The “combination plane” was developed to create a woodworking tool that would perform multiple functions and free a workman from having to own a large number of individual planes.  Over a 50-year time span in the second half of the 19^th century numerous inventors patented and produced a broad array of combination planes.[i] Many of these planes made it into production but few achieved commercial success.  By far the most commercially successful American made combination planes were those produced by the Stanley Rule & Level Company.  Stanley acquired Charles Miller’s patent, No. 104,753, issued June 28^th, 1870, for a beautifully designed and very functional combination plane and immediately made it available to their customers in four models, labeled No.41 thru No. 44 in their catalogs (See Figure 1).[ii]

Shortly after introducing the Miller’s Patent plane, Stanley acquired Rufus Dorn’s patent, No. 129,010, issued on July 16, 1872 for an adjustable dado plane. (See Figure 2)[iii]  

 Stanley quickly (maybe too quickly!) began to manufacture this plane in cast iron. As seen in Figure 3, the Dorn’s Patent plane offered by Stanley carries many of the same design characteristics seen in the No. 41 thru No. 44 combination planes suggesting that Charles Miller played a significant role in both the design aesthetic and possibly the mechanical design as well. 

If Stanley had followed their existing catalog numbering scheme for combination planes, the Dorn’s patent would have logically been given the catalog number “45”, but the plane didn’t perform well and was offered by Stanley for only a short time in 1872. It was never illustrated in a Stanley catalog and because of its short lifespan was never assigned a catalog number.  Stanley no doubt heard about the Dorn’s Patent plane’s shortcomings from workmen who purchased the plane. In response, Justus Traut applied his inventive talents to improving the plane.  Just eight months after Dorn was granted his patent, Traut was granted patent No. 136,469 on March 4, 1873, for a skewed cutter plow, dado, filletster and match plane. It was a marked improvement over the Dorn’s Patent plane, and Stanley wasted no time in discontinuing manufacture of the Dorn’s Patent plane. 

Traut’s plane is a reworked version of the Dorn’s patent which eliminated the “swing out” cutting iron and provided solid support for cutting irons of various widths. It became the Stanley No. 46 “Skew Cutter Combination Plane” (See Figure 5).[iv]   

In 1876, Stanley introduced the No. 47 Adjustable Dado Plane.  The No. 47 was a stripped-down version of the No. 46 designed to cut dadoes.  It came without a fence and fewer cutting irons (See Figure 6).[v]

No new additions were made to Stanley’s line of combination planes until seven years later when Justus Traut submitted a patent application on October 17, 1883, for the plane that would become the Stanley No. 45 Combination Plane. 

Up until this point Stanley had assigned sequential numbers to their line of combination planes as they were introduced, but the number “48” had already been assigned to their tongue and groove plane so Traut’s new combination plane was given catalog No. 45. Stanley offered the plane to their customers as soon as Traut applied for his patent so some were sold before March 11, 1884 when Traut was granted patent No. 294,825 for this plane. The text of Traut’s patent describes the evolution of the combination planes that were already part of the Stanley line. He stated in his patent that, “In my improved plane I combine a beading and center-beading tool, plow, dado, fillister and rabbet, matching-tool, and slitting-tool.” It was truly a multipurpose woodworking plane. The Stanley No. 45 was an immediate success and the plane evolved over the years and remained in production until 1962.[vi] Figure 8 shows an example of a “Type 1” No. 45 from the years 1883-1885.

By 1893, nickel plating replaced the japanning on the No. 45 and a mechanical cutting iron adjuster was added to the plane.  The cutting iron adjuster consists of a threaded rod with a small pin at the end which engages a slot in the cutting iron.  A cast iron wheel is threaded onto the rod between two supports on the main body of the plane. Also, hollow and round attachments in four sizes along with a nosing tool and beading cutting irons for reeding also became available at an additional cost. The plane was selling well and Stanley was marketing the No. 45 vigorously.[vii]

On September 19, 1893 Eppie J. McCulloch of Manchester, New Hampshire was granted patent No. 505,119 for an “auxiliary stock” that adjusted both vertically and laterally allowing the Stanley No. 45 to be used with an irregularly shaped cutting iron e.g. a cove, ogee, or molding profile cutting iron (See Figure 9). Figure 10 shows what appears to be McCulloch’s working model for this “auxiliary stock.” Stanley quickly recognized the value of McCulloch’s invention and acquired the patent rights shortly after the patent was issued.[viii]

Justus Traut and the men working in his shop at Stanley adapted McCulloch’s invention to work with the Stanley No. 45.  Figure 11 shows the Stanley Model Shop version of their efforts. 

It looks like a Stanley No. 45 with McCulloch’s “auxiliary stock.” Figure 12 shows the Model Shop Version of McCulloch’s auxiliary stock.

Model Shop No. 526 is present in black paint on the toe of the plane and remnants of the same number are present on the tote in white paint (See Figures 13 and 14).

It’s difficult to date this prototype, but it has characteristics that are similar to those seen on Stanley No. 45 planes from between 1895 and 1897.[ix] What’s most startling about this plane is the “No. 145” cast into the main body of the plane (See Figure 11). There are some significant differences between this prototype plane and the No. 45 planes being sold by Stanley at the time.  The body of the Model Shop plane from the base of the rear tote to the toe is 10” long while the same measurement on a No. 45 is 9½”. The space between the fence rods is 4½” while it’s just 4” on the No. 45. Stamped into the skate on both the main body and the auxiliary stock are 1/16^th inch gradations to assist in setting the depth of cut. (See Figures 15 and 16).  There was no sliding fence found with this plane.

Stanley’s catalog numbering system for identifying their planes was sequential and logical at least initially. It started out with the No. 1 smooth plane and progressed through the No. 8 jointer plane.  The system was adopted from the one used by Leonard Bailey. The numbering system became more complicated with the addition of block planes, transitional planes, and the ever-increasing number of specialty planes.  However, when improvements or modifications were made to an already existing Stanley plane, often a “1” or a “2” or even a “3” was added to the existing catalog number to designate a “new and improved” model.[x]

The presence of No. 145 on this Model Shop plane suggests that Stanley was considering introducing this plane as a new and improved version of the No. 45.  But it was not to be. In 1893 the nation entered an economic depression that was the worst in U.S. history to that point and this Model Shop No. 145 got put back on the shelf.[xi]  Stanley Rule & Level Company suffered along with the rest of the country and struggled through the depression. They cut prices, trimmed their workforce and didn’t introduce any new woodworking planes during the worst years of the depression.  Despite the faltering economy, work in the Model Shop continued and Traut along with his creative machinists continued to develop new tools and improvements to those already in the Stanley line. The work on adapting Eppie McCulloch’s invention continued during these years as well. Traut and one of his employees, Edmund A. Schade incorporated Eppie McCulloch’s auxiliary stock into a new multipurpose plane that was, at the time, a marvel of complicated plane making.[xii] Traut and Schade applied for a patent on June 20, 1894, and were granted patent No. 532,842 on January 22, 1895 (See Figure 17).

McCulloch’s “auxiliary stock”  became the “sliding section B” as seen on the Stanley No. 55 with provision to attach the “auxiliary center bottom C” and the depth stop “J” (See Figure 18 and please accept my apologies for all this confusing jargon!).

Because of the ongoing economic depression, the plane was not put into immediate production.  When the economy began to recover Stanley responded by introducing a profusion of new planes between 1896 and 1898.[xiii] Chief among these was the Stanley No. 55 Universal Combination Plane which first became available for sale in 1897 (See Figure 19).

Traut and Schade’s new multipurpose plane was granted catalog No. 55. Stanley described the plane in their advertising as “A Planing Mill Within Itself”. This daunting tool came with four boxes of cutting irons, two fences, the Eppie McCulloch auxiliary stock, and 20 pages of instructions. Using a Stanley No. 55 is an adventure in patience, perseverance and practice.

