established, very These mortises were smaller than those normally em- few sash dowelling boxes were made commercially and ployed in and therefore required a specialized it seems to have been an area where the window-sash sash mortise chisel, which is a narrow, medium weight makers let their imagination run riot. There are numer- chisel. The Ward & Payne catalogue of 191112 lists ten ous different designs and the majority are well made sizes of sash mortise chisels from one-eighth to three- and finished, often of and with a variety of quarters inch in two qualities, cast steel best quality means of holding the bar (Figure 30). and London pattern with solid bolsters. A sash dowelling bit—a long, small diameter bit frequently sold with a square brass collar, which was Other Tools fitted into the box—was used with the sash dowelling A number of other tools were used in the making of box. These bits can be identified from standard bits by sash windows, some exclusively for this work and some the square shoulder at the tang (Figure 31). that are used in general joinery work. Those in general use included mortise gauges, for Jointing to stiles and rails marking both the mortise and the tenon before cutting, The bars were jointed to the stiles and rails using dowel plates (steel plates with holes of various sizes a small mortise with a corresponding tenon in the bar. through which roughly sized could be drawn so that the size exactly matched the hole formed by the sash dowelling bit) and draw bore pins (round tapered

Figure 25. A pair of ovolo sash planes with matching templet by C. Nurse & Co. Ltd., (London 1887-1937). Figure 27. Two sash scribing templets with a sash scribing gouge. Figure 26. A mitre templet held The U-shaped templet is for use on the bars and the L-shaped with a ready for templet for use on stiles and rails. These are good quality templets mitring as shown in George El- as they have brass reinforcing at the ends. By the mid-nineteenth lis’s Modern Practical Joinery century, sash planes were often supplied with matching templets. (p. 41).

Figure 28 (right). Diagram of a sash scrib- ing plane in use on a moulded bar.

8 The Chronicle March 2004 steel pins used to “draw up,” i.e. tighten, mortise and 14 inches and by Holtzapffel in Turning and Mechanical tenon joints). Manipulation, published in 1846,14 who gives the size Sash squares (Figure 32) are small brass and steel as 14 to16 inches. They were used for cutting tenoßns. squares used for setting out the mortises. After 1914, Cill planes are planes whose use is frequently sash squares no longer appear in the tool manufactur- misunderstood and mis-described. They form the anti- ers’ catalogs. capillary found at the angle between the sloping Back , slightly smaller than tenon saws, are cill and the upstand in good quality timber cills. Even listed in Smith’s Key13 in 1816, which gives the size as in the eighteenth century the need for this groove was well-known, and it is clearly shown in Nicholson.15 To

Figure 31. A sash dowelling bit in use with a sash dowelling box.

Figure 32. A sash mortise chisel by Ward, Sheffield, with a sash Figure 29. A sash scribing plane by G. H. Buck (London, 1852-72). square by Moulson Bros., Sheffield.

Figure 30. Three sash dowelling boxes of different designs.

The Chronicle Volume 57, No. 1 9 Figure 33. A sash saw by Groves & Sons, Sheffield 1814-c. 1925.

Figure 35. Two craftsman-made cill planes. “throating” plane (Figures 36 and 37). Conclusion To make sash windows quickly and accurately, special- ist tools were necessary, and from 1700 onwards the ever increasing demand for windows meant that these tools were developed. A study of the tools themselves and how they work can be helpful in discovering how Figure 34. Illustration of cill including the anti-capillary joint the trade was carried out. from Nicholson’s The New Practical Builder and Workman’s Companion. The dates of the tools can also be useful in dating the finished product. It is convenient that many tools cut this groove without the use of a cill plane would be are marked with the maker’s names, and reference difficult (Figures 34 and 35). to old catalogues and the specialist books that have Cill planes, like sash dowelling boxes, are frequently craftsman-made, and so there is a wide variety of de- signs, but the main characteristic is that the iron and wedge are set into a recess cut into the flat side of the plane. The plane cuts only at the nose and is only capable of cutting a small (approximately one-quarter Figure 36. Diagram of a Nurse- inch) half-round. Occasionally versions are found with style cill plane in use two irons set in opposite directions. Commercially made versions are rare though two London firms are known to have produced these planes, C. Nurse & Co. and Colliers of Brixton, around 1900. Colliers gave their plane by the alternative name,

10 The Chronicle March 2004 8. Frank White, “The Involuntary Legacy of Samuel Wing, Cabinetmaker/Chairmaker,” Old Sturbridge Visi- tor, xxii, no. 3 (1982). 9. George Ellis, Modern Practical Joinery (London: Pub- lisher 1902 10. Skaife, A Key, 40. 11. Nicholson, Practical Builder, 155. 12. Ward & Payne Illustrated Catalogue of Edge Tools, Spades, Shovels, etc. (Sheffield, U.K.: 1911) 13. Joseph Smith, Explanation or Key to the Various Manufac- tories of Sheffield. (Sheffield, U.K.: 1816). 14. Charles Holtzapffel, Turning and Mechanical Manipula- tion. (London: 1846-47), 181 and Plate xlvii. 15. Nicholson, Practical Builder, 16. W. G. Goodman, British Planemakers from 1700. 3rd ed., ed. Jane & Mark Rees, (Needham Market, U.K.: 1993). Acknowledgments I would like to give my grateful thanks to Arthur Kingdon for demonstrating the use of sash tools for this article; to Simon Barley for providing information on sash saws and a saw to photograph; to Frank White and Old Sturbridge Village, Massachussetts, USA, for their permission to use the illustrations of the Samuel Wing sticking board and to Bill McMillan from Staten Island for sharing his knowledge of sash window mak- ing in North America. I would like to dedicate this article to my late hus- band Mark, without whose skill and knowledge I could never have discovered so much about the specialist tools for sash window making. This article ws first published by the Construc- tion History Society in the United Kingdom in May Figure 37. Cill plane by C. Nurse & Co. (London 1887-1937) 2003, and it is with their kind permission that it is reproduced here. been written about tool makers, in the case of planes Author the standard reference being British Planemakers from Both architects, Jane and her late husband Mark, spe- 16 1700, can often establish a reasonably accurate date cialized in the restoration of historic buildings. A move of manufacturer. to Bath in 1990, where they assisted in the setting up Notes of the Building of Bath Museum, focused this interest 1. H.J. Louw, “The Origins of the Sash Window,” Architec- on eighteenth-century construction, particularly the tural History 26, 1983. sash window. Having also been researching and writing 2. Peter Nicholson,The New Practical Builder and Workman’s about antique tools for many years, it was inevitable that Companion. (London:Thomas Kelly 1823/5). 3. Thomas Skaife, A Key to Civil Architecture or the Universal they would investigate the making os sash windows British Builder. (London: L. Moore & Co.1774). from the perspective of the tools used—an area that 4. H.J. Louw, “The Mechanisation of Architectural Wood- had previously been overlooked. work in Britain from the Late-eighteenth Century to the Early-twentieth Century,” Construction History, 8, (1992). 5. Skaife, A Key, 154. 6. The dates given in each case for toolmakers are the known working dates of the company. 7. Edward Preston & Sons 1914 catalog (Birmingham, U.K.).

