On Jul 8, 11:47=A0am, "Rob H." <[email protected]> wrote:
> I need help finding an answer for two of them this week:
>
> http://55tools.blogspot.com/
>
> Rob
1979 looks like a Crinoid stem, but since its so prominently
displayed, I'll say its a piece of Corporalite.
--riveman
Can you cite links to prove your opinion?
I didn't think so.
"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Sorry, not buying that. Among other things, the openings in the clamp jaws
have *far* too tight a radius of curvature to have ever been intended to
hold
a barrrel. Further, the length of the screw clearly shows that the device is
intended to accomodate either objects of vastly different sizes, or one
object
whose size or shape changes vastly as the tool is used. Your explanation
below
of the purpose of the long screw seems far-fetched, to put it charitably.
On Jul 11, 11:30=A0pm, dpb <[email protected]> wrote:
> Lobby Dosser wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > The top piece of the 'clamp' section is not necessarily stationary. ...
>
> That's what I said; the top section is what the other poster was saying
> wasn't...
>
> > And 'milling' can be a manual process, so the age is not determined.
>
> Indeed, but those are definitely characteristic marks of a power planer
> that weren't removed.
>
> --
What if this is some sort of easel? And the two 'clamp jaw' pieces
aren't finished because there was another part that covered
them....that hooked onto the top and bottom of the picture frame? That
would explain why it tightens by hand. Of course, it doesn't seem to
tilt so that's a problem, but this sort of reminds me of something an
artist might use...
Nothing in google.images, but I'll keep looking.
--riverman
On Jul 9, 5:04=A0am, J Burns <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> The feet seem to contact the floor at six points. =A0The corner contact
> points would provide stability, while the center ones would help it
> support a lot of weight. =A0They appear to be adjustable.
I think the center 'contact points' are actually round knobs, and that
the legs are attached by wooden bolts, and are removable. Whatever it
was for, possibly portability is a factor?
--riverman
>Could this have been a theatrical prop of some sort?
> If the width if the frame is an indication of the size of the object to
> be clamped, the sliding bar would be near the top bar and the screw
> wouldn't have to be stable to hit the dent.
Yep, both sound reasonable. Also, it could have possibly been a third
hand, if it did have a function. The unit is not big or built to
handle a heavy object or aggressive work. The "clamp's" max opening
may be 10" X 10", but whatever may be clamped, it is not clamped
tight... hand tight. And whatever bulk (?) is clamped, seems it would
be compressed to subsequently fit or guided into the notched area.
With regard to it being a third hand, if a woman/anyone would be
alone; weaving, quilt making, mattress making or some other task using
fabric, thread, feathers, cotton stuffing or some other domestic
manufacture of a softgoods product, maybe she would need a third hand
to hold something stable, as she performs an adjacent task. How many
times have we needed a third hand, when clamping/assembling a wood
project together?
Its clamping function can't be the end product alone, I don't think.
There's some other task to be done, in conjunction with whatever is
being clamped.
Sonny
"Lloyd E. Sponenburgh" <lloydspinsidemindspring.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> humunculus <[email protected]> fired this volley in news:039c8032-c2e8-
> [email protected]:
>
>> 1979 looks like a Crinoid stem, but since its so prominently
>> displayed, I'll say its a piece of Corporalite.
>
> Given the current state of Corporations in general, your term might be
> correct. But, I think it's "coprolite", meaning petrified shit.
>
> <G>
> LLoyd
Maybe "corporalite" is corporate shit. It could be part of a Chevrolet. d8-)
--
Ed Huntress
On Jul 9, 8:07=A0am, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
> Lobby Dosser wrote:
> > "Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> Steve W. wrote:
> >>> Rob H. wrote:
> >>>> I need help finding an answer for two of them this week:
>
> >>>>http://55tools.blogspot.com/
>
> >>>> Rob
>
> >> 1977--the "fulcrum" is massive and the ends are thin...it looks
> >> like it could have been used to lift something heavy off of the ground=
.
>
> >> Bill
>
> Lobby Dosser wrote:
> >What are the three screw holes for?
>
> To make sure it doesn't slip away? =A0If it were a foot-powered lift one
> side would probably be more foot-receptive. =A0Still it appears designed
> to take advantage of leverage. Note lack of symmetry.