This Model Shop No. 145 never made it into production but remains a fascinating evolutionary link in the line of combination planes produced by the Stanley Rule & Level Company.

By Paul Van Pernis

Author’s note – Thanks to Jim Leamy for the use of the photograph in Figure 10.  Is there anyone out there who has done or is willing to do a Stanley No 55 type study?

[i] See Patented Transitional & Metallic Planes In America (PTAMPIA) Volumes I & II, by Roger K. Smith, 1981, 1992 for more information regarding American combination planes.

[ii] The No. 41 and No. 43 Miller’s patent adjustable plow planes are cast iron with a japanned finish.  The No. 42 and No. 44 are gunmetal (a bronze alloy). The No. 42 has japanning in the recessed portions of the casting, while the No. 44 has no japanning on the body of the plane. Both the No. 41 and the No. 42 have a removable fillister bed.  The No. 43 is identical to the No. 41 but without the fillister bed and the No. 44 is identical to the No. 42 but lacks the fillister bed. Stanley made all four versions of the plane available in 1871.   

[iii] The patent drawing for Dorn’s plane shows a swing out cutting iron attached to a wood body skewed dado plane. Dorn added the swing out cutting iron to a skewed dado plane which theoretically would have allowed the user to cut dadoes of varying widths by simply changing the angle of the swing out cutting iron.  While an interesting idea, the swing out cutting iron was not adequately supported making the plane impractical and Stanley discontinued sales of the plane. Because it was offered for probably less than one year, therefore, examples of Dorn’s patent dado plane as manufactured by Stanley are rare.

[iv] The Stanley No. 46 first appeared in a Stanley catalog in 1874 and remained in production until 1942. From 1873-1883 the No. 46 was supplied with 10 cutting irons, from 1884-1918 it was supplied with 11 cutting irons, and from 1919 to 1942 it was supplied with 12 cutting irons.  See Roger Smith’s type study of the No. 46 in PTAMPIA II, pages 357-359.

[v] See PTAMPIA I, pages 227-230 for more information regarding the Stanley No. 46 and No. 47. The No. 47 was in production from 1876 to 1923.

[vi] For an excellent review of the Stanley No. 45 see, The Stanley “Forty-Five” Combination Plane, by David E. Heckel, published by Forty Five Publishing, Charleston, Illinois, 2002.

[vii] See, The Stanley “Forty-Five” Combination Plane, by David E. Heckel for an excellent type study and further information regarding the cutting irons and attachments that were available for the Stanley No. 45.

[viii] Further information on Eppie J. McCulloch can be found in Roger K. Smith’s PTAMPIA II, pages 232-233.

[ix] Interestingly there was a major change in the Stanley No. 45 that took place in 1895.  See The Stanley “Forty-Five” Combination Plane, by David E. Heckel, published by Forty Five Publishing, Charleston, Illinois, 2002, pp. 28-31.

[x] For example, the No. 13 circle plane became the No. 113 circle plane, the No. 41 Adjustable Plow Plane became the No. 141, Bullnose Adjustable Plow Plane, the No. 43 Adjustable Plow Plane became the No. 143, Bullnose Adjustable Plow Plane, etc.  The No. 78 Duplex Rabbet & Filletster Plane became the No. 278 Rabbet & Filletster Plane, and then the No. 378 Weather Strip Rabbet Plane (makes one wonder if there’s a No. 178 out there somewhere).

[xi] In April 1893 the U.S. Treasury’s gold reserves fell below $100 million, setting off a national and international panic as investors, fearing that the country would be forced to abandon the gold standard, scrambled to sell off assets and convert them to gold. The Philadelphia and Reading Railroad collapsed as well as 50 other railroads. Bank failures spread rapidly throughout the country with four thousand banks going under by the end of 1893. It’s estimated that fourteen thousand businesses collapsed during this depression and unemployment rates soared. This was the worst depression in U.S. history up to that time, and the economy didn’t really recover until 1897.

[xii] Edmund A. Schade was a prolific inventor with 54 patents to his credit who worked at Stanley Rule & Level Company for 59 years and was the mechanical superintendent at Stanley from 1900-1932.  For more information on E.A. Schade see Roger I. Smith’s PTAMPIA II, pp.224-228.

[xiii] Stanley introduced: The No. 40, No. 57, No. 71½, No. 83, and No. 98 in 1896, the No. 20, No. 55, and the No. 99 in 1897, and the No. 60, No. 65, No. 69, No. 90, No. 100, and the No. 220 in 1898.

Annual meetings are great ways to meet with fellow EAIA members to learn about common interests, share knowledge about tools, trades and crafts and to visit exciting destinations. In May of 2020, the EAIA annual meeting will be held in historic Staunton, Virginia.

Staunton’s name is pronounced without the “u” so when you hear its name said it sounds like “Stanton.”  The reason for this pronunciation is lost to history, but suffices it to say citizens of Staunton always pronounce it “Stanton,” so that’s what I’ll do too!

In 1915, Staunton mayor Hampton Wayt addressed a Convention “I always speak in a modest vein when I speak of Staunton, the Queen City of the Valley. It is called Staunton from the wife of a former governor of this State, who was a woman of queenly graces of mind and heart. It received its name of the Queen City of the Valley because at one time it was the county seat of the largest county in the world, larger than Germany or France, and even larger than most of the principalities of Europe.”

Staunton was settled in 1732. It was named for Lady Rebecca Staunton, wife of colonial governor Sir William Gooch. It was the capital of the Northwest Territory from 1738 to 1770. The Virginia General Assembly established Staunton as a town in 1761, and the town was formally incorporated in 1801. It became the home to several important public institutions early in the 19^th Century. A “lunatic” asylum was established as well as a school for the “deaf, dumb & blind,” one of the first in America, there was also a seminary for women. Because the railroad joined the Shenandoah Valley and Richmond it became an important place for commerce in the region. Many mills and grain storage buildings were built and during the Civil War it was occupied by both Confederate and Union troops, the Union troops destroyed much of the industrial infrastructure but small businesses and private homes were sparred. No major battles were fought there but the battle of New Market just a few miles up the Shenandoah Valley was fought to protect the vital confederate railroad supply link to Richmond.

Today Staunton is home to several institutions of higher learning, a vibrant downtown, and several museums and historic sites of importance. It is the birthplace of Woodrow Wilson, so there is a museum and his Presidential library just a block from the historic Stonewall Jackson Hotel-our meeting headquarters. Adjacent to the hotel is the American Shakespeare Center & Blackfriars theatre, a recreation of Shakespeare’s original indoor theatre. Made of Virginia white oak it is a faithful reproduction of the London original, a must see even if there is no performance!

The Camera Heritage Museum is a quirky downtown storefront that exhibits cameras of every kind, size and type from Daguerreotypes to miniature spy cameras. Glassblowing demonstrations are presented daily at the Sunspots Studio, and art and history galleries are found at the Smith Center for History & Art.

The Virginia Museum of Frontier Culture will be the site of many of our activities and there will also be a day at Thomas Jefferson’s Monticello, in nearby Charlottesville.

The theme of the 2020 meeting? “From Forest to Farm, Tools that Tamed the Frontier”

As this is just a teaser to introduce you to the region, I will leave you with a few photos and a promise of lots of more information over the coming months!

John H. Verrill, Executive Director

As part of the overall initiative to bring woodworking and cabinetmaking back to prominence at Old Sturbridge Village, the Village is hosting an all-day Woodworking Forum “Tools, Techniques and Traditions” on Saturday, October 19. The Forum is one of the activities leading up to the construction of the new Cabinetmakers Shop on the OSV Common. The Shop, fundraising for which was initiated by an anonymous matching grant from an EAIA member, is scheduled to open in time for the Village’s 75th Anniversary in 2021.