The Chronicle Volume 57, No. 1 11 A Key To Dating Vintage Woodworking Machinery by Dana Martin Batory Figure 1. Wood-framed, medium-size tenoning machine with Babbitt bearings from the J. A. Fay & Co. 1856 catalog.

ow to determine the age of old woodworking kind of paper associated with the machine—a shipping machinery is a frequently asked question. label, sales sticker, manual, etc.—an approximate age H Sometimes an individual, after swinging a can more easily be worked out by considering the fol- sweetheart deal at the flea market or auction, wants lowing facts: to know just how old a machine is. Very seldom does a • Postal zones in the United States were added to machine actually carry a date of manufcture; however, business addresses after 1943. there are several clues that when strung together will • The five number zip code dates from 1963, and the yield a general idea. nine number zip code was added in 1976. If the purchaser is fortunate enough to have some • A telephone number with fewer than seven digits dates from 1896-1945. Usually a machine will carry a patent number, which can date a machine to within a few decades, but not precisely since any machine was probably manu- factured for many years. Patent number 1 was issued in 1836. Patent numbers 1 through 550,000 run to 1895, and 550,001 through 2,300,000 to 1945. Pat- ent numbers were nearing 4 million in 1976 and now exceed 4.5 million. The best and most accessible guide for looking up the exact year a patent was issued is Schroeder’s Antiques Price Guide, which includes a list from 1836 through 1970.The popular book can be found in any fair-sized public library. (See also at “Pat- ent Searches: Step-by-Step” in The Chronicle 55, no. 4 (2002): 161–165). Machine construction itself can be of help. How- ever, one must remember that woodworkers, like other craftsmen, are continually modifying equipment. Ret- rofitting is far from a new concept. Beginning in the 1930s, Baxter D. Whitney & Sons of Winchendon, Massachusetts (established in 1837), supplied Babbitt- bearing-to-ball-bearing conversion kits for its early planers. And since many of us don’t follow the maxim, Figure 2. Yankee cylinder machine with a square cut- “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it,” a machine’s original flat terhead from the J. A. Fay & Co. 1856 catalog. belts or square cutterhead may have been replaced by

12 The Chronicle March 2004 V-belts and a round bitt bearings worked head later on. just as well as ball A square cutter bearings. head could indicate Like the round pre-1908 construc- cutter head, ball bear- tion. The patent for the ings were used on round safety head in wood working ma- the United States dates chinery in Europe for from 1908 when Oli- some years before ap- ver Machinery Com- pearing in this country. pany of Grand Rapids, It’s reported that ball Michigan (established bearings were first of- in 1890), introduced it fered as a special order for the first time. Com- on American panies were quick to as early as 1908. The design their own varia- first manufacturer to tions. However, many Figure 3. The no. 7 cylinder planer, iron frame from C. B. Rogers & Co. use them on a regular companies would not May 1883 catalog had a flat belt drive. basis was the Buss only supply replace- Machine Works origi- ment round heads but nally of Marlborough, continued to furnish New Hampshire (es- square heads for die- tablished in 1847). hard customers well Buss pioneered the into the 1930s. use of high speed ball The ball bearing bearings in 1909, but had originated about they generally did not 1877 but was not wide- appear in woodwork- ly used in America un- ing machinery before til the bicycle craze World War I. In 1911 swept the country. By a group of ambitious 1890, ball bearings ball bearing manufac- were universally used turers advertised in Figure 4. No. 4 1/2 planing and matching machine, found in the C. B. in the self-propelled Rogers & Co. May 1883 catalog, had a girded open iron frame. the trade journal The vehicle. Wood-Worker offering The emerging au- to retrofit any type of tomobile industry of the early 1900s also required , old or new. free-running, high-capacity ball bearings mounted The Sidney Co. of Sidney, Ohio (es- in dirt-proof housings. These trouble-free bearings tablished in 1905), in 1916 offered its new no. 1, 36-inch quickly caught the attention of production woodshop with ball bearings made by SKF Industries. P. operators, who began requesting them in woodwork- B. Yates Machine Co. of Berlin, Wisconsin, (established ing machinery. in 1876), in its circa 1917 catalog, carried seventy-three Even so, ball bearings were slow in appearing in basic machines but only three with ball bearings. The American woodworking machinery. After a century Oliver Machinery Co. was also offering various ball of designing equipment with Babbitt bearings, manu- bearing machines by that time. By 1923, they were facturers had become quite expert at maintaining an available as standard equipment on most manufactur- oil film between cutterhead spindles and the bearing ers machines, while a few still offered them as options. material. Many engineers still considered it the best Like wooden-framed machines, Babbitt bearing way of supporting a . As late as 1929, engineers machines continued to be sold alongside their more were still claiming that at high speed and on load Bab- sophisticated offspring, to satisfy traditionalists and

The Chronicle Volume 57, No. 1 13 Figure 5. Babbitt bearings were also used on the no. 0 improved Figure 6. The hand and planer from the L. Power & Co., panel planer, shown here as illustrated in the L. Power & Co., May 30, 1885 catalog had a square cutterhead and no guards, May 30, 1885 catalog. which made it a dangerous machine. provide cheaper machines for a market where cost In 1896 General Electric Co. developed a line of rather than quality was important. Also between 1920 1 to 150 hp ac motors. Squirrel cage motors, the most and 1930, nearly all woodworking machinery was fi- reliable and simplest of all motors, were in operation nally redesigned for direct motor drives, belted motor in the United States before 1900. drive, and ball bearings. The use of electric motors for separate woodwork- In 1909, thin high-speed knives (mounted in circu- ing machines had been greatly retarded by the lack lar cutterheads) started to appear in jointers, planers, of a public electric system. Factories basically had to molders, etc. The rubber V-belt made its appearance generate their own. around 1930. The great demands placed on industry during It was estimated that by 1887 there were fifteen World War I created the public utility system. The full motor makers in the United States, and ten thousand production capacities of the Allies were called upon to motors of up to 15 hp were in daily operation nation- supply the ever growing needs of the armies in Europe. wide. In 1893 Westinghouse Electric Co. brought out All machines had to do more, do it faster, and do it a line of advanced alternating current (ac) motors and longer. Electricity was not only quickly run into plants began generating power at the first hydroelectric plant but also into homes. Readily available electricity affected at Niagara Falls. woodworking machinery design more than any other factor. Before the decade’s end, it was discovered that an

Figure 7. This hand planer and jointer from the H. B. Smith Figure 8. This no. 5 planing and matching machine manufactured Machine Co. Jan. 1, 1887 catalog had a flat belt drive and square by H. B. Smith Machine Co.had an ornate girded open iron frame, cutterhead. a sign of an early machine. It is from Smith’s Jan. 1, 1887 catalog.

14 The Chronicle March 2004 individual motor for each machine was more Ohio (established in 1893), in 1901. efficient and a lot safer than line shafts. This latest and safest method of The April 1905 issue of The drive did not come into gen- Wood-Worker illustrated a eral use until around square-headed jointer 1910–1920, when driven directly by a the method was fi- motor and a flat belt. nally adopted by In 1906, direct cur- most woodworking rent (dc) 720-900 machinery manu- rpm motors were be- facturers. By 1904 ing coupled directly all of Crescent’s to machine counter- machines were shafts. Such a machine, available with mo- freed from lineshaft- tor drives—belt- ing, could be located ed, direct, or even absolutely anywhere geared. in the shop as work Early DMD flow dictated. These machines usually belted motor driven had a flexible cou- machines (BMD) not pling between the only eliminated the Figure 9. The guarded gears on this 26-inch patent four-roll single surface motor and spindle; dangerous belting, planer from the Defiance Machine Works catalog no. 194 (1904) is an indi- later the spindle but made it easier to cation of a later machine. itself was incorpo- properly guard the rated into the mo- machine’s moving parts. tor. DMD cutterheads improved power transmission A direct-motor-driven (DMD) bandsaw was and completely eliminated belts and pulleys, making a developed by the Crescent Machine Co. of Leetonia, machine safer, cheaper, and easier to maintain. The ac motor came into popular use circa 1919. These first motors were mounted directly on cutterhead arbors still running in Babbitt bearings. Machines with cutter spindles mounted on ball bearings and driven by direct drive motors date from 1920-1930. About 1923, the first light duty home-shop wood- working machines began to be manufactured, most designed to plug directly into a common light socket. Author Dana Batory is a geologist turned cabinetmaker who operates a small one-man shop in Crestline, Ohio, with several antique machines. He is also author of the book Vintage Woodworking Machinery—An Illustrated Guide To Four Manufacturers (Astragal Press, P.O. Box 239, Mendham, NJ 07945, [email protected], $26.45 postpaid), which also provides information on buying and restoring machinery. Autographed copies are available from the author ($30, postpaid, 402 E. Bucyrus St., Crestline, OH 44827). A second volume Figure 10. The 24-inch hand-feed planing and jointing machine will appear this spring. from the Defiance Machine Works catalog no. 194, (1904) has a modern hollow core cast iron base with a square cutterhead.