>
> Bill
Hmm, for some reason this looks like something made with the same
level of craftsmanship as a window latch. I wonder if this worked on a
window or door as a stopper, or even on a drawer in a file cabinet or
cash register to keep a drawer open?
--riverman
J Burns <[email protected]> writes:
>dpb wrote:
>> Rob H. wrote:
>> ...
>>
>>> Interesting theory, I'll pass it on the the person who sent the photo.
>>
>> Yeah, but doubtful imo; just doesn't look like it would do the job
>> (well) and many of the conjectures I don't think hold up at all.
>>
>> I presume there's a slot in the legs that let the upper half rise up? I
>> really don't know the precise function but I'm wagering the form follow
>> the function very closely and doesn't include tipping it up w/ shims
>> under the legs or sawing off the end of the threads on the press screw...
>>
>
>One interesting thing about the form is the wooden screw. Tightened
>down several times a day, it wouldn't last long. I would expect it to
>be a simple threaded dowel so that somebody with dowels and a die could
>replace it easily. Instead, the screw has a fancy, finished knob, as if
>it were intended to last years. That leads me to believe it was
>designed to hold something that didn't require much pressure and wasn't
>changed often.
What makes you think the wooden screw wouldn't last? They are quite
rugged and were used daily in woodworking trades for bench screws and
clamping.
Once upon a time, that 'fancy finished knob' was standard workmanship.
scott
"Rob H." <[email protected]> fired this volley in
news:[email protected]:
> I need help finding an answer for two of them this week:
>
> http://55tools.blogspot.com/
>
>
> Rob
1975 tumbler lever for lock picking
1976 plastic dry hydrant cap?
1977
1978 wash/shaving basin with soap dishes that drain
1979 mini ball
1980 broom tying press?
LLoyd
humunculus <[email protected]> fired this volley in news:039c8032-c2e8-
[email protected]:
> 1979 looks like a Crinoid stem, but since its so prominently
> displayed, I'll say its a piece of Corporalite.
Given the current state of Corporations in general, your term might be
correct. But, I think it's "coprolite", meaning petrified shit.
<G>
LLoyd
On Jul 13, 1:53=A0am, J Burns <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> During Prohibition, homemade wine was the only legal alcoholic beverage.
No, 'medicinal' whisky was available also. But that doesn't change
your overall point.
--riverman
1977 - It's only 5-3/4" long, tapered prongs 1" long and 1" apart.
The teeter-totter action (*Four seat teeter-totter for Lilliputians)
is less than an inch. The chain latch suggestion seems to be the
best, so for, IMO, but Rob hasn't verified that as correct. There are
old latches, for large shutters, that have a single sided/arm lever
mechanism, but not double pronged. Those shutter latches had 2 parts,
one for the shutter and one on the window facing. I can't think of
any other bifold closure (?) that would require that (1977) sort of
mechanism (with another piece to go with it at each end), either. But
it's obvious there is another part that plugs into or is caught/hooked
onto those prongs. Whatever movement is there, is slight.... to
assist in leveling/aligning 2 sides of something? I can't imagine the
unit standing alone, with some small extensions (plug-ins) on each
end, only, like a door knock missing the knocking parts.
1980 - Whatever it clamps, it can't be too tight. The top knob is
made for hand tightening, at most, not cranking. I highly suspect
it's for domestic use, only... guessing: maybe for holding some sort
of bag/sack for hand sewing closed. *Chicken/turkey/goose guillotine!
Sonny
After further consideration, I don't think 1980 was meant for anything
other than to sell. Someone put it together and passed it off as an
old tool or appliance. All the finish is the same, no patina and no
discoloration or wear where a clamped item would be placed. The ball
handle is not discolored from oil from someone's hands. No edges are
rough or worn from use. The dip in the upper "clamp", where the screw
touches, was part of the make, not worn from use. That screw is not
so stable that it would hit only at that spot. The center knob piece,
under/center of the feet cross-piece, functions to attach the legs
more securely. I don't think these center pieces were part of the
original idea. The legs ended up being unstable (poor jointery), so
those center pieces were added to further secure the legs.... and they
additionally gave the faux tool/appliance more ammunition for passing
it off as something unique.
Traveling salesmen sold tonics that had no function, but to fill the
salemen's pockets. If that piece would ever sell, I suspect another
would be put up for sale.