The Forum will be characterized by scholarly presentation based on research through primary sources as well as hands-on activities, both of which are unique strengths of the Village….and are of great interest to EAIA’s membership.

The program will start with a keynote address from Brock Jobe, Professor Emeritus, Winterthur Museum, entitled
“Setting Up Shop: An Introduction to the Work Spaces of Woodworkers in America, 1750-1850”.  Based on his extensive research, Brock will explore the working environments of cabinetmakers, their daily routine, and the challenges they faced to earn a living wage.

Following the keynote address there will be concurrent 1 ½ hour hands-on workshops in the morning followed by lunch at the Village’s historic Bullard Tavern. The concurrent hands-on workshops will repeat in the afternoon.

Workshops include:

19th Century Cabinetmaking: Tools and Techniques
Chris Nasisse, Furniture Maker, The Green Woodshop; Cabinetmaker, Old Sturbridge Village. This workshop includes an introduction to the tools and methods used in a period shop, guided instruction and time for lots of hands-on work with bench and molding planes, drawknife and shaving horse, foot-powered treadle lathe and other traditional woodworking techniques.

Alden Spooner Chest – OSV Collection

Furniture Up Close: An Examination of the Work of Alden Spooner
Brock Jobe, noted furniture scholar, will lead an up-close examination of furniture in the Old Sturbridge Village collections made by Athol, MA cabinetmaker Alden Spooner. Included will be an important chest made by Spooner which was recently acquired by the Village.

Tool Marks Tell Stories
Mike Updegraff, Editorial Assistant, Mortise & Tenon Magazine, will explore the significance of tool marks on period furniture, demonstrate how they were made, and discuss the skill and efficiency needed to produce furniture in a period shop.

Forge a Holdfast
Derek Heidemann, Coordinator of Historical Crafts, Old Sturbridge Village, will lead a hands-on session in the Village’s Museum Education Blacksmith Studio to explore the relationship between woodworkers and blacksmiths particularly with respect to toolmaking by leading the participants in forging their own holdfast. Derek should be familiar to many EAIA members as he delivered presentations and lead hands-on workshops at 3 recent EAIA events.

Woodworking and Cabinetmaking Primary Sources in the Old Sturbridge Village Research Library
Amy Hietala, Librarian, Old Sturbridge Village, will lead a session on the pattern books, account books, business records and correspondence. These are just some of the unique cabinetmaking-related materials held in the Old Sturbridge Village Research Library. She’ll provide an up-close look at records connected to Samuel Wing, Solomon Sibley, Nathan Lumbard and more.

Dewey & Bulkley Invoice – OSV Archives

The Forum will provide a uniquely informative and hands-on experience with woodworking and cabinetmaking of the period of the Village. It’s also a continuation of the great initiative to re-establish cabinetmaking interpretation at the Old Sturbridge Village of which EAIA can be very proud to be a part.

Details of the Forum and on-line registration are available on the Old Sturbridge Village website here. Old Sturbridge Village expects the workshops to fill up quickly and will be filled on a first-come, first-served basis so register early if you’re interested in this fascinating immersive experience in woodworking and cabinetmaking of the early 19th Century.

Bob Roemer, EAIA Director and OSV Trustee

We came, we were busy, we saw and learned a lot, and we had a great time! That pretty much sums up the 2019 Early American Industries Association’s Annual Meeting in Lowell, Massachusetts.  After a Spring filled with rain and cold weather the clouds finally broke, the sun appeared and tailgating started in earnest on Wednesday morning at our hotel, the Westford Regency Inn & Conference Center. 

Tools of every description came out of trunks and the back ends of lots of vehicles.  The usual feeding frenzy began, tools changed hands and both sellers and buyers were smiling at the end of the day.

            Everyone settled into their rooms at the Westford Regency Inn & Conference Center and on Thursday morning we were ready to board the buses for Lowell after a breakfast buffet and a spate of announcements.  We had a full and fascinating day in Lowell with visits to the Lowell National Historical Park and the New England Quilt Museum. 

The park rangers did a wonderful job as we toured the Boott Cotton Mill and its museum. We gained an understanding of the life of the “mill girls” who worked and lived in Lowell and the stories of the immigrants who followed in their footsteps.

The boat tour of the Lowell canal system was fascinating and helped us understand what an amazing engineering marvel it was. 

We lingered in St. Anne’s Episcopal Church built with stone taken from the canals and were awestruck by the incredible quilt display at the New England Quilt Museum. 

The Lowell trolley was a great way to get from place to place during the day. It was a full day and everyone managed to put their feet up for a bit before the Thursday Ice Cream Social and the Whatsit’s Session. Terry and Donna Page did a great job of helping us unravel the mystery of the Whatsits.  Some we identified, and others remained “Whatsits”!

            Friday dawned cloudy and a bit rainy, but we were inside for the day and what a day it was.  From workshops on weaving, spinning, decorative plaster casting, blacksmithing, 19^th century candy making, flintknapping, and cross stitch we all had a busy and wonderful day of learning and trying our hand and new and varied early American industries.

We enjoyed presentations on everything from 18^th century American woodworking planes, Civil War soldier’s quilts, historic furniture upholstery techniques, American cider making, gilding on book bindings, recreating a rotary gridiron and discovering the hidden proportions of a gentleman’s dressing table.  There was something of interest to everyone in attendance.

A large group took a tour of The Starrett Tool Factory in Athol on Friday morning as well.  It was great fun!  The Fine Tool Journal put on a great auction with 323 lots of antique tools going across the auction block on Friday evening.

            On Saturday morning the hotel ballroom was filled with tool traders and a wonderful variety of displays by our members.

  Outside the hotel blacksmith Richard Wright was at his forge and a John Deere hit and miss engine was cranking an old-fashioned ice cream freezer.  We all got to sample some delicious ice cream. Our 2019 Annual Meeting ended with a fun filled Silent Auction filled with lots of wonderfully diverse items, many of them hand crafted by EAIA members.  After a great meal, we held the 2019 EAIA Annual Meeting.  Tom Elliott was presented with the J.D. Hatch award for all his research and writing about early American plane makers. 

We ended the evening with “Once in a Blue Moon,” a magic lantern slide show of rare 19^th century astronomical magic lantern slides presented courtesy of the Institute for Industrial Art & History located in nearby Andover, Massachusetts.

           Whew!  It was a whirlwind three days of museums, learning, fellowship and fun.  I hope everyone had as much fun as we did!  Thanks to all of our talented presenters, lecturers and workshop hosts. We have so much talent within our membership and it’s wonderful to see our members share those gifts, talent, and knowledge with the rest of us.  We’ll look forward to another great annual Meeting in 2020 in Staunton, Virginia!

Your 2019 EAIA Annual Meeting Co-Hosts

Paul & Eileen Van Pernis and Bill & Alyssa Rainford

In almost every woodworking class I teach in Covington, Ky., there’s at least one student who has driven through Ohio to get there who has stopped at Colonial Homestead in Millersburg. Every one of them tells me it’s among the most awe-inspiring stores for vintage tools they’ve ever seen (along with Hulls Cove Tool Barn in Bar Harbor, Maine).

Until last week, I simply had to trust them; now I know they were all right. My tool knowledge is for the most part limited to “user tools” rather than collectibles, so I don’t know if there are truly rare finds to be had – but I have to think, with such a wide array, there must be.

Below is but a glimpse at what’s inside. If you ever find yourself in the Amish region of northeast Ohio, make a point of stopping by to see for yourself. And don’t miss the antique furniture display; the store’s owner, Dan Raber, has a good eye for that, too.