The Chronicle Volume 57, No. 1 15 Made in Philada: No. 4 by Carl Bopp The Veit Plane Makers ow and under what circumstances John Veit acquired control of the Goldsmith plane- He also used the largest name stamp (Figure 2) H making enterprise is a mystery. I suspect he that was ever put on a plane, by any planemaker! This may have been a family relative, perhaps a son-in-law. colossal stamping was used mostly on his large ’s His name is recorded in a Philadelphia directory for jointer planes and shootboards. On both a the first time in Boyd’s 1859–1860 business directory and a , “N.E.” precedes “COR. NEW MAR- under the heading “Plane Makers,” where he and three KET” making the total size larger yet. The workbench other firms are listed.1 is stamped three times, once on each end and on the Bibighaus S. H., 311 bottom front cross piece. Colton John 247 S. 2d, 407 Callowhill & One thing John Veit didn’t 1007 Market stamp on his planes was the Sheneman B. & Bro. 733 Market word “WARRANTED.” Most all other Philadelphia plane- Veit John, Green c New Market. makers of his time, including Although tradesmen are listed in the alphabetical the William Goldsmiths, used section, only the owners of a business were listed under Figure 1. John Veit’s name it on their planes. Veit may not stamp that was most com- each business heading in a directory. In the seven previ- have stamped it on his planes, ous Boyd directories, William Goldsmith was listed at monly used. From A Guide to the Makers of American but his “WARRANTED” the corner of Green and New Market.2 Wooden Planes. (Used by bench planes were featured in J. The only instance of the mysterious listing for S. permission of Astragal Press.) Goldsmith is found in a 1860 directory in the back section under “Plane Makers.”3 Goldsmith S. N.E. Green & New Market Veit John N.E. Green & New Market After 1860, even though George, Eli, and one or both William Goldsmiths are listed in the alphabetical part of the directories, they are never listed under the ”Plane Makers” heading in the business sections. John Veit is. It’s possible that John Veit had been working for the Goldsmiths for quite some time and had just come of age to be listed in the directories, at the same time he took over the business.4 Thomas and William Goldsmith Jr. each became business owners as they had just come of age. John Veit used the same street address stamp that the Goldsmiths, William Sr. and Jr. had used (Figure 1). On narrow planes that I have seen, Veit’s address stamp preceded his name stamp. Cor. New Market & Figure 2. John Veit’s huge name stamp that was used only on some large Green Street tools. The stamps in Figure 1 and 2 are shown full size. From The Catalog John Veit Phila. of American Wooden Planes. (Used by permission of Mike Humphrey.)

16 The Chronicle March 2004 B. Shannon’s 1873 catalog.5 The forward to that catalog referred to them as “Veit’s hand-made Planes.” On page 13, where his planes are listed, it reads “VEIT’S CITY MADE WARRANTED BENCH PLANES.” By 1885, J. B. Shannon had added “& Sons” to his name, and Veit’s planes were again featured in the catalog (Figure 3). Returning to our examination of the directories, in McElroy’s 1860 city directory, George Goldsmith is listed at 152 Laurel and William Goldsmith (no Sr. or Jr. used) is at 139 Green. Neither one has a shop or an occupation listed. “John Veit, planemaker” is listed with a shop and a home, “135 Green, h 601 New Market.” In the back of this directory, under the Plane Makers’ heading, is “Veit John, Green c New Market.” In 1861, Eli, George, and William Goldsmith are all listed as “Planemakers.”6 Eli’s address is “601 New Market, h r [house rear] 820 St. John”; William is listed at “601 New Market, h 137 Green”; and John Veit is listed as “planemak” N. E. New Market n Green.” The shop at 601 New Market for both Eli and William is Figure 4. A section of an 1889 curious because that was John Veit’s home address in map, showing the area around the previous directory. Green and New Market in Phila- Examining the 1864 directory, all four men are listed delphia. An 1859 map showed the same numbering, but this later map as “planemaker”— Eli at “r 820 St. John”; George at “152 is used because it lists the northeast Laurel”; William at both “139 Green, h 617 Beach”; and corner as “Plane Maker Shop.” John Veit, the same as before, “N.E. Green & New Mar- (See detail at right.) A 1875 map ket.”7 This 1864 directory is the last time any Goldsmith marks that corner as 601 New Market.

Figure 3. Page 28 of J. B Shannon & Sons catalog (1885) list- Figure 5. A large (30 inches high), well-made wooden ing some of John Veit’s bench planes. Catalog from the author’s with Veit’s stamp on it. Figures 5, 6, and 7 are from the Ken Hopfel collection. collection. All others are from the author’s collection. Photograph by Bob Garay

The Chronicle Volume 57, No. 1 17 Figure 6. A coachmakers’ double-pistol router designed to cut left or right grooves in coach work. This, like many of Veit’s better tools, is made of applewood. Photograph by Bob Garay. is listed in the alphabetical section with a shop and home locations, 135 Green and 601 New Market, are at the address.8 It seems that planemaking had been going on same northeast corner where the two streets intersect. by both Veit and the Goldsmiths at the same time. From 1865 to 1878, John Veit is listed in most Veit’s Tools all the directories as a planemaker, but his address is John Veit marked planes range from the common types given in various ways— “N. E. Green & New Market”; to the very unique. Not only planes but a variety of other “135 Green; 601 New Market”; “135 Green h 601 New tools are found today with his name on them. A large Market”; and “Green c New Market.” A map (Figure 4) wooden compass has his stamp on it (Figure 5), as does of the area helps clear up some of the puzzle. The two coachmakers’ router (Figure 6). Many of Veit’s coopers’ tools look more Ger- manic than American (Figure 7). He also made horned scrub and smooth planes that have a Germanic look to them. A hefty (47 pounds) shoot board and plane bears his marks (Figure 8). Three Veit tools are shown in Figure 9. The plane at top is a 21-inch long shipwrights-style , which has an applewood handle, but some wood experts have told me that the body and wedge are sassafras. In the middle Figure 7. Many of Veit’s coopers’ tools, such as this croze, look more Germanic than American, but his name is a 20-inch long panel- stamp—found twice on this tool—and the shape of the wedges tell us it’s an American tool. cutting with an Photograph by Bob Garay

18 The Chronicle March 2004 Figure 8. Veit’s shoot board and plane was made in various styles. This one has a unique guide mechanism for the plane. Veit’s large stamp is on the top of the fence; his small stamp is on the toe of the plane. A five-foot long coopers’ jointer in the author’s collection has the large stamp on the toe and also on the top near the mouth. On the slope going down in the mouth is the small stamp. applewood handle and bar and fence. At bottom is some kind of printers’ plane, 9 inches long with an applewood body wedge and handle. The panel cutting gauge and the printers’ plane both have metal attached to them (Figure 10). The gauge has iron screwed to the bottom of the fence and bar. The plane has an iron sole, but no screws are show- ing. Close examination reveals two thicknesses of metal. One is possibly fastened to the plane and the other probably soldered on. An x-ray of the plane (Figure 11) reveals the screws holding the first plate on. Of all the different tools that Veit made, what has to be the most Figure 9. Three Veit tools, a shipwright’s-style fore plane in sassafras (top); a panel cutting unusual is his coopers’ shaving gauge (center); and some kind of printers’ plane that still bears splashes of back ink.

The Chronicle Volume 57, No. 1 19 it. Also showing up for the first time are the names of two new planemakers, “Veit Charles, planemaker h 601 New Market” and “Veit William, planemaker h 601 New Market.” They are most likely two of John’s sons who were just coming of age. Since they show up at the same time, could it be that they were twins? In Boyd’s 1882 business directory under the head- ing “Plane Makers,” only two Philadelphia firms are noted, A. J. Colton and John Veit. At this time, wooden planemaking was on the decline. Metal and transitional planes, as well as woodworking machinery, were taking over. However, there were probably enough woodwork- ers, especially new and older immigrants, to create a Figure 10. Bottom view of panel cutting gauge and printers’ demand for the kind of tools they were accustomed to plane. The screws holding the irn plates on the gauge are visible. No screw heads or other fasteners show on the bottom of the plane. using. The Northern Liberties area of Philadelphia, where both Colton and Veit had their shops, was a horse (Figure 12). Shaving horses are thought of as magnet for European immigrants, so both had a local always being homemade. I know of no other American ready market for their products. planemaker who made one.9 The most uncommon thing For the next two years (1883 and 1884), John, about Veit’s is the cast iron clamp head. Charles, and William continue to be at the same ad- It’s cast all in one piece, from the head to the foot lever dress.12 In 1885 they were joined by Henry Veit.13 Henry and is marked it in large raised letters (Figure 13): was probably a third son just coming of age. Starting in JOHN VEIT 1885, their occupations were sometimes given as tools N. E. COR. NEW MARKET & GREEN PHILA. or toolmaker, rather than planes or planemaker, but the planemaker designation is found most often. Other Veit Puzzles In 1886, we find all four Veits living at 603, and 14 In 1879, “Cathnrine” Goldsmith, the widow of Wil- John’s shop next door at 601 New Market. From 1887 liam, is listed for the only time in a directory.10 Most to 1898 the sons (as I am calling them), are in and out 15 women were listed in the directories for only a short of the directories. Henry Veit is last listed in 1890. In time after their husbands had died. In 1880, Eli Gold- 1893, listed for the one and only time is, “Veit Barbara 16 smith is listed for the last time.11 The listing for John (John Veit) h 603 New Market.” John and Charles are Veit in this directory—“Veit John (Belum & Veit) & also listed, so I don’t think Barbara is John’s widow. planemaking B & V basketmakers 601 New Market, h The name John may be a misprint; it could have been 4 Upshur’s Ave.”—is another enigma. Evidently this Henry’s widow. (Just what we need—one more puzzle!) was a short-lived venture, as this is the only notice of For some reason, starting in 1895, John’s short

Figure 11. An x-ray of the plane in Figure 10 showing ten (five pairs) hidden screws that hold the first plate on.