Sonny
On Jul 8, 10:35=A0am, "Rob H." <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>http://55tools.blogspot.com/
>
> > 1977 =A0 boot puller
>
> Sounds like a good guess, I think it's probably correct though I couldn't
> find the patent for it.
I don't think it's a boot jack. The thing is a bit smallish, there's
no reason to have the thing double ended, there's no reason to have
the arm articulated, every boot jack I've ever seen has a U-shaped end
where this one is squared off. The screw holes indicate this is
supposed to be fastened to the floor (if it is a boot puller), which
is also unusual, and cast iron boot jacks are usually given some
decorative treatment - crickets, deer antlers or something like that.
I think this thing has a more workaday use.
R
1975 A locksmith would use this part of a lock-picking set. Put the short
end in a key slot. Use the long end to apply gentle torque while fiddling
with the pins/tumblers to pick a lock.
1979 A bullet?
"Rob H." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>I need help finding an answer for two of them this week:
>
> http://55tools.blogspot.com/
>
>
> Rob
1975, appears to be a locksmith's turning tool (the proper name.
Tension wrench is slang, I'm told.) I carry one in my tool set, but
mine is black. I'm also been told that locksmithing is a trade, not a
profession.
1976. No clue.
1977. No clue.
1978 might be a hand wash basin, the hole bowls are for soap bars.
1979 might be ancient bullet, found in a historic site.
1980 is a holding device for something, unknown. A bit too complicated
for holding a log that's being sawed.
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
"Rob H." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
I need help finding an answer for two of them this week:
http://55tools.blogspot.com/
Rob
"Stormin Mormon" <cayoung61**spamblock##@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I'm also been told that locksmithing is a trade, not a
> profession.
Ok, I just fixed that.
> 1978 might be a hand wash basin, the hole bowls are for soap bars.
It isn't a wash basin and the bowls aren't for soap.
Rob
Rob H. wrote:
> I need help finding an answer for two of them this week:
>
> http://55tools.blogspot.com/
>
>
> Rob
1975 - Looks like a tension wrench. Used to apply shear force to the
pins in the lock while you manipulate them with a pick.
1976 - ???
1977 - Looks sort of like a chain latch used with old style flat link
chain. Could hold a load in either direction.
1978 - Holy water basin with baptismal bowls?
1979 - ???
1980 - ??? (wrist clamp?)
--
Steve W.
Rob H. wrote:
> You have some good points, that's probably why I couldn't find the patent.
It's definitely _not_ a bootjack; it wouldn't even work (for anybody but
Paul Bunyon, anyway).
It has similarity to some double-swinging gate latch hardware designs,
but not precisely sure how it would work in the orientation as it made
so it likely isn't...
--
1Rob H. wrote:
> I need help finding an answer for two of them this week:
>
> http://55tools.blogspot.com/
>
>
> Rob
1980 is intriguing. I wonder what the tag says.
Opened up, it looks big enough to stick something up to 6 x 8" through.
The wooded screw is long enough to push the bars closed, but the
shape of the cutout suggests that it was made to clamp a large range of
sizes. The cutouts would keep the clamped object centered under the screw.
The feet seem to contact the floor at six points. The corner contact
points would provide stability, while the center ones would help it
support a lot of weight. They appear to be adjustable.
"Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Steve W. wrote:
>> Rob H. wrote:
>>> I need help finding an answer for two of them this week:
>>>
>>> http://55tools.blogspot.com/
>>>
>>>
>>> Rob
>
> 1577--the "fulcrum" is massive and the ends are thin...it looks
> like it could have been used to lift something heavy off of the ground.
> It might work to fit drywall?
>
> Bill
You meant 1977? If so, what are the three screw holes for?
"Rob H." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>I need help finding an answer for two of them this week:
>
> http://55tools.blogspot.com/
>
>
> Rob
1980 - Hodgsonia Nut Nutcracker
Lobby Dosser wrote:
> "Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Steve W. wrote:
>>> Rob H. wrote:
>>>> I need help finding an answer for two of them this week:
>>>>
>>>> http://55tools.blogspot.com/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Rob
>>
>> 1977--the "fulcrum" is massive and the ends are thin...it looks
>> like it could have been used to lift something heavy off of the ground.