But my favorite find was this Nicholson bench in the wild (I published a reprint of Peter Nicholson’s “Mechanic’s Companion,” in which the bench was, to the best of my knowledge, first published, so I’ve a soft spot for the form).

by Megan Fitzpatrick

The first yearly antique tool auctions bring tool collectors out of their winter hibernation as surely as the vernal equinox marks the coming of Spring. One of the highlights of this “Rite of Spring” is Martin Donnelly’s “Live Free or Die” spring tool auction.  This long-standing tradition rekindles friendships young and old, provides a chance to find some tools for one’s collection and is a great opportunity to see and examine the “best of the best” tools offered in the auction. At the May 2018 Donnelly auction a special “Rule Collector’s Showcase” took place at the Friday night “Gala Preview Sale”.  Eleven rule collectors from across America were on hand exhibiting diverse and interesting measuring instruments from their personal collections.  Scott Lynk coordinated this event and described how it became a reality. “At the fall Donnelly Tool Auction last year, a group of rule collectors got together as we have been doing for many years at past Donnelly auctions.  We often bring new rules we’ve found to show and tell, and we share our research information.  A discussion started about the possibility of having a rule exhibition at the next Spring Donnelly auction.  I spoke to Martin about our idea and he responded enthusiastically.  Over the winter I contacted people I thought might be interested in participating in the event and the response was overwhelming.  Eleven people responded back.  Tonight, as I look around the room and see the exhibits, I’m amazed at the beautiful rules and squares on display.” The exhibitors on hand for the showcase were very knowledgeable about the rules they displayed and could be seen interacting with the many people in attendance. One person in attendance commented, “There is much knowledge on display here tonight!”

The exhibitors included:

           Scott Lynk of Vergennes, Vermont is an avid rule collector and author of the book, Stanley “Special” & Custom Rules. Scott has researched, written and published many articles on his favorite subject, Stanley rules. Scott’s current interest and research interest is the “special” rules produced by Stanley Rule & Level Company. Scott displayed 25 rules including some of his recently acquired Stanley special rules. Scott commented, “My display shows Stanley Model Shop and special rules.  Some of the rules were marked ‘SPECIAL’ by the company, while others have been determined to be special by observation in relationship to the general line of Stanley Rules.  These rules are usually not observed in Stanley catalogs.”

           Tom Whalen, from Marshfield, Massachusetts is co-author of the book, “From Logs to Lumber”, on log and caliper rule makers who worked in New England.  Tom’s display included 40 examples of board and log rules representing New England log rule makers from 1831 to the late 1940’s.  Tom was excited to see all his rules on exhibit. “I usually only have a few on display in my house at any one time because of space.  My rules are huge compared to the other exhibitors’ and mine don’t fold up.”

One rule in his collection that got lots of attention was an R.B. Haselton ¼ scale replica of Haselton’s standard size cubic measuring log caliper. The rule, only 12½ inches long is stamped with over 3000 figures so small that Tom had a magnifying glass on hand so people could get a good look at the rule (See Figure 4). Tom commented that, “This rule represents the best of rulemaking.  There are over 3000 blacked figures each ⅛ of an inch tall laid out and perfectly hand stamped around the perimeter of the board.  The figures are barely recognizable to the naked eye.  Haselton’s skill were certainly up to the task.”

            Ted Ingraham who hails from Ferrisburg, Vermont, displayed a wonderful collection of early 17^th and 18^th century carpenter’s framing squares.  Ted is an authority on framing squares and has done extensive research on the topic.

His display (See Figure 5.) detailed the evolution of the framing square from the early 17^th century thru the early 20^th century including several examples from the Eagle Square Company of South Shaftsbury, Vermont. The Stanley Rule & Level Company acquired the Eagle Square Company in 1916.  Most of the squares in Ted’s display were dated, with the earliest one is dated 1737 along with the maker’s initials.

He also displayed an early 17th century English framing square in which the full inches and half inches are laid out on the main body of the square with no markings on the tongue (the short arm of the framing square) of the square which was common on squares from that time period. This square is marked with “dog bones” which refers to the shape of the number “1” digits on the square (See Figure 7. ). The “1” has an arching serif on the top and bottom of the bar. This form of the digit fell out of use in the 1650’s so Ted believes this helps date the square to the first half of the 17th century.

            John Harkness of Salem, Massachusetts has been a rule collector for over 35 years and is well known for his discernment in acquiring rules of only the best quality.  When John’s rule collector friends find a rule in absolute mint condition, they refer to the rule as “Harkness quality”. John’s theme for his exhibit was “Lumber & Board Rules” and included 35 rules from different American makers including Stanley, Haselton, Belcher Brothers and Chapin-Stevens all in mint or near mint condition. 

Johns favorite rule on display was a brass bound satin wood board scale with a built-in tally that is unique amongst board rules (See Figure 8.).  The unsigned rule has brass nuts that move along the beam keeping a running tally of the board feet measured up to a total of 1000 board feet.

           Mark Levanway of Athens, New York, a woodworker by trade, has had a keen interest in antique woodworking tools for over 25 years. Mark has a strong interest in E.A. Stearns rules that were made in Brattleboro, Vermont.  Mark made a beautiful display case just for this event and it housed 25 E.A. Stearn’s rules represented the diversity of the Stearn’s rule making operations. Mark’s favorite is a Stearn’s No. 47 ivory and German silver 4-fold rule with arch joints.

            Phil Cannon of Oak Lawn, Illinois is well known by rule collector through his website www.pactu.com. Phil’s website provides a comprehensive list of American rule makers and always has new and interesting information to share.  It’s well worth your time to pay a visit to Phil’s website.  Phil’s theme for the showcase was “Early Hook bound Rules from Massachusetts” (See Figure 10).  Phil had several examples of early American rules with hook bindings made by Stanford & Rook, Anthony Gifford, William H. Rook, and Joseph Watts.

Phil explained that the hook binding’s purpose is to prevent the brass bindings from breaking away from the rule.  A square hook is bent into the brass binding and set into the wood as a means of securing the brass binding to the body of the rule.  This feature is seen only on rules produced in Massachusetts prior to 1850.

            Bill Youart of Stephensport, Kentucky describes himself as an “avid” Stanley rule collector since 1988.  Bill brought a fascinating display of Stanley rules he titled “Doubles, Triples, and Quads”.   The title refers to rules produced by Stanley Rule & Level Company with two, three, and sometimes even four variations for the same Stanley catalog number. Bill explained that Stanley rules with specific catalog numbers changed over the years they were in the Stanley line of rules.  These rules remained the same in terms of length, width, thickness and the numbers on the rule, but other changes were made to the rules over the years.  Minor changes might consist of changes to the brass hinges to major changes such as the addition of brass slides and calipers. The Stanley No. 83 two-foot four-fold rule is a great example of what Bill calls a “quad”. When the No. 83 was first introduced it had a 6” brass slide and 1/10^th of an inch graduations along the thin edge of the rule.  By 1900 the rule was listed as catalog number 83¼ and had a square arch brass hinge, no graduations on the edge and  a 6” brass caliper rather than a slide.  Then Stanley introduced the No. 83½with a half round edge joint, architect’s scales on the legs and 1/10^th of an inch graduations on the edge. In 1910, Stanley introduced the No. 83C with brass round arch joints, a brass caliper and no graduations along the thin edge.  The Stanley No 83 rules were manufactured by Stanley from the 1870’s up until 1920. Of his many favorites Bill particularly likes his Stanley No. 0 and No. 00 six-inch two-fold ivory carpenter’s rules.

            As anyone who has ever visited Ted Hopkins tool museum in Manchester, Vermont can attest, Ted is a collector of all things Stanley and almost any other tools that catch his eye. Ted’s theme for the Rule Collector’s Showcase was a display of rules made by the Eagle Square Company in South Shaftsbury, Vermont.  While well known for making framing squares, Eagle Square also made rules.  Ted had a wonderful display of beautiful mint condition Eagle Squares rules including wooden zig-zag rules, maple rule blanks, and finished rules with yellow paint. His display also included some brass, stainless steel, and nickel plated metal rules in various widths called counter measures. Ted explained that these rules were used in drapery and millinery shops selling fabric and ribbon in yards and fractions of yards. 