20 The Chronicle March 2004 Fgure 12. John Veit’s coopers’ shaving horse. The head has no adjustment to it; instead it has four different height notches used by coopers. At this time, only five of these shaving horses are known to the author. name is abbreviated as “Jno.” Later Charles was listed as “Chas.” in the directory and William as “Wm.”17 Neither John or Jno is listed in 1899 and 1900, but we do find “Veit Charles, planes, 135 Green h 2168 N, 7th,” and in the back under “Plane Maker” only one name is given, “Veit Charles, 135 Green.”18 In 1901 and 1902, Jno is back with both a shop at 135 Green and a home at 2150 N 11th.19 John in 1903 and 1904 is only listed at 135 Green.20 The 1904 directory is the last time John’s name appears. The final listing of John Veit in the directories marks the end of one of Philadelphia’s most prolific planemakers. It is surprising that this small family enterprise was still produc- ing wooden planes on into the twentieth century. We tend to think that only a few large firms such as Chapin-Stephens in Connecticut, Ohio Tool Co., in Ohio and West Virginia, and the Sandusky Tool Co., in Ohio, made wooden planes in the 1900s. It is also a tribute to John Veit that planemaking did not stop in this shop at that time. Returning to the 1898 directory, we find Charles (“Chas.”) is only listed at his home address.21 In 1899 and 1900, the two Figure 13. A closeup of the head of the shaving horse years John is not listed, the shop at 135 Green is now under in Figure 12. John Veit’s name and address are cast in Charles’s name.22 Also in Boyd’s business directory of 1899, raised letters on one side of the neck. “Veit Charles, 135 Green” is listed under ”Plane Maker.” His is

The Chronicle Volume 57, No. 1 21 the only name listed. In 1901 and 1902, Charles is only Notes at a home address.23 It appears that Charles took over for 1. It would be my guess that this directory was probably a short time (1899 and 1900), perhaps when John was in- published in late 1859 and to make it more marketable, the date 1859–60 was used. capacitated. From 1904 until 1908, Charles reappears in 2. McElroy’s Directory (1856); Philadelphia Merchants the directory with both the shop and a home listing.24 His & Manufacturers Business Directory (1856); Bartett’s occupation during this time is simply listed as “planes.” Business Directory (1857); McElroy’s Directory (1857); He is not listed in 1909.25 In 1910 we find “Veit Augusta McElroy’s Directory (1858); Boyd’s Business Direc- tory (1858); McElroy’s Directory (1859). In “Made in wid Chas h 3070 Livingstone,” thus telling us of Charles’ Philada, No. 3” (The Chronicle 56, no. 4), it was stated end.26 However, even with his death Veit toolmaking that William Goldsmith was last listed under “Plane didn’t stop. If we return to Gospill’s 1898 directory, we Maker” in 1857; it should read 1859. 3. Cohen’s Directory (1860). find William (“Wm.”) is listed at “h 611 New Market,” 4 . The 1850 Philadelphia Manufacturing Census shows where he remains to the end of the time period covered in six hands employed by William Goldsmith. this article. From 1898 until 1901, he is listed as “tools,” 5. Shannon’s 1873 catalog reprint (William C. Cavallini, “planemkr,” “planemkr,” “toolmkr,” in that order.27 From 1972). 28 6. McElroy’s Directory (1861). 1902 to 1908, no occupation is given. From 1909 to 7. McElroy’s Directory (1864). 1911, he is listed as “toolmkr,” “planemaker,” and then 8. In “Made in Philada, No. 3” it was stated that the 1867- “toolmaker.”29 There is no occupation listed for William 68 directory also contained a shop and a home address from 1912 to 1914, but from 1915 to 1917, he is listed for William Goldsmith; this was in error. The correct years are 1861 and 1864. 30 as “peelmkr.” I assume that peelmkr meant that he was 9. Two European planemakers are known to have made making peels, long-handled wooden tools used by bakers shaving horses, John Weiss & Son in Vienna and Feron to load and unload bread from ovens (Figure 14). & CEI of Paris. 10. Gopsill’s Directory (1879). A spot check of the 1921 and 1925 directories re- 11. Gopsill’s Directory (1880). vealed “Veit Wm., realest h 611 New Market.”31 All the 12. Gopsill’s Directory (1883 and 1884). known tools made by the Veits are marked John Veit, so 13. Gopsill’s Directory (1885). it’s presumed that Charles and William continued to use 14. Gopsill’s Directory (1886). 15. Gopsill’s Directory (1890). their father’s stamp. 16. Gopsill’s Directory (1893). Today the whole area of what was New Market 17. Gopsill’s Directory (1895). and Green Streets is gone, having been completely 18. Boyd’s Directory (1899) and Gopsill’s Directory (1900). obliterated by the building of interstate 95 through 19. Gopsill’s Directory (1901 and 1902). 20. Gopsill’s Directory (1903 and 1904). Philadelphia. 21. Gopsill’s Directory (1898). 22. Boyd’s Directory (1899) and Gopsill’s Directory (1900). 23. Gopsill’s Directory (1901 and 1902). 24. Gopsill’s Directory (1904, 1905, 1906, and 1907) and Boyd’s Directory (1908). 25. Boyd’s Directory (1909). 26. Boyd’s Directory (1910). 27. Gopsill’s Directory (1898, 1899, 1900 and 1901). 28. Gopsill’s Directory (1902, 1903, 1904, 1905, 1906, 1907) and Boyd’s Directory (1908). 29. Boyd’s Directory (1909, 1910, 1911). 30. Boyd’s Directory (1912,1913, 1914, 1915, 1916 and 1917). 31. Boyd’s Directory (1921 and 1925). Author Carl Bopp writes an occasional column on Philadelphia toolmakers who usually stamped their tools PHILADa, hence the name of this column.

Figure 14. Detail from Diderot plate 449, “The Bakery,” showing an early peel in use. Courtesy Dover Publications.

22 The Chronicle March 2004 Figure 1. A circa 1931 Stanley garden tools advertisement. Stanley Garden Tools by Walter W. Jacob

arly Stanley garden tools were a product that Stanley had poised its product line to meet these rose out of the economic straits of the Great difficulties. In July of 1926, the company had acquired E Depression of the 1930s. By mid-1930, building the business of the American Tube and Stamping construction was at a standstill and sales of building Company of Bridgeport, Connecticut. The Hardware hardware was off. To offset the decline of hardware Division of the Stanley Works, in the late 1920s, sales, Stanley began developing other products, includ- was seeing the ever increasing demand for building ing garden tools. hardware. The acquisition of the American Tube and Stamping Company strengthened Stan- ley’s ability to produce hot-rolled steel and stampings, a technique that was needed to produce this new line of tools. By mid- 1931, Stanley launched a line of garden tools manufactured with all steel tube handles and stampings. They made eight short-handled and seven long-handled tools (Figure 1). The short-handled tools, when first introduced, were enameled with bright or-

Figure 3. Stanley’s sweetheart logo on a short-handled garden tool. Figure 2.The short-handled garden tools came in a variety of color combinations.