>>
>> Bill
>
>
Lobby Dosser wrote:
>What are the three screw holes for?
To make sure it doesn't slip away? If it were a foot-powered lift one
side would probably be more foot-receptive. Still it appears designed
to take advantage of leverage. Note lack of symmetry.
Bill
"Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Lobby Dosser wrote:
>> "Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> Steve W. wrote:
>>>> Rob H. wrote:
>>>>> I need help finding an answer for two of them this week:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://55tools.blogspot.com/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Rob
>>>
>>> 1977--the "fulcrum" is massive and the ends are thin...it looks
>>> like it could have been used to lift something heavy off of the ground.
>>>
>>> Bill
>>
>>
> Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>What are the three screw holes for?
>
> To make sure it doesn't slip away? If it were a foot-powered lift one
> side would probably be more foot-receptive. Still it appears designed to
> take advantage of leverage. Note lack of symmetry.
>
> Bill
>
Bill, you snipped out your bit about drywall. Makes all the difference.
[1577--the "fulcrum" is massive and the ends are thin...it looks
like it could have been used to lift something heavy off of the ground.
It might work to fit drywall?
Bill]
"Rob H." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>I need help finding an answer for two of them this week:
>
> http://55tools.blogspot.com/
>
>
> Rob
1975 Lock picking
1979 bullet
Robert
In article <[email protected]>, Spehro Pefhany <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 21:56:59 -0400, the renowned "Ed Huntress"
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Lloyd E. Sponenburgh" <lloydspinsidemindspring.com> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> humunculus <[email protected]> fired this volley in news:039c8032-c2e8-
>>> [email protected]:
>>>
>>>> 1979 looks like a Crinoid stem, but since its so prominently
>>>> displayed, I'll say its a piece of Corporalite.
>>>
>>> Given the current state of Corporations in general, your term might be
>>> correct. But, I think it's "coprolite", meaning petrified shit.
>>>
>>> <G>
>>> LLoyd
>>
>>Maybe "corporalite" is corporate shit. It could be part of a Chevrolet. d8-)
>
>It could be corporal shit, which ranks below general shit and major
>shit, but above private shit.
Kinda reminds me of the story that ran in the Indianapolis paper some years
ago about a local man who had joined the Army and had to endure a lot of
razzing about his name and rank. He's of Italian ancestry; his name is
pronounced as "orr-ih-FEE-chay"... but it's *spelled* "Orifice". And since he
had just joined, his rank was, of course, Private. Private Orifice.
Good thing he didn't join the Navy.
In article <[email protected]>, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>Steve W. wrote:
>> Rob H. wrote:
>>> I need help finding an answer for two of them this week:
>>>
>>> http://55tools.blogspot.com/
>>>
>1577--the "fulcrum" is massive and the ends are thin...it looks
>like it could have been used to lift something heavy off of the ground.
>It might work to fit drywall?
I'm sure it would work for that purpose, but its apparent age argues against
that being the use it was designed for.
Rob H. wrote:
> I need help finding an answer for two of them this week:
>
> http://55tools.blogspot.com/
>
>
> Rob
1977: on the left, the plate has two screw holes. On the right, it has
one. I think it was mounted so that the left fork extended past the
edge of a counter, where it might be bumped.
How about a small, durable balance to weigh something like nails in
one-pound increments? An attachment with a hanging pan would have gone
on the left fork and an attachment with a counterweight would have gone
on the right fork. A fork would keep the attachment from rotating and
let it slide home to the predetermined distance from the fulcrum.
The right fork is closer to the fulcrum than the left fork, but that
doesn't mean a weight attached to the right fork would be closer than a
hook attached to the left fork.
> 1979: Minie ball, circa 1864. Found all OVER Virginia.
I don't want to be (overly) picky, but...
I have no personal experience with a minnie ball (Minié ball), never having
been shot with one or shot one or collected one in the field, but I thought
the key feature of the ball was the hollow base that expanded when fired to
fit the rifle grooves. There are lots of other bullets, many with rings,
that date back to the mid 19th century.