They were often fastened to a counter top or a board.  he other possibility involves country stores that sold fabric. To make measuring the fabric easier, brass tacks were hammered into the rule at common intervals – a yard, half-yard and quarter-yard. One theory about the origin of the phrase, “let’s get down to brass tacks” referred to the shop owner using the brass tacks to quickly measure the cloth the customer requested.  These rules were made prior to 1916 when Eagle Square was sold to Stanley.

            Brian Lants of Purcellville, Virginia began collecting rules after he purchased an old two-foot four-fold rule while on vacation. His collecting initially focused on collecting all types of rules by American makers.  He soon discovered that serious rule collectors are interested int eh best examples of the rules they collect, so competition for high quality rules is fierce.  So, Brian focused his collection on rules made by the Kerby & Bros. Rule Makers of New York City.  Brian’s display included 22 cordage rules (cordage refers to the ropes used as rigging in ships, or rope in general) produced by Kirby but imprinted with the names of different cordage manufacturers in the U.S. and Canada. Brian explained that, “Kerby was a specialty rule maker.  I do not believe they ever published a rule catalog like many of the traditional rule makers.  Many of the rules made by Kerby were custom orders often with special advertising, markings and scales.  Kerby & Bros Rule makers was established in 1847 and remained family owned for three generations. 

The business finally ceased operation in 1953 after the death of Robert Kerby Jr.  I’ve had multiple people tell me that when the shop closed, they put all of the contents out on the sidewalk in front of the shop for people to take.  They produced rules for rope makers, printers, tailors, cobblers, glaziers, paper hangers, teachers pattern makers and many others.  Every year when I think I’ve seen them all. I find something new that I’ve never seen before.  Brian has well over 100 Kerby rules in his collection ranging from rope gauges to a six-foot long baggage measuring caliper that was used on the S.S. Roosevelt steam ship.

If you’re a serious tool collector in America, there’s a good chance you’ve met John Kesterson of Barberton, Ohio.  John and his wife Julie are familiar faces at tool events and auctions across the country.  John’s theme for the rule collector’s showcase was “Tape Measures Unique and Rare.”  John began collecting in 1975 and admits that tape measures are not his primary focus, but he finds their functions very interesting.  John collects all kinds of measurement instruments by various makers both British and American. Their functions vary from logging to tailoring, to architectural and even horse measuring tools.  His primary focus with rule collecting is Lufkin tape measures and mint condition rules in their original boxes.  John recalled that two close friends were Lufkin tape measure collectors and in his travels, he would find them tape measures for their collections.  John said, “I liked what I was finding for them and began my own collection.  I’ve focused on rule measurement instruments for about 25 years, but I have thousands of tools in my collection.” John’s display featured twelve tape measures, all mint and in their original boxes.  Each rule was identified with information pertaining to its rarity and uniqueness.  John said, “The British horse measurement tool in my collection is my favorite one, it’s pretty cool!”

           For the past four decades, George Gray of Nashua, New Hampshire has collected a wide variety of both American and English rules.  His display featured examples of American and English engineer’s rules made of boxwood and brass with double slides.  The earliest rule in his display was a Wood & Lort of Birmingham, England c. 1750 engineer’s rule names, “The New Improved Sliding Rule.”  This rule has dual adjacent Gunther brass slides. George also had an A. James Nobel of Sheffield, England two-foot two-fold engineer’s rule, c. 1870 with duel brass Gunther slides, one with “English” graduations, and the other in “Metric”. American rule makers were represented by two Stanley Rule & Level Company two-foot two-fold engineer’s each with dual brass extension slides.  An S.A. Jones, Hartford, CT two-foot four-fold rule and an H. Chapin two-foot four-fold rules were also in his display.  Both of these rules had split two cycle brass extension slides.  But George considers the Geo. Curtis Improved Engineer’s Rule manufactured by E.A. Stearns in Brattleboro, VT, to be the most interesting (See Figures 18 and 19). “There is documentation on how the rule is to be used. It describes the use of the “Plain Scale” and the “Diagonal Scales” on the rule.  On the reserve side of the rule are dual Gunther slides made of boxwood, one on each leg.”  Gorge continues to research the rules in his collection.  He finds wantage and engineering rules very interesting because of the complexity of the scales and tables. His reward is in being able to decipher the rule maker’s intentions.

            George Gray summed up everyone’s feelings about the Rule Collector’s Showcase when he said, “I was very impressed with the diversity and the quality of all the exhibits.  I especially enjoy listening to the history and information about each one of the collections.  These are the most knowledgeable curators of fine antique rules you’ll ever want to meet!”

by Tom Whalen

Apologies for the pun, but, this long hard winter will come to an end, the snow will melt, the trees will bud out and the flowers will bloom, and Early American Industries Association members will gather for our 2019 Annual Meeting May 15^th thru May 18^th, 2019.  If you haven’t already done so, it’s time to register on line or get your registration form completed and mail it in!  We’ve got a great program lined up for you with plenty of opportunities for hands on learning.  Click on this link to register for the meeting or to learn more about the wide variety of lectures, workshops, tours, and demonstrations that will take place during the meeting, https://eaiainfo.org/news-events/annual-meetings/2019-annual-meeting/. A couple of the workshops are already full, but there’s still time to sign up and try your hand at blacksmithing, cross stitch, plaster casting, and 19^th century candy making.

There are also lots of lectures and demonstrations that are free and open to everyone attending the meeting. Lowell, America’s first planned industrial city was the center of cotton cloth production in the 19^th century, so there are lots of opportunities to learn about the fascinating history of Lowell, the weaving industry and Lowell’s strong history as a training ground for American machinists. In addition, we’ve put together a great series of workshops, lectures, demonstrations and fun!

The meeting will start on Wednesday may 15^th will tailgating in the parking lot at the Westford Regency Inn & Conference Center (https://www.westfordregency.com/) , our home base for this year’s meeting.  On Thursday we’ll spend the day in Lowell, Massachusetts visiting the Lowell National Historic Park https://www.nps.gov/lowe/index.htm.  We’ll visit the Boot Mill complex with its wonderful in-house museum. We’ll spend some time at the New England Quilt Museum with their wonderful collection of early American quilts, and we’ll have a special boat tour of the extensive canal system that provided the power for the mills of Lowell.

It will be a great day filled with history and learning. Thursday night we’ll puzzle each other with “Whatsits” while we enjoy some New England desserts. So bring along that tool you have pondering and just can’t quite figure out. We’ll see if together we can identify it.

On Friday there are 16 different lectures, demonstration, workshops, and tours that will capture your attention and provide you with multiple opportunities to try your hand at a new skill, and enjoy learning more about America’s industrial history.  It will be a veritable playground for history and handcraft aficionados.   After a full day of fun on Friday you can enjoy a great auction of antique tools put on at the hotel by Jim Gehring and the team from Brown Tool Auctions.

  On Saturday we’ll trade tools, and enjoy some wonderful displays put together by EAIA members.  The display theme this year is Fiber Arts and Machine Tools.  It’s a broad category and encompasses so many different tools.  There will no doubt be some amazing displays and we look forward to seeing have you bring a display and share your collecting passion and knowledge with us. Saturday morning will also give you the chance to watch blacksmith Richard Wright at work at a forge similar to those used by colonial blacksmiths in the 18^th century. You can also sample some homemade ice cream made in an old-fashioned ice cream maker running off a hit and miss engine.  There will be a stationary steam engine on display and who knows what other surprises await you on Saturday morning. On Saturday afternoon we’ll hear from one of the “Mill Girls” who provided the labor in the Lowell weaving mills. 