The Chronicle Volume 57, No. 1 23 ange- Figure 4 (above, left). Stanley no. 7041 full-sized trowel. colored handles with a black cap. Soon thereafter, the colors Figure 5 (above, center.) Stanley no. 7042 four-tined spading fork. were changed to an assortment of Figure 6 (above, right). Stanley cultivator no. 7043. bright orange with a black cap, red with a gold cap, blue with a yellow cap, and green with an orange cap (Figure 2). Each type tool was stamped and had a tubular handle. It was fitted with an end cap, Figure 7 (right). Stanley which was spot welded on the handle end. Each tool was no. 7044, a narrow trans- marked with the late-period (1930-1935) “sweetheart” plant trowel. mark on the top of the handle about half way down (Figure 3). Eight different tools were available. No. 7041 (Figure 4) was a full -sized trowel with a width of 3 inches and a total length of 115/8 inches. No. 7042 was a four-tined spading fork (Figure 5) with a width of 3 inches and a length of 11 inches. Each tine was 3 inches long and was used for digging around plants and shrubs. No. 7043 was a cultivator (Figure 6) with five an- gular fingers for tough weeds. It was 107/8 inches long Figure 8 (above). Staney no. 7045, and 3 inches wide. No. 7044, which Stanley advertised a two-tined spading fork. as also being useful as a lawn weeder, was a narrow- blade transplant trowel (Figure 7) with a width of 2 inches and a length of 115/8 inches. No. 7045 was a two-tined spading fork (Figure 8) 7 3 Figure 9. Stanley no. 7046, two- with a length of 10 /8 inches, a width of 2 /4 inches, and tined cultivator. 5-inch tines. Stanley advertised that this tool wouldn’t

Figure 10. Stanley no. 7047 dibble.

24 The Chronicle March 2004 Figure 11. An illustration of a hand weed cutter, Stanley no. 7048, from a catalog. clog with dirt and could penetrate hard soil. Garden tool no. 7046 was a two-tined cultivator (Figure 9) Figure 13. Stanley no. 7051 rake. similar to no. 7045 but with the tines turned at a right an attractive box (Figure 2). This set consisted of the angle, making stubby no-clog prongs. No. 7047, a dibble 7041 full-size trowel, no. 7043 short-handled cultiva- (Figure 10) used to rapidly tor, no. 7044 thin blade transplant trowel, and no. 7045 punch a hole for seedlings or two-tined spading fork. bulbs, had a curved tubular Stanley also offered seven long-handled garden handle without a cap and was tools. Each tool had a total length of 40 inches, with a 101/2 inches long. And finally, 11/16-inch diameter tubular handle with a 3/4-inch end in Stanley’s short-handled cap. The tube handles were enameled in green with an garden tool line was a hand orange enameled cap and tool head. These tools were weed cutter, no. 7048 (Figure not stamped with the sweetheart but usually had an 11). It had a flat, coarse, saw earlier period Stanley decal affixed to the tubular handle tooth-type blade. about one-third up from the bottom (Figure 12). First Stanley offered a set of in this line-up was the no. 7051 rake (Figure 13) which four of the most used short had ten tines and was small enough to get between handle tools as set no. 7040 in Figure 12. The decal used on Stanley’s long-handled garden plants and to rake out piles of leaves and grass garden tools. but large enough to be useful.

Figure 14. Stanley no. 7052 spading fork and the back of the same fork (inset) showing the reinforced back.

The Chronicle Volume 57, No. 1 25 Fiure 15. Stanley’s four-tined cultivator, no. 7053. Stanley advertised its no. 7052 (Figure 14), a 4-inch Figure 16. Stanley no. 7054 oval hoe. wide spading fork, as “comfortable to step on and to Figure 17. Close-up of oval hoe showing construction. keep the soil loosened.” The back of the fork was re- inforced by a 1/4 -inch by 1/2 -inch bar pinned into the handle (Figure 14, inset). No. 7053 (Figure 15) was a four-tined cultivator used for “shallow or deep cultivat- ing work.” This tool had a tine length of 3 inches and was 3 inches wide. Stanley no. 7054 was an oval hoe (Figure 16), which was advertised as being “especially useful for working the ground underneath low-growing shrubs.” The 55/8-inches wide hoe was fastened to a curved 7/16-inch bar that was inserted into the tubular handle (Figure 17). Stanley also made a heart-shaped hoe, no. 7055 (Figure 18), used for making troughs for seeding and, as advertised, “working the ground between crowded plants.” The line-up of long-handled garden tools also in- cluded a two-tined cultivator, no. 7056 (Figure 19), used “for rooting out garden weeds without getting down on hands and knees.” The width of this tool was 25/8 inches. Of course, any set of garden tools should have a spade or shovel. Stanley no. 7057 (Figure 20) was just such a tool. The spade blade had a total length of 6 inches and a width of 4 inches. It was reinforced in the back with an internal bar (Figure 21). Stanley also Figure 18. No. 7055, Stanley’s heart-shaped hoe as illustrated in offered the most useful “long” garden tools in a long- the company’s catalog. handled set, no. 7050. This set consisted of the no. 7052 spading fork, the no. 7053 four-tined cultivator, the no. 7054 oval hoe, and the no. 7057 spade. To compliment the long and short-handled garden tools, Stanley also manufactured the no. 7058 garden markers (Figure 22). They had a gray metal top on which one could write, with a pencil, what was planted in that area. To finish out the line, Stanley produced no. 7060 solid steel garden stakes for supporting tall plants (Figure 23). These stakes were available in 30-, 45-, and 60-inch lengths. Also, Stanley offered a fifteen- piece set which had one of each of both the long- and Figure 19. Stanley no. 7056, the two-tined cultivator showing short-handled garden tools. One dozen garden markers the front and back sides.

26 The Chronicle March 2004 were thrown in as a bonus. About February 1939, Stanley offered a deluxe ver- sion of their garden tools that were chromium plated (rather than enameled) with red enamel caps. A short- handled set of four was offered, numbered 7040cm. These sets were the same as the no. 7040 sets except for the chromium-plated finish (Figure 24). Stanley’s garden tools were displayed on a special Figure 20. Stanley no. 7057 spade or shoel. stand made to hold one example of each tool. Shown

Figure 21 (below). The same spade showing reverse side end reinforced bar.

Figure 22. Stanley’s garden markers (no. 7058).

Figure 23 (below). No. 7060, solid steel garden stakes in 30-, 45-, and 60-inch lengths.

on the cover is one of the merchandising stands with many of the tools mentioned in this article. The entire line of Stanley garden tools was nicely made and have a wonderful feel. They aren’t heavy and are a joy to work with. Stanley began producing garden tools in mid-1931 and continued manufacturing them until about 1949, when the line was dropped. Stanley did not make garden tools again until 1958, when the line was completely changed, continuing through 1975. In 1998, Stanley once again began to produce a garden line. Its success is dependent upon the large number of competitors for the home gardening market. This story is for a future historian to tell, however.

Figure 24. Stanley’s deluxe chromium-plated garden tools. Walter Jacob writes a regular column on Stanley Tools for The Chronicle.

The Chronicle Volume 57, No. 1 27 Two Burls Are Better Than One by Karl West

ou may recall a picture in The Chronicle of a huge burl placed beside the road on Route 3 in Y Ashland, New Hampshire.1 Last summer driv- ing by the same spot, I noticed a rather odd-shaped building with two burls on logs being used to hold up the front porch roof of the building (Figure 1). Stopping to investigate the building, I learned that it housed all sorts of stories beyond the porch posts, including a very elaborate “make-do.” But let me begin with the curly at the site that first caught my attention. Steve Sharps, the owner, cuts and dries this very special wood. Local - men notify him when they discover a log with curly maple effects or if they find a large burl such as the one shown here and in the earlier article. How do they know when they have found such a log? If the bark chips off you see Figure 1. An unusual burl forms part of a post on this house in Ashland, New Hampshire. a pattern such as shown in Figure 2. The backside of the bark has the same sort of pattern. Some of the logs have the old weights and cords), and copper screens for the less streaks and more “pimples” resulting in a board windows that never needed painting. Each window sold of tiger maple. Many of us have been to auctions and for five dollars. I bought many and used them when bid a bit higher because a wooden plane has a beautiful building a cottage. Yes, they were oversized, but they curly maple pattern on it. With proper construction in were good and they were cheap. the hands of a skilled cabinetmaker, what wonderful I learned that frugality was also part of the make-do results can be obtained by the craftsman. The patterns story of Steve’s building with the big windows. First I are overwhelming (Figure 3). found that when a community in East Holderness, New Steve has been building a regular community of Hampshire, wanted to form a church in 1860, the com- several homes for his family out of logs, wide boards, and munity found a barn that was available on Great Island unique designs. The focus of this article is not, however, in Squam Lake (Golden Pond). Sometime during that the burls on the porch post, but the building itself. If winter the building was dragged across the ice past a you study it, you will notice that the windows are out of small cemetery to a site on the corner of Route 3 and proportion for the building. After I heard the story of East Holderness Road. The present owner of Great the building, I understood the why of the design. As it Island claims there are still two wells on the property turned out, it was an approach that I adhere to myself. After World War II, the Squantum, Massachusetts, Na- val Air Station was being closed, and when the barracks were dismantled each window was sold complete—with the casing, the springs for the two sash (as opposed to

Figure 2. Examples of maple showing the pattern of curly maple. Figure 3. A table made with curly maple.