(http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.greybirdrelics.com/images/shot%2520bullets2.JPG&imgrefurl=http://www.greybirdrelics.com/bullets.htm&h=480&w=640&sz=41&tbnid=5K-nqg9W4U-sHM:&tbnh=103&tbnw=137&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dminnie%2Bball&usg=__-gp_oq7P4-cqotucZN-qZHocn3A=&sa=X&ei=eDs3TIRuhZ2WB4bzxNUH&ved=0CDMQ9QEwBg)
The thing shown as item 1979 doesn't seem to have a hollow base.
On 7/8/2010 11:17 PM, Spehro Pefhany wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 21:56:59 -0400, the renowned "Ed Huntress"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>> "Lloyd E. Sponenburgh"<lloydspinsidemindspring.com> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> humunculus<[email protected]> fired this volley in news:039c8032-c2e8-
>>> [email protected]:
>>>
>>>> 1979 looks like a Crinoid stem, but since its so prominently
>>>> displayed, I'll say its a piece of Corporalite.
>>>
>>> Given the current state of Corporations in general, your term might be
>>> correct. But, I think it's "coprolite", meaning petrified shit.
>>>
>>> <G>
>>> LLoyd
>>
>> Maybe "corporalite" is corporate shit. It could be part of a Chevrolet. d8-)
>
> It could be corporal shit, which ranks below general shit and major
> shit, but above private shit.
But a "corporal lite" would be a Lance Corporal, and I don't think you
wanna call one of them "shit" to his face.
> 1980 is intriguing. I wonder what the tag says.
It was photographed in an antique store, so it's just the price tag, they
didn't know what it was for.
Tough set this week, the two mystery items are still unidentified, the rest
of the answers can be seen here:
http://55tools.blogspot.com/2010/07/set-344.html#answers
Rob
Sonny wrote:
> 1977 - It's only 5-3/4" long, tapered prongs 1" long and 1" apart.
> The teeter-totter action (*Four seat teeter-totter for Lilliputians)
> is less than an inch.
If with an attachment in place, the load hung from a point between the
tips of the tines, I measure 78mm from the fulcrum. The corresponding
distance on my triple-beam balance is 64mm.
I see two limitations on accuracy: imprecision in distances from the
fulcrum, and friction at the fulcrum. In some applications, a rugged
fulcrum and the ability to remove protruding parts would matter more
than accuracy.
Instead of a hardware store, how about a farm? In his feed house, my
uncle had a spring scale to hang a bucket. I think it read to 60
pounds. Even if it had been accurate, it couldn't be read precisely.
However, it was cheap, durable, and out of the way.
To measure feed within 5%, 1977 looks like an improvement on my uncle's
spring scale: cheaper, smaller, more accurate, more reliable, more
durable. If it measured as much as 60 pounds, I would expect an
attachment to hold a small balance weight much farther from the fulcrum
than the load.
Rob H. wrote:
>
>> 1980 is intriguing. I wonder what the tag says.
>
>
> It was photographed in an antique store, so it's just the price tag,
> they didn't know what it was for.
Whiskey!
Traditionally in England, the US gallon was a standard size for a wine
barrel. The imperial gallon was a standard size for a beer barrel.
In the 19th Century, American saloons didn't have the wholesome
atmosphere of pubs. Small, recyclable barrels may have been the most
practical way to drink whiskey, wine, and possibly beer at home.
On a counter, 1980 would position a small barrel where a glass could be
put under the spout. When the level was low, the barrel could be
reclamped so it tilted down toward the tap.
The screw may be wooden for elegance. Wooden threads may have worn out
frequently. That could be why the screw is so long. If threads wore or
broke, you could use new threads by sawing an inch off the end.
In article <[email protected]>, J Burns <[email protected]> wrote:
>Rob H. wrote:
>>
>>> 1980 is intriguing. I wonder what the tag says.
>>
>>
>> It was photographed in an antique store, so it's just the price tag,
>> they didn't know what it was for.
>
>
>Whiskey!
>
>Traditionally in England, the US gallon was a standard size for a wine
>barrel. The imperial gallon was a standard size for a beer barrel.
>
>In the 19th Century, American saloons didn't have the wholesome
>atmosphere of pubs. Small, recyclable barrels may have been the most
>practical way to drink whiskey, wine, and possibly beer at home.
>
>On a counter, 1980 would position a small barrel where a glass could be
>put under the spout. When the level was low, the barrel could be
>reclamped so it tilted down toward the tap.