            We’ll end our meeting with the always fun Silent Auction.  Please consider bringing a donation for the Silent Auction since it is the major fund raiser for EAIA’s annual budget.  Everyone loves to see our talented members display their talents with their donations to the Silent Auction.  You can relax at the banquet, enjoy a great meal and we promise we’ll quickly get through our Annual Meeting.  We will top of the evening with a fascinating astronomy lecture put on by two real live astronomers in period costume using a set of extremely rare moveable magic lantern slides. 

            We promise lots of history, camaraderie, learning, friendship and just plain fun!  Sign up! We look forward to seeing you there!  

by Paul Van Pernis

Here it is at only the second post of this blog and I’ve gone off the subject of Stanley Model Shop tools in my collection to discuss a Sargent prototype plane that joined the collection recently.  This plane (Figure 1) suggests that Sargent was considering a successor to its Shaw’s Patent line of planes.  As with the Shaw’s Patent planes, this plane allows the frog to be moved forwards and backwards to adjust the size of the mouth.  The frog adjustment mechanism is different from that of the Shaw’s Patent planes and the body profile is unique among Sargent planes.

Before proceeding, a quick review of Shaw’s patent Sargent planes.  John H. Shaw was issued Patent No. 824,954 on July 3, 1906, assigned to Sargent and Company for “a plane in which the frog may be adjusted longitudinally and clamped in place after the bit is clamped to the frog” (Figure 2). The primary claim of the patent is for “a novel construction by which the adjustment of the frog may be made from the rear after the bit is secured to the front face of the frog.”  As seen in Figure 2, an advantage of the Shaw’s patent configuration is that the frog may be adjusted to narrow or widen the mouth without affecting the depth at which the cutter (“bit” in the words of the patent) setting or requiring it to be removed.  According to the patent his is done by loosening two vertical screws “O” shown in the lower part of the figure and turning the horizontal adjusting screw “No 3” shown in the upper part of the figure and then tightening the two vertical screws.  There are two disadvantages to this configuration:  First, there is a screw through the frog under the cutter into the body of the plane (not shown in the figure, but approximately at “E” in the upper part of the figure).  When this screw is secured tightly, a great deal of force is required to move the frog.  The cutter must be removed to loosen this screw, negating the claimed advantage of not affecting the cutter setting.  Second, the two vertical lock screws “O” at the rear of the frog are awkward to access with a regular screwdriver.  The screwdriver must be inserted at an angle into the slots in the screws with the consequent danger of slipping out of the slots and damaging the screw heads.

Sargent Shaw’s patent planes were manufactured from approximately 1906 to 1918 in sizes from the 7 inch long No. 7 with 1 5/8 inch wide cutter to the 24 inch long No. 24 with 2 5/8 inch wide cutter [1].

Returning to the Sargent prototype plane (Figure 1), its sole is 9 inches long from the toe to end of the lug under the handle and 2 1/8 inches wide.  It has a 1 ¾ inch wide cutter.  The sole is 1 inch longer than that of the typical Sargent bench plane with a 1 ¾ inch wide cutter and is the length of the typical Sargent bench plane with a 2 inch wide cutter.  The mahogany handle and front high knob, the Sargent logo on the lever cap and on the cutter, and the 1 1/8 inch cutter adjusting nut suggest that this prototype dates from the 1920s or 1930s.  The cutter adjusting nut appears to be solid brass; most standard Sargent cutter adjusting nuts are brass coated steel.  The threaded rod for the cutter adjusting nut is loosely threaded into the frog and has a left hand thread.

Figure 3 shows the body and bottom of the frog of the plane.  The frog is mounted to the body with two screws rather than three as on Shaw’s Patent planes.  Similar to the Shaw’s Patent planes, a slotted pedestal on the body engages a slotted adjusting screw in the frog to vary the mouth width.  The base of the frog rests in a milled channel on the body, a feature absent from the Shaw’s Patent planes.  This prevents the frog from moving side to side or twisting and the milled channel is the same concept used for mounting the frog on Stanley Bed Rock planes.

The inside of the body and the frog of the Sargent prototype plane are japanned with a thin coat of japanning.  The front of the top of the handle has been clipped, apparently to provide clearance for the frog and lateral adjuster; but this was unnecessary because there would have been no interference even if the handle had not been clipped. The prototype frog is compared with a Shaw’s Patent frog in Figure 4 and Figure 5.  Primary differences between the two aside from the more modern profile of the prototype frog are in the configuration for mounting the frog to the body.  The Shaw’s Patent frog is mounted with three screws, two in the rear of the frog, and one under the cutter.  The prototype frog uses two screws through brass pads under the cutter.  Each brass pad is fastened to the frog with a steel screw and brass washer.  Loosening the screw and twisting the pad allows it to be removed from the frog.

Perhaps the function of these pads was to provide a low friction bearing surface so that the frog could be adjusted fore and aft using the frog adjusting screw without having to remove the cutter and loosen the frog mounting screws.  However, the brass pads are tapered to match the roughly 15 degree downhill slope of their bearing surface on the frog (see the inset in Figure 4 for details of the brass pads).  This would have allowed only very limited fore and aft movement of the frog without the frog either being wedged in place when adjusted forward or becoming loose when adjusted backward.  This binding or loosening of the frog during adjustment would have happened even if the screws holding the brass pads to the frog were loosened.  Note that this problem would have been eliminated if the frog had been built to have the portion under the brass pads parallel to the mounting surface on the body of the plane.  One wonders why Sargent chose this sloped configuration for the frog and brass pads when a parallel configuration combined with the milled guides for the frog would have resulted in a more readily adjustable mouth opening without danger that the frog would be twisted sideways.

The cutter of the prototype plane is marked with the trademark shown in Figure 6, which was used by Sargent in the 1920s and 1930s.  This generic trademark does not indicate a plane number as is common on many original cutters.  The lack of a plane number is common on Sargent replacement cutters.  The letter B is overstruck on SARGENT.  I believe that I have seen this before, but cannot remember where and am curious about its significance.

An observation:  There are several prototype and salesman’s sample planes by Sargent and Stanley in my collection.  Almost all of those by Stanley are in pristine condition and show few signs of use.  All of those by Sargent have been put to use as user tools, and some none too well cared for, as evidenced by general wear, paint spatters, dings, worn japanning, and occasional rust.  A speculation on this observation:  Perhaps Stanley held their prototypes and salesman’s samples more closely before they got into collector’s hands while Sargent let theirs go out the door to users when they were done with them.  Or, maybe, just the effects of a small sample size.

If you have additional information or comments about this or other Sargent prototypes, please contact me at jamesrgillis5@gmail.com or reply to this blog.  I look forward to hearing from you.

References

[1] D. Wilwol, The Sargent Hand Plane Reference Guide for Collectors & Woodworkers, Don Wilwol, 2017, p. 40.

The Stanley No. 97 Cabinet Maker’s Edge Plane

In late 1869 or early 1870, shortly after Leonard Bailey started working at the Stanley Rule & Level Company, he produced the “chisel plane” shown in Figure 1 below.[i] This heavy bodied plane is 9 15/16” long and 2 3/8” wide and the body is a cast box with substantial cross ribs running from side to side and front to back.

This braced box construction is identical to what Bailey used on his early No. 9 cabinet maker’s block planes (See Figure 2), and the 2 3/8’ wide cutting iron has the trademark used by Bailey and Stanley during the years 1867-1872.

The cutting iron adjusting mechanism is identical to that seen on the No. 9 cabinet maker’s planes of the same vintage. A rectangular steel plate is attached to the 1/16^th inch thick cutting iron with a screw.  The plate fits over the end of the lever on the yoke shaped adjustment mechanism. The cutting iron bedded at a 27º angle with the cutting edge facing upwards and is held firmly in place by a #7 size cam lock lever cap that is 2 15/16ths inches wide(See Figure 3).

When the brass adjusting screw shown in Figure 4 was turned to advance the cutting iron just slightly ahead of the plane’s body, a thin shaving would be removed and the plane could trim up a rabbet or be worked into a corner.