28 The Chronicle March 2004 and the cellar hole where the barn stood. was that as the old church in Ash- He feels that horses were kept on the land—the “Old White Church”—was island in the winter to move material no longer in use, its windows would and supplies to various parts of the lake. make-do for the Holderness Church. The East Holderness community People who remember the East now had a building that would make-do Holderness Church tell me it was a for its church, but if this building was to small community church without a be a church, it had to have more windows specific denomination. A lay preacher than would be found in a barn. or visiting speaker would preach. At the same time in nearby Ashland, They expected $5.00, but sometimes another church, St. Mark’s Episcopal the offering would be no more than Church, was undertaking a building $1.00. One person recalled people project. In a 1968 booklet celebrating putting in a penny. Usually a couple the Ashland centennial, we learn that of the parishioners would make up the church, the difference. S. Scott Davis re- …organized in 1855, thirteen years Figure 4. Steve Sharps used an interest- called that his father, Donald Davis, before Ashland separated from Holder- ing piece of wood to form this staircase. remembered that as a young boy he ness, and was incorporated as a town. For was responsible for clearing the snow three or four years, services were held in the “Old from the sidewalk and firing the woodstove in the old White Church” so called. The white wood warehouse church on Sunday mornings during the winters. of L. W. Packard and Company now stands on the The East Holderness Church closed around 1940, original foundation of that church building. The cornerstone of the present, beautiful edifice no one can remember the exact date. When it was torn on Highland Street was laid on August 10, 1859.2 down last summer, I felt it would never be seen again. David Ruell, Ashland historian, suggested to me So many buildings are removed with promises to be that there may be something to the coincidence in the relocated but never seem to get there. Well, as I learned timing of the two church building projects. The legend from Steve when I asked about his building with the unusual porch posts and the oversized windows, I had stumbled upon one more chapter in this Yankee “make do” story. Here was the church restored and repaired with love. Steve has even put his special stamp on the Whatsits building—a railing going up to a balcony storage area A Tin Tool? utilizing a most unique tree (Figure 4). isa Reber was Credits Lsent 1. “Letters,” The Chronicle 55, no. 3 (2002): 129. this whats- 2. Ashland Centennial Booklet (Ashland, N.H.: Privately published 1968). its from someone who thinks Karl West of Walpole, Mass., has written several articles for it was some sort of The Chronicle, most recently “The Smith Covered Bridge,” tinsmith tool. Lisa (54, no. 4, 2001). Karl would like to thank David Ruell, histo- thought it appeared rian, Ashland, New Hampshire; Harry Maybeck, President, to be a specialized Holderness Historical Society, Holderness, N.H.; Donald winder of some sort, Davis, Pinellas Park, Florida; D. Scott Davis, Center Har- but for what purpose? bor, N.H.; and Mary Elizabeth Nielsen, Curator, Holderness The object is metal Historical Society for providing information for this article. and approximately 12 inches long.

The Chronicle Volume 57, No. 1 29 Howland’s Hoisting Apparatus A Nineteenth- Century “Come-Along” by Elton W. Hall n September 18, 1866 OGeorge L. Howland of Top- sham, Maine, received patent no. 58,103 for his hoisting apparatus and stump puller. The machine is basically a jack achieving consider- able mechanical advantage through leverage which could be reversed for lowering objects into place by the same motion. Six months later George and William M. Howland were granted patent no. 63,251 for their improvement, an additional pawl that provided a means to double the speed of the hoist. Of course, a patent is of no value unless you can go into pro- duction and achieve some sales. By the early 1860s, Edward O. Holmes, Jr., had established him- self as a manufacturer and dealer in French burr millstones, mill machinery, and furnishings of every description, as well as and putty mills, and all machinery used in the manufacture of , improved turbines and water wheels. By 1865 his clerk, John W. Blanchard, Jr., had entered into a Figure 1. A Holmes & Blanchard’s handbill for Howland’s stump puller, circa 1868. partnership with him, and Holmes & Blanchard began doing business weight or two men will pull the largest stumps.” It was at “9 & 11 Haverhill St., Boston.” Beginning in 1868 offered in two sizes at $35 and $50. their advertisements in the Boston directories stated that they were “Sole manufacturers of Howland’s Pat- EAIA Executive Director Elton W. Hall is a frequent con- ent Hoisting Apparatus and Stump Puller, by the use tributor to The Chronicle. His review of the book, Collect- of which one man will lift or lower one or two ton’s ing Houses, also appears in this issue.

30 The Chronicle March 2004 An Unusual Plane Configuration by J. B. Cox

ecently, I found an Ohio Tool Co. smoother cal to consult Charles Prine’s work on makers in that that seemed unusual. The wedge prongs were vicinity.3 Prine discusses Hopper’s business life, which R not formed, although the wedge body itself includes seventeen years as a cabinetmaker, five of which seemed to have been professionally made, and there were prior to his patent. So it is logical for Chuck to was an iron wear plate let into the sole directly in conclude Hopper saw the need for his invention, based front of the mouth, also professionally made in appear- on his cabinetmaker’s experience.4 Chuck’s book also ance. The single uncut iron is stamped OHIO TOOL includes Hopper’s patent drawings. CO./ CAST STEEL/ WARRANTED, and the toe is In his patent, Hopper claims his invention is suit- imprinted OHIO TOOL CO. (Figure 1). Assembled in able for “fine work, where great smoothness of finish the conventional configuration (Figure 2), the mouth is required.” Hopper achieves this by forming the cast is extraordinarily wide, given the apparent little wear iron “mouth piece” (Hopper’s term for my “wear plate”) the plane has had (Figure 6). with two “arms,” one on each side projecting into the I showed the plane to Art Kushlan at a recent tool mouth, against which the toe side of the bedded iron meet, and am indebted to him for his inspired assembly rests (Figures 4 and 5). The mouth piece is cast to be of the plane — with the wedge under the iron (Figure the same width as the iron. When the iron is in place 3). When I asked Roger Smith, author of Patented Tran- against the arms of the mouth piece, a narrow mouth sitional and Metallic Planes in America, for his opinion, is formed whose width is the distance between mouth he diplomatically, but pointedly, suggested I consult piece arms and whose thickness is determined by the page 21 of his book on my tool bookshelf for identifica- length of the mouth piece arms. Hopper’s patent claims tion and a brief discussion of this configuration.1 Now, this very small throat (my plane measures 0.005 inches) having followed his advice, I am not apt to forget that “prevent[s] the plane [from] ripping or splintering Roger’s important work on patented transitional and the wood, even in the slightest degree [and] may be metallic planes contains information on wooden planes used even for planing veneers…” (Figure 6). Further, as well. the iron is held firmly against the plane body cheeks In a conventional wooden plane, the wedge is and arms by locating the wedge behind the iron so as to placed on top of the iron. How- bear against the iron’s entire ever, the inverse configuration, back, as Art Kushlan so bril- in which the wedge is placed liantly deduced (Figure 3). under the iron (Figure 3), forms a The mouth piece is lev- critical element in U.S. patent no. eled with respect to the 12234, issued January 16, 1855, plane’s sole by bearing to W.C. Hopper of Pittsburgh, against three “adjusting Pennsylvania.2 A picture of one screws” (again, Hopper’s of Hopper’s planes and an artist’s terminology) screwed into sketch of a cut-away view are the plane body; and the shown in Roger’s book. (Guess mouth piece is held against which page!) In Roger’s example, the adjusting screws by the the iron has no marks, and W.C. “screw” (no adjective here HOPPER’S/PATENT/1855 is in Hopper’s patent) passing imprinted on the toe. Having through the mouth piece now identified my plane as one and up into the plane body. patented by a Pittsburgh maker (See Figure 8, which shows and not simply as an unfinished Figure 1. Toe view of the plane in question showing the Ohio the three adjusting screws Ohio Tool curiosity, it was logi- Tool Co. imprint C4 (as noted in A Guide to the Makers of in place; the center hole is American Wooden Planes, 4th ed.).