Sorry, not buying that. Among other things, the openings in the clamp jaws
have *far* too tight a radius of curvature to have ever been intended to hold
a barrrel. Further, the length of the screw clearly shows that the device is
intended to accomodate either objects of vastly different sizes, or one object
whose size or shape changes vastly as the tool is used. Your explanation below
of the purpose of the long screw seems far-fetched, to put it charitably.
>
>The screw may be wooden for elegance. Wooden threads may have worn out
>frequently. That could be why the screw is so long. If threads wore or
>broke, you could use new threads by sawing an inch off the end.
Doug Miller wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, J Burns <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Rob H. wrote:
>>>> 1980 is intriguing. I wonder what the tag says.
>>>
>>> It was photographed in an antique store, so it's just the price tag,
>>> they didn't know what it was for.
>>
>> Whiskey!
>>
>> Traditionally in England, the US gallon was a standard size for a wine
>> barrel. The imperial gallon was a standard size for a beer barrel.
>>
>> In the 19th Century, American saloons didn't have the wholesome
>> atmosphere of pubs. Small, recyclable barrels may have been the most
>> practical way to drink whiskey, wine, and possibly beer at home.
>>
>> On a counter, 1980 would position a small barrel where a glass could be
>> put under the spout. When the level was low, the barrel could be
>> reclamped so it tilted down toward the tap.
>
> Sorry, not buying that. Among other things, the openings in the clamp jaws
> have *far* too tight a radius of curvature to have ever been intended to hold
> a barrrel. Further, the length of the screw clearly shows that the device is
> intended to accomodate either objects of vastly different sizes, or one object
> whose size or shape changes vastly as the tool is used. Your explanation below
> of the purpose of the long screw seems far-fetched, to put it charitably.
Wooden threads don't hold up well on a push broom. That's why I think
1980 has a wooden screw for visual appeal. If I damaged a wooden screw,
I couldn't make a new one, but I could saw the end off if it had length
to spare.
The cutouts are about a third of the width of the frame opening. If the
radius were half that width, that is, the same as a barrel that would
completely fill the frame, the cutouts would form corners of about 40
degrees. From the photo, who can say for sure it's more than 40 degrees?
If the angle is more than 40 degrees, that means the cutouts are a
little small for a barrel that would fill the frame. It's better for
them to be too small than two big. If a cutout is too big for a barrel,
the barrel will contact only the center of the cutout. The barrel could
twist, allowing the bulge of the barrel to slip out. If the cutout is
too small, the corners of the cutout will contact the barrel, preventing
twisting.
Ebay has lots of small wine barrels with cradles. One barrel was made
in 1947. They're still popular because even if you buy wine and liquor
in bottles, keeping it in wood can improve it.
1980 may have two advantages over ordinary cradles. First, when the
level got low, it would be easy to tilt the barrel by pulling the top of
the frame forward and putting shims under the heels of the feet.
Second, the clamp could hold a piece of cloth over the vent, keeping
bugs out and protecting the flavor while allowing air to be sucked in as
the beverage was drawn. With a cradle, you'd have to remember to
replace the vent stopper.
Liquor barrels would have been less desirable after 1933 than before
1919. Pneumatic tires must have made the brittleness of bottles less of
a problem than in the 19th Century, and returnable barrels would have
had to be shipped farther. Bottles were probably cheaper and tougher
than before.
> Wooden threads don't hold up well on a push broom. That's why I think
> 1980 has a wooden screw for visual appeal. If I damaged a wooden screw, I
> couldn't make a new one, but I could saw the end off if it had length to
> spare.
>
> The cutouts are about a third of the width of the frame opening. If the
> radius were half that width, that is, the same as a barrel that would
> completely fill the frame, the cutouts would form corners of about 40
> degrees. From the photo, who can say for sure it's more than 40 degrees?
>
> If the angle is more than 40 degrees, that means the cutouts are a little
> small for a barrel that would fill the frame. It's better for them to be
> too small than two big. If a cutout is too big for a barrel, the barrel
> will contact only the center of the cutout. The barrel could twist,
> allowing the bulge of the barrel to slip out. If the cutout is too small,
> the corners of the cutout will contact the barrel, preventing twisting.
Interesting theory, I'll pass it on the the person who sent the photo.