This plane has all of the characteristics of a Bailey made plane, but it’s easy to see why it got put on the shelf; it’s just too big and too heavy for most applications.  Bailey put this one on the shelf, but not in the Stanley Model Shop as there are no Model Shop numbers on the plane.  It was likely kept in Bailey’s shop within the Stanley Rule & Level Company but got left behind when he departed Stanley in 1874.  From there it made it into the Stanley Model Shop but was never assigned a Model Shop number.

Fast forward about 35 years to 1905 when Justus Traut decided to produce a chisel plane of his own design. He may well have taken Bailey’s version off the shelf and been inspired or at least stimulated in his thinking by Bailey’s plane.  The plane shown in Figure 5 appears to be the prototype from which Traut eventually developed the Stanley No. 97 Cabinet maker’s Edge Plane.[ii]  The Stanley Model Shop #337 is present in two places on the japanned lever cap.  At 7¾ inches long and 2¼ inches wide the plane is much smaller than the one made by Bailey.  The 2¼ inch wide cutting iron is designed to rest on the two sloped sidewalls of the plane and is unusually thick at an eighth of an inch. Bedded at a 17º angle, the cutting iron is held firmly in place by the screw down lever cap. The curved hood at the back of the lever cap provides a nice place to rest your hand when using the plane.  The cutting iron adjuster has a “faucet handle” design and is based on Traut’s March 13, 1900 patent No. 645,220 (See Figure 6).[iii]

In the patent description, Traut describes the “slide” as being supported by the “guide” “g” (I’m using the numbers and letters in the patent drawings to attempt to coherently explain the adjustment mechanism, so  reviewing Figures 1,2,3, and 4 of the patent drawing may be helpful!). An adjusting screw, “f” with two different diameters and two different thread pitches is inserted into the threaded hole “13´” in the guide “g”. The narrower portion of the screw which is near the end of the screw can pass through the threaded portion of the guide “g” without difficulty.  The narrower portion of the screw is threaded into the threaded opening on the slide “S”. When the adjusting screw “f” is turned the slide “S” is drawn up towards the guide “g”.  The movement of the slide up towards the guide is due to the fact that the threads at the forward end of the screw are of a steeper pitch than the threads near the head of the screw. A series of parallel transverse grooves or “nicks” on the back of the cutting iron are designed to fit over the short-raised rib (“16” in the patent drawing) on the slide. 

With the cutting iron in place, fine adjustments can be made with the screw adjustment mechanism. Once the depth of cut has been set with the screw adjuster, the lever cap is screwed into place to secure the cutting iron (See Figure 7). This cutting iron adjustment mechanism is a clever design and was used on multiple different planes in the Stanley line.[iv]  This prototype version of the chisel plane feels good in my hands and appears to me to be a tool that would have functioned well.  While this version didn’t make it to the manufacturing stage and ended up on the shelf in the Model Shop, many of its features were incorporated into the production model of the Stanley No. 97.

Figure 8 shows the Stanley No. 97 Cabinet Maker’s Edge Plane Type 1 which was first pictured in the Stanley Pocket Catalog and the Stanley No. 34 Full Line Catalog in 1905 priced at $2.00.  It was initially labeled as a “Piano Maker’s Edge Plane”, but by 1907 Stanley had changed the name to “Cabinet Maker’s Edge Plane”. Stanley described the plane as, “A useful tool for Piano Makers and all Cabinet Workers, for trimming inside work where space prevents the use of any other Plane.” (See Figure 9)

The plane might be best described as a wide adjustable chisel blade held at a constant angle by the body of the plane. The No. 97 plane is 9 13/16ths inches long and 2¼ inches wide.  The rear portion of the plane bed has been extended to allow the addition of a rosewood knob which provides a hand hold.[v] It’s curious that Stanley chose to use a knob rather than a rear tote.[vi]  The half circle cut outs in the sidewalls of the plane allow for easier access to the faucet handle cutting iron adjusting screw. Like the prototype shown in Figure 5, the cutting iron rests on the sidewalls of the plane body at an angle of 17º with the beveled side of the cutting iron facing upward. There is a 5/32nds inch wide vertical groove milled into the center of the cutting iron on its upper end which accepts the end of the lever cap screw. Tightening of the lever cap screw into the groove not only holds the cutting iron firmly in place, but prevents lateral motion of the cutting iron as well. For some unknown reason this useful feature was only seen on the Type 1 No. 97 plane.[vii]  The hooded lever cap seen on the prototype plane was eliminated and replaced with a japanned lever cap with a rounded top (See Figure 10).

Based on the relative scarcity of remaining examples of the Stanley No. 97, the plane met with only moderate success. But there was enough demand for the plane to remain in production until 1943 and went through several design changes during those years. A type study done by John Wells in 2005 does a great job of outlining these changes.[viii]

Because the production models of the Stanley No. 97 Cabinet maker’s Edge Plane have an adjustment mechanism based on Traut’s patent #645,220 these planes are generally ascribed to Justus Traut. However, it appears that Leonard Bailey was the first one to come up with the idea and perhaps both Leonard Bailey and Justus Traut should share the credit for this interesting plane.

by Paul Van Pernis

[i] This plane came to auction on April 2, 2005 as lot 639 in the 26^th International antique Tool Auction.

[ii] Lot #502 in the 27^th International antique Tool Auction, October 29, 2005

[iii] Traut submitted the application for this patent on December 10^th, 1897.  The patent was not granted until March 13, 1900, 14 months later.  This is an unusually long time between a patent application and the granting of a patent especially for someone as well known to the Patent office ad Justus Traut. Traut and Stanley Rule & Level Company began using this cutting iron adjustment mechanism starting in January of 1898 on the No. 60, No. 65 and No. 220 block planes.

[iv] This same adjustment mechanism was used on Stanley No. 60, 60½ 61, 63, 64,65, 65½, 90, 90A,92,93, 94, 97, 118, 131, 140 (after 1898), 203, and 220 planes.

[v] The knob on the No. 97 planes is the same size as those seen on the No.5 thru No. 8 Stanley bench planes.

[vi] There is a circa 1907 Stanley No. 97 Cabinet Maker’s Edge Plane produced by Stanley with a typical rear tote and a level lock lever cap that came from the Model Shop.  Apparently, this version was never put into production. See image below taken from the article cited in footnote viii.

[vii] The Type 1 No. 97 was made for only a very brief time in 1905.  Examples of the Type 1 No. 97 are extremely rare.

[viii] Wells, John G., “The Stanley No. 97 Edge Plane”, The Gristmill, No. 119, June, 2005, pp. 30-33.

With the 2019 Early American Industries Association Annual Meeting coming up in a few months, here are some interesting tidbits of information about Lowell, Massachusetts that will hopefully entice you to join us for our Annual Meeting next May. The young mill girls in the title photo above invite you to learn more about them and their interesting lives during the Early American industries Associations’ Annual Meeting May 15th thru May 18th, 2019. So, here are ten things you might not have known about Lowell, Massachusetts.

1.  Lowell, Massachusetts is named after Francis Cabot Lowell who never actually stepped foot in the town that bears his name. Francis Cabot Lowell spent two years in England between 1810 and 1812.  While he was there, he toured the textile mills of Manchester and some say, engaged in industrial espionage.  He apparently memorized the workings of the power looms that were common in England at that time.[1]  Upon his return to America, Lowell and an inventive mechanic named Paul Moody developed a power weaving loom in 1814 based upon what Lowell had seen in England.  With financial backing from a group of Boston investors he formed the Boston Manufacturing Company and developed the first fully integrated weaving mill on the Charles River in Waltham, Massachusetts that started with cotton from the bale and at the other end produced bolts of cotton cloth. You can learn more at (https://www.charlesrivermuseum.org/francis-cabot-lowell-and-the-boston-manufacturing-company/).[2]  The mill at Waltham was a great success and it soon became apparent that the company needed to expand.  But, the three mills that had been built in Waltham were using all of the available power from the Charles River.  So, the Boston Manufacturing Company sought a new site.