The Chronicle Volume 57, No. 1 31 Figure 2. Side view of plane as- Figure 3 Side view of plane assembled correctly sembled in conventional fashion with wedge-under-iron. In this fashion the mouth with wedge over iron. is 0.005 inches wide, as shown in Figure 6.

for the mouth piece “screw.”) enters the plane body (Figures 4 and 5 ). Then, to com- Hopper’s patent also claims an ingenious arrange- pensate for wear, it is only necessary to resurface the ment for wear compensation. As the plane’s sole wears, sole, level the mouth piece with the adjusting screws, it is necessary to sink the mouth piece. But if the mouth and replace the mouth piece. “[A]s the edge of the piece is sunk perpendicularly to the sole, the distance mouth piece which rests against the wall of its recess, from the mouth piece arms to the iron will increase— as well as the wall … itself is beveled, the mouth piece in effect, widening the mouth. To compensate for wear in sinking into its recess, is pushed forward toward the without widening the mouth, Hopper cuts three impor- bit, just as far as the bit has receded, and their relative tant components at the same angle with respect to the position is exactly maintained, so the sides of the bit front edge of the bedded iron: the mouth piece cavity; will rest as before against the projecting arms of the the angle of the mouth piece arms that face into the mouth piece.”5 (Hopper uses the term “bit” rather than cavity; and the angle at which the mouth piece screw the more modern “iron.”)

Figure 4. Bottom view of Hopper’s plane diassembled, showing Figure 5. Side view of Hopper’s plane body showing “screw” in place three adjusting screws and the screw that holds the mouth piece and side view of the “mouth piece.” The “screw” is angled into the in the mortise. The screw is angled into the plan body as a wear plane body in a line parallel with the “arms” of the “mouth piece.” compensation feature. Below is a detail of the mark.

32 The Chronicle March 2004 is the one I now have.) Since the publication of his book, Chuck says that no reports have surfaced of Hopper-style planes imprinted with the name of any company other than Ohio Tool Co. He logi- cally concludes that it is likely that Ohio Tool made all of the Hopper-style planes.9 Figure 6. View of sole of plane assembled in conventional fashion, with the wedge over the iron. The Hopper patent’s un- Note the comparatively wide mouth. usual configuration — wedge- under-iron—is not mentioned in Richard Martin’s The Wooden Plane, Alvin Sellens’s Woodworking Planes, and John Whelan’s The Wooden Plane — at least that I have found.10 The omission in Sellens is striking because he assigns separate type numbers to five other patented smooth- ers: Type 1A11 to the Heald Figure 7. Sole view of plane correctly assembled. Patent of 1878; Type 1A12 Thus, the sketch of the Hopper patent shown in to the Palmer Patent of 1857; Type 1A13 to the Bailey Roger’s book takes “artistic license” from the patent in Patent of 1869; Type 1A16 to the Tabor Patent of two important respects. First, three adjusting screws 1885; and Type 1A15 to E.W. Carpenter’s two-wedge are needed (as the patent and logic require), rather smooth plane. Carpenter patented this arrangement in than the two illustrated in Roger’s book. Secondly, the 1849, although the patent is not mentioned in Sellens’s “screw” is angled into the body, description.11 Sellens also assigns as specified in the patent, and Type Number 1A14 to smooth visible in Figure 5, not screwed in planes with adjustable throats. at right angles, as shown in that (The example given is British, al- artistic depiction. though Sellens preface states that Chuck reports that all (about his book is “… generally limited a dozen) of the Hopper planes he to …planes made by American has seen are stamped with Hop- planemakers on a commercial per’s name and patent date on basis.”) the toe.6 But these planes use an Tom Elliott’s revision of the imprint different from Roger’s Pollaks’ American Wooden Planes example — and apparently iden- has an entry for “Wm. C. Hopper tical to that shown in A Guide to Patent” that shows an imprint the Makers of American Wooden identical to the one in Prine, and 7 Planes. But Chuck also reports Figure 8. View of “mouth piece” mortise, with mentions the one in Roger’s book that one example “marked with a the three “adjusting screws” in place and the (Elliott’s “B” imprint, but which clear Ohio Tool Co. imprint, but “screw” removed. The other holes were appar- is not illustrated, apparently no Hopper imprint” was offered ently made by an auger in forming the “mouth through oversight).12 In describ- piece” mortise. Note the mortise is angled to for sale by Michael Humphrey in ing the Hopper Patent, this entry 8 comport to the “screw” angle as well as the 1995. (It is extremely unlikely that “mouth piece arms.” does not mention the distinctive the plane offered by Humphrey The Chronicle Volume 57, No. 1 33 feature of wedge-under-iron. 2. William C. Hopper, “Bench Plane.” U.S. patent no. From this information and analysis, I infer that 12234, U. S. Patent ans Trade Mark Office, January 16, 1855. the wedge-under-iron is a rare configuration and that 3. Charles W. Prine, Jr., Planemakers of Western Pennsylva- planes made under Hopper’s patent, but not so marked, nia and Environs (Pittsburgh, Pa.: Historical Society of are rarer still. Pennsylvania, 2000). I solicit help from The Chronicle readers in finding 4. Personal communication with Chuck Prine, November and December 2003. answers to the following questions and other related 5. Hopper, patent no. 12234. ones: 6. Prine, Planemakers of Western Pennsylvania. • Are there examples of Hopper’s Patent plane having 7. Emil and Martyl Pollak, A Guide to the Makers of Ameri- can Wooden Planes, 4th ed., revised by Thomas Elliott been made by firms other than Ohio Tool Co and (Mendham, N. J.: The Astragal Press, 2001). so marked? 8. Prine, Planemakers of Western Pennsylvania. • Did Ohio Tool Co. make planes under license from 9. Personal communication with Chuck Prine, November Hopper, or wait for his patent to expire? and December 2003. 10. Richard A. Martin, The Wooden Plane (Early American • Do any readers have access to Ohio Tool Co. or Industries Association,1977); Alvin Sellens, Woodwork- other wooden plane manufacturers’ catalogs that ing Planes, A Descriptive Register of Wooden Planes (Au- show a wedge-under-iron configuration? For in- gusta, Kansas: Alvin Sellens, 1978); and John Whelan, stance, Sellens mentions that “Ohio Tool Company The Wooden Plane: Its History, Form, and Function (Men- ham, N.J.: Astragal Press, 1993). listed no less than forty-one different smoothing 11. Smith, Patented Transitional & Metallic Planes. planes in their 1901 catalog.” 12. Emil and Martyl Pollak, A Guide to the Makers of Ameri- • Witnesses to Hopper’s patent application were can Wooden Planes. N.B. Kenaston and Wm. N. Howard. Do either of Author these persons figure in other patents or were they EAIA Past President J.B. Cox describes himself as a principals or active in Ohio Tool Co. or other plane cmi “cimple-minded engineer,” who does not think of manufacturers? himself as a plane collector, in spite of the fact that, ac- Comments and relevant information gratefully cording to his wife, he owns a lot of planes. A summary received. version of this article is scheudled to appear in a future Notes issue of Pattinagram. . 1 Roger K. Smith, Patented Transitional and Metallic Planes in America, 1827, vol. 1 (Lancaster, Mass.: Roger K. Smith), 21. Also, personal communications with Roger K. Smith, November and December 2003.