This makes a good segue to a previous item from a few weeks ago, the one
that I had thought was a barrel stand, it was shot in a small museum but
they didn't have the item identified. I sent them an email and here is
their reply:
"It's a stand that was used to bundle rolls of wallpaper in preparation for
shipping. A paper covering material (possibly cardboard) was placed in the
form. Then printed rolls of wallpaper were placed on the covering and the
covering was wrapped around the bundle. The leather straps were also wrapped
around the bundle and tightened with the crank to compress the rolls. Then
string or tape was wrapped around to secure the bundle, ready for shipping.
The stand is open in the middle so string could be put around the package
and then lifted out of the stand."
Here's a photo in case you forgot what it looks like:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v80/harnett65/Album11/pic1962d.jpg
So a gold star is awarded to everyone who thought this was some type of
bundler.
Rob
Rob H. wrote:
...
> Interesting theory, I'll pass it on the the person who sent the photo.
Yeah, but doubtful imo; just doesn't look like it would do the job
(well) and many of the conjectures I don't think hold up at all.
I presume there's a slot in the legs that let the upper half rise up? I
really don't know the precise function but I'm wagering the form follow
the function very closely and doesn't include tipping it up w/ shims
under the legs or sawing off the end of the threads on the press screw...
> This makes a good segue to a previous item from a few weeks ago, the one
> that I had thought was a barrel stand, it was shot in a small museum but
> they didn't have the item identified. I sent them an email and here is
> their reply:
>
> "It's a stand that was used to bundle rolls of wallpaper in preparation
> for shipping. ...
kewl, thanks for the update...
--
On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 07:09:49 -0700 (PDT), Sonny <[email protected]>
wrote:
>>Could this have been a theatrical prop of some sort?
>
>> If the width if the frame is an indication of the size of the object to
>> be clamped, the sliding bar would be near the top bar and the screw
>> wouldn't have to be stable to hit the dent.
>
>
>Yep, both sound reasonable. Also, it could have possibly been a third
>hand, if it did have a function. The unit is not big or built to
>handle a heavy object or aggressive work. The "clamp's" max opening
>may be 10" X 10", but whatever may be clamped, it is not clamped
>tight... hand tight. And whatever bulk (?) is clamped, seems it would
>be compressed to subsequently fit or guided into the notched area.
>
>With regard to it being a third hand, if a woman/anyone would be
>alone; weaving, quilt making, mattress making or some other task using
>fabric, thread, feathers, cotton stuffing or some other domestic
>manufacture of a softgoods product, maybe she would need a third hand
>to hold something stable, as she performs an adjacent task. How many
>times have we needed a third hand, when clamping/assembling a wood
>project together?
>
>Its clamping function can't be the end product alone, I don't think.
>There's some other task to be done, in conjunction with whatever is
>being clamped.
>
>Sonny
Could it be used to hold tires or tubes for repair?
Gunner
One could not be a successful Leftwinger without realizing that,
in contrast to the popular conception supported by newspapers
and mothers of Leftwingers, a goodly number of Leftwingers are
not only narrow-minded and dull, but also just stupid.
Gunner Asch
"J Burns" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Doug Miller wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>, J Burns
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Rob H. wrote:
>>>>> 1980 is intriguing. I wonder what the tag says.
>>>>
>>>> It was photographed in an antique store, so it's just the price tag,
>>>> they didn't know what it was for.
>>>
>>> Whiskey!
>>>
>>> Traditionally in England, the US gallon was a standard size for a wine
>>> barrel. The imperial gallon was a standard size for a beer barrel.
>>>
>>> In the 19th Century, American saloons didn't have the wholesome
>>> atmosphere of pubs. Small, recyclable barrels may have been the most
>>> practical way to drink whiskey, wine, and possibly beer at home.
>>>
>>> On a counter, 1980 would position a small barrel where a glass could be
>>> put under the spout. When the level was low, the barrel could be
>>> reclamped so it tilted down toward the tap.
>>
>> Sorry, not buying that. Among other things, the openings in the clamp
>> jaws have *far* too tight a radius of curvature to have ever been
>> intended to hold a barrrel. Further, the length of the screw clearly
>> shows that the device is intended to accomodate either objects of vastly
>> different sizes, or one object whose size or shape changes vastly as the
>> tool is used. Your explanation below of the purpose of the long screw
>> seems far-fetched, to put it charitably.
>
> Wooden threads don't hold up well on a push broom. That's why I think
> 1980 has a wooden screw for visual appeal. If I damaged a wooden screw, I
> couldn't make a new one, but I could saw the end off if it had length to
> spare.
Sure you could. Just use a die like you would for a bolt. I still have a
bunch of sacrificial face plates I made from wood when I had a Nova lathe.
Use a 1 & 1/8" tap to make them.
"Rob H." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>> Wooden threads don't hold up well on a push broom. That's why I think
>> 1980 has a wooden screw for visual appeal. If I damaged a wooden screw,
>> I couldn't make a new one, but I could saw the end off if it had length
>> to spare.
>>
>> The cutouts are about a third of the width of the frame opening. If the
>> radius were half that width, that is, the same as a barrel that would
>> completely fill the frame, the cutouts would form corners of about 40
>> degrees. From the photo, who can say for sure it's more than 40 degrees?
>>
>> If the angle is more than 40 degrees, that means the cutouts are a little
>> small for a barrel that would fill the frame. It's better for them to be
>> too small than two big. If a cutout is too big for a barrel, the barrel
>> will contact only the center of the cutout. The barrel could twist,
>> allowing the bulge of the barrel to slip out. If the cutout is too
>> small, the corners of the cutout will contact the barrel, preventing
>> twisting.
>
> Interesting theory, I'll pass it on the the person who sent the photo.
>
> This makes a good segue to a previous item from a few weeks ago, the one
> that I had thought was a barrel stand, it was shot in a small museum but
> they didn't have the item identified. I sent them an email and here is
> their reply:
>
> "It's a stand that was used to bundle rolls of wallpaper in preparation
> for shipping. A paper covering material (possibly cardboard) was placed
> in the form. Then printed rolls of wallpaper were placed on the covering
> and the covering was wrapped around the bundle. The leather straps were
> also wrapped around the bundle and tightened with the crank to compress
> the rolls. Then string or tape was wrapped around to secure the bundle,
> ready for shipping. The stand is open in the middle so string could be put
> around the package and then lifted out of the stand."
>
> Here's a photo in case you forgot what it looks like:
>
> http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v80/harnett65/Album11/pic1962d.jpg
>
> So a gold star is awarded to everyone who thought this was some type of
> bundler.
>
>
> Rob
>
>
>
>
I'm telling ya, it's a Hodgsonia Nut Cracker! :)
dpb wrote:
> Rob H. wrote:
> ...
>
>> Interesting theory, I'll pass it on the the person who sent the photo.
>
> Yeah, but doubtful imo; just doesn't look like it would do the job
> (well) and many of the conjectures I don't think hold up at all.
>
> I presume there's a slot in the legs that let the upper half rise up? I
> really don't know the precise function but I'm wagering the form follow
> the function very closely and doesn't include tipping it up w/ shims
> under the legs or sawing off the end of the threads on the press screw...
>
One interesting thing about the form is the wooden screw. Tightened
down several times a day, it wouldn't last long. I would expect it to
be a simple threaded dowel so that somebody with dowels and a die could
replace it easily. Instead, the screw has a fancy, finished knob, as if
it were intended to last years. That leads me to believe it was
designed to hold something that didn't require much pressure and wasn't
changed often.
It's also interesting that everything but the screw seems to be made of
2x4s. Was it homemade?
The Volstead Act made it illegal to manufacture, sell, transport,
import, or export alcoholic beverages except those for Woodrow Wilson.
Six months later it became legal to manufacture up to 200 gallons of
wine per year in one's home for one's own use. Wine consumption soared.
This may be the story behind the small wine barrels and cradles on ebay.
If you made small batches of wine, you would want to age it. If you
bought moonshine and added grape juice, aging it in small barrels would
improve it and make it look respectable and lawful, to tattletale
visitors and your drinking guests.
I wonder if plans for this item appeared in a handyman magazine during
the surge of interest in winemaking. The prospective winemaker could
envision displaying his hooch in his living room while visitors admired
his workmanship with a lathe and a die.
In rec.puzzles dpb <[email protected]> wrote:
> I presume there's a slot in the legs that let the upper half rise up? I
> really don't know the precise function