Figure 1. Early Photo Inside One of the Lowell Mills

They settled on East Chelmsford, Massachusetts on the Merrimack River just 30 miles from Boston. Construction began at the site in 1822 and the investors decided to name the new town they built Lowell in honor of Francis Cabot Lowell who had died in 1817.

2. At its peak in 1850, the city of Lowell had 40 mill buildings powering 320,000 spindles on almost 10,000 looms and employed more than 10,000 workers in the textile industry.[3]

Figure 2. Whistler’s Iconic Painting of his Mother. Its Correct Title is “Arrangement in Grey and Black No. 1”

3. Lowell is the birthplace of the American painter James McNeill Whistler. He was born on July 11, 1834 and achieved worldwide fame  as a painter.  His most iconic image is the painting of his mother shown in Figure 2. But his father, Major George Washington Whistler, was a fascinating character in his own right.  His life story is at least as interesting as that of his famous son. (https://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/getting-know-whistlers-father-180951439/).

Figure 3. A Not Very Famous Portrait of Whistler’s Father, Major George Washington Whistler, Not Painted by His Son!

George Washington Whistler supervised the building of the first locomotive in the Lowell Machine Shop in 1835.  He took apart a locomotive imported from England to learn how it was constructed and then fabricated patterns from which the Lowell Machine Shop built one of the first locomotives manufactured in New England.  Within three years, the Lowell Machine Shop had turned out 32 more locomotive engines. The Lowell Machine Shop was established to meet the machine tool needs of the weaving mills, but expanded to be one of the premier machine shops in the world.  Many of the master mechanics of the American Industrial Revolution got their training at the Lowell Machine Shop.

Figure 4. Locomotive Engine built by the Lowell Machine Shop in 1852

The Whistler House Museum of Art (http://www.whistlerhouse.org/) is worth a stop at some point during your visit to Lowell.

4. By 1846, the mills in Lowell where turning out almost a million yards of cloth a week! Until the Civil War, Lowell was the largest concentration of industrial production in America and was New England’s second largest city with a population of 33,000.

5. Lowell, in 1879, was the first town in the United States to get telephone numbers just three years after Alexander Graham Bell had patented his telephone.

Figure 5. Jack Kerouac Most Famous Book

6. Lowell is the birthplace of Jack Kerouac (March 12, 1922 – October 21, 1969). For those of us who lived through the 60’s, his name will be a familiar one.  As the author of, On the Road, and several other books, he is considered a literary iconoclast and alongside William S. Burroughs and Allen Ginsburg is closely identified as one of the members of the Beat Generation and a progenitor of the “Hippie Movement”. You can learn more about this literary icon at https://www.nps.gov/lowe/learn/historyculture/kerouac.htm.

Figure 6. An Early Moxie Ad

7. Moxie originated as a patent medicine called “Moxie Nerve Food”, which was created around 1876 by Dr. Augustin Thompson in Lowell, Massachusetts. Thompson claimed that it contained an extract from a rare, unnamed South American plant which is now known to be gentian root. Moxie, he claimed, was especially effective against “paralysis, softening of the brain, nervousness, and insomnia”. Thompson claimed that he named the beverage after a Lieutenant Moxie, a purported friend of his, who he claimed had discovered the plant and used it as a “panacea”.  After a few years, Thompson added soda water to the formula and changed the product’s name to “Beverage Moxie Nerve Food”. By 1884 he was selling Moxie both in bottles and in bulk as a soda fountain syrup. In 1885, he received a trade mark for the name. He marketed it as “a delicious blend of bitter and sweet, a drink to satisfy everyone’s taste”. Thompson died in 1903. Moxie was purchased by the Coca-Cola company in 2018.  The name has become the word “moxie” in American English, meaning courage, daring, or determination. Our Executive Director John Verrill is a big fan of the stuff. You might want to try some while you’re in Lowell.

Figure 7. Some Lowell Mill Girls

8. One of the features that distinguished the Lowell mills in the 1830’s was that workers were paid in cash once a month. Most other employers paid workers with credit at a company store or settled their worker’s wages once every 3 months.  In the 1830’s, a woman working at one of the Lowell mills could earn between $12-$14 dollars per month (that’s equivalent to about $320 – $370 in 2017 dollars)[4].  The mill girls paid $5 a month for their room and board in one of the company’s boarding houses.  These young women experienced economic independence that was unknown before the development of the Lowell mills. They likely had more ready cash than their farmer fathers.  It was not unusual for these young women to return home after a year in the mills with $25-$50 in a bank account. But these women worked long hours (as many as 14 hours/day) with only brief breaks for their breakfast and dinner (See Figure 8).  Their hours were shorter during the winter months, but the working conditions were dusty and dangerous throughout the year.

Figure 8. Work Schedule at the Lowell Mills

9. The women in the Lowell Mills formed the Lowell Female Labor Reform Association in 1844 with Sarah Bagley as its first president. The Lowell mill girls were not hesitant to express their opinions about working conditions and wages in the mills.  The first protest came in 1834 just about a decade after the mills opened. Subsequent protests and strikes followed resulting in the organization of the Lowell Female Labor Reform Association. The LFLRA is noted as being the first organization of working women to come together and bargain collectively for better working conditions and higher pay. You will learn more about these women and their labor reform efforts during out visit to the Boott Mill National Historical Park.

Figure 9. Charles Dickens

10. English Author Charles Dickens (See Figure 9) visited Lowell in February of 1842.  He specifically wanted to see America’s first industrial city.  He toured the mills, the tenement housing and the city of Lowell. He later wrote a book about his travels in the United States titled, American Notes.    In the book Dickens wrote favorable descriptions of both the Lowell mills and the Lowell mill girls. He said of the mill girls, “They had serviceable bonnets, good warm cloaks, and shawls… They were healthy in appearance, many of them remarkably so, and had the manners and deportment of young women, not of degraded brutes of burden.”

So, come join us for the 2019 Early American Industries Association Annual Meeting, Wednesday, May 15^th thru Saturday, May 18^th, 2019 in Lowell, Massachusetts for a meeting filled with friends, fun, workshops, lectures, demonstrations and a variety of opportunities to learn. Maybe a glass of  Moxie to avoid “paralysis, softening of the brain, nervousness and insomnia!  The 2019 EAIA Annual Meeting maybe just the “panacea” you need! I guarantee you’ll find out some more interesting things about Lowell! We’ll be based at the Westford Regency Inn & Conference Center in Westford, Massachusetts (https://www.westfordregency.com/).  Registration forms will be mailed to you and will also be available right here on our website in mid-January 2019.

by Paul Van Pernis

Figure 10. More Moxie!

[1] After the Revolutionary War, England passed laws prohibiting the export of textile machinery or the emigration of those who could operate it.  Samuel Slater an overseer in an English textile factory introduced British cotton technology to America when he left England posing as a farmer. He had committed the details of the Arkwright spinning machine to memory and in 1790, while working for Moses Brown, he started the first American cotton spinning mill in Pawtucket, Rhode Island

[2] Waltham and the Charles River Museum are only 22 miles from Lowell and would make a great side trip before or after the 2019 EAIA meeting.

[3] At Pawtucket Falls just above the junction of the Merrimack and Concord Rivers, the Concord River drops more than 30 feet.  The system of canals and gates built in Lowell harnessed the kinetic energy of this water flow and produced over 10,000 horsepower of energy to turn the turbines that powered the mills.

[4] The average daily wage for a female working in the cotton or wool manufacturing industry in 1830 was 38-40 cents/day! (https://www​.nber.org/chapters/c2486.pdf)