Whatsits A Trapped Ham? Raymond Seguin of Fort Myers, Florida, sent this The device could be ominous-looking item (Figure 1) which appeared in expanded to accept the September 2003 issue of The Chronicle. It measures the piece of meat, and 14 inches at its longest point, and is 8 inches wide and then it was tightened 6 inches high. Ray reports that it weighs 12 pounds. to hold the ham. The The inscription on the bottom reads: “Mf ’d By Reliance large, heavy base pro- Plating Works/Louisville Ky./Patent appl’d for.” We vided stability; the suggested it might be some sort of a trap. cook could cut off Jim Moffett wrote to Whatsits Editor Ivan Risley, slices without the Figure 1 (above). A rather frighten- ing looking whatsits had a more and he had an entirely different idea. He said that (if his whole thing sliding benign purpose. memory is correct) the device was used to hold a cooked about or tipping over. ham in a vertical position in restaurants and bars.

34 The Chronicle March 2004 how to read. Through careful examination of the de- Architectural Preservationist tails, evidence of change, paint lines, holes, and a Tells Fine Collecting Story multitude of other details that the structurally illiterate by Elton W. Hall would not likely notice, she learned much about the history of the buildings with which she worked. th th Collecting Houses: 17 Century Houses–20 Cen- The collecting of buildings is not like the collecting tury Adventure by Anne W. Baker (Xlibris Cor- of woodworking tools. The pile grows more rapidly. poration, 2003). Soft cover, 232 pages, $21.99. Eventually Baker realized that she would have to do something with the treasures she had secured. As arly American Industries Association member word of her activities spread, people came to her with EAnne W. Baker has devoted a major part of her particular needs, and before long she was in business, life to the study and collection of seventeenth- and providing everything from antique architectural ele- eighteenth-century houses, principally in Rhode Is- ments to entire buildings. By this time, Baker had also land and southeastern Massachusetts. As a child she learned architectural drafting and historic research, for was “conditioned” in old houses in her grandmother’s buildings taken apart by one person to be reassembled home in Wakefield, which had been in the family since by another had to be properly documented, both in their the seventeenth century with additions by many gen- fabric and their history. erations in between. Upon inheriting the house and The knowledge and experience Baker acquired moving her own family into it, she began to discover its put her in a position to provide both contracting and history and the secrets hidden within the walls as she consulting services to those involved in architectural undertook the task of renovation. The discovery of an conservation and restoration in both the public and ancient kitchen fireplace, paneling, hand-planed joists, private sectors. The Preservation Act, the availability and other things instilled in Baker the conviction that of public funds for architectural preservation, and the the house must be properly restored work of the National Trust for Historic Preservation There were no dealers in antique woodwork in fuelled the growing interest in saving and renovating those days. Where could one find the doors, paneling, old buildings, which brought many clients to Baker sash, and other things necessary for the restoration of a seeking advice and services. The government and the house with parts dating from the seventeenth through professional points of view did not always mesh with the nineteenth centuries? Baker was aware that there the realities of practical preservation for personal use. were many abandoned farmhouses around the country- One of the areas in which Baker had to develop expertise side that were slowly deteriorating. Beginning with an was in reconciling these sometimes conflicting interests. old map that showed the locations of houses in Exeter, The last few chapters describe several particularly Rhode Island, she identified possibilities then set out significant projects including moving and restoring a to find them. Through a combination of good luck and house for herself and her family, shipping a 1720 house careful work she found houses and began salvaging to Alaska, and restoring a nineteenth-century com- doors, paneling, moldings, and boards. In the end, she mercial building in New Bedford, Massachusetts, that rescued entire houses. all but a few determined people had considered beyond The undertaking began as a personal interest, grew repair. She also describes some consulting projects in into a love of once fine old houses and their fabric, and which she fought the good fight, did not prevail, but resulted in a substantial collection. In the course of worked out the best compromise. the work, she encountered other people with similar This is a fascinating, personal story, well told in interests from whom she learned much about the ar- a low-key style with a good sense of humor and no chitectural styles and construction details of the houses attempt at self-aggrandizement. It will appeal greatly she was saving. She also learned many techniques to collectors of any kind of historical material, those for removing architectural elements and dismantling involved in architectural preservation, or in fact anyone buildings without damaging the fabric. She studied the who relishes a good, New England personal narrative. work of Norman Isham and other early architectural historians. But the most important source of informa- tion was the buildings themselves, which she learned

The Chronicle Volume 57, No. 1 35 Plane Chatter The Plane Whose Arms Are Too Long by J. M Whelan hy do some planes use a straight escapement plane, which may be required to cut a groove, Wand some a round or “rabbet” eye? Herb Kean1 the filletster will only cut a rabbet. The sole-mounted proposed that the round escapement was only formed fence of the moving filletster does not allow cuts with on planes that might be expected to “plow”; i.e. to cut both sides of the iron penetrating below the surface. a groove sunk below the wood surface on both sides of The filletsters with arm-mounted fences seemed to the cut. His rationalization has stood up on examina- call the principle into question. Sash filletsters use the tion of many hundred examples. and dadoes straight escapement; the putty groove in sash members use the round escapement, as both may be called on to is a rabbet, never a plow cut. Arm filletsters with irons cut a groove rather than a rabbet. that do not fill the full width of the stock are also fitted The filletsters without arms, either standing or with straight escapements. But many of these planes moving, use a straight escapement. In contrast to the having full-width irons (including the combination fil- letsters) use round eyes. Why? The tip-off is the length of their fence arms. If the tool were intended only to cut rabbets, the fence would never be required to be located outboard of the plane’s sole, and only short arms would be needed. The extra cost of making the round escapement and the longer fence arms would not have been toler- ated without good reason. It implies that the tool was expected to be able to cut a groove as well as a rabbet. Where would a wide groove be needed? One pos- sibility is cutting an extra-wide rabbet, wider than your filletster. It would be a mistake to rabbet the edge first: the fence would have no surface to guide it for subse- quent cuts. It is necessary to cut a groove starting at the inner edge of the required rabbet, then follow this with Figure 1. Filletster cutting a groove. a matching rabbet cut with the same plane (Figure 1).

Figures 2 and 3. Arrowmammett long-arm filletster. Left, top view; right bottom view.

36 The Chronicle March 2004 The only exception to the use of a round eye on a taken from inventory and used, rather than making a long-arm filletster to surface so far (barring obviously single proper set. These planes were not made in large homemade examples) is the Arrowmammett long-arm numbers, so this does not stretch credulity too far. filletster of the photographs (Figures 2 and 3); it has Thanks to Bob Garay for the photographs, and to a straight escapement. The iron edge does not extend Herb Kean for spotting this oddity and for permission over the full width of the sole, so that it could not cut to use Figure 1 from his article. a groove—any more than a simple moving filletster Herb and this column would be delighted to hear could. Setting the fence further out than the edge of the of other exceptions to his generalization. throat does not work. Why, then, was the tool made? The first impulse is to assume that someone mar- Notes 1. Herb Kean, Tool Shed (crafts of New Jersey, no. 117, ried the plane with a long-arm fence (especially as the June 2001): 1, 4-7. arms are, unusually, of maple). If so, it was a careful job: the fence and nut profiles are Arrowmammett. A J. M. Whelan’s “Plane Chatter” is a regular feature in The likely explanation is that the plane was made in the Ar- Chronicle. rowmammett factory, but that the proper short arms were out of stock. A pair of long arms and nuts were Whatsits: Wrap it Up ern Voss of Medford, Oregon, owns this chisel Youngstown, Ohio.” The question is, why is it wrapped V(Figure 1). What is unusual about it is not its in paper? business end, but the handle, which is wrapped in paper. It has been struck, but maybe it wasn’t supposed to have been. Mr. Voss notes that the brown paper (.010 inches thick) is just rolled along the shank, but is not glued. Mr. Voss thinks it is a glaziers’ chisel and is marked “Realance, Figure 1. A chisel with a wrapped handle.

Or Cut it Up? he item in Figures 2 and 3 Twas sent in by Anne Fr- ish of Waterford, Connecticut. She identifies it as a “core and cut tool,” but does not know its purpose. Its diameter is 13/4 inches and is 7 inches long. Anne reports that the material is steel Figure 2. A cutting tool? At left it is in the folded position. with some kind of plating and Figure 3. (right) The interior of the whatsits. that it is magnetic. It is marked “PAT. May 8-23.” It has a cut- ting edge beveled on the inside of the diameter with two arc shaped cutters on the inside operated by the handles. Perhaps some kind of plug cutter? It has hardly any overall wear.

The Chronicle Volume 57, No. 1 37 38 The Chronicle March 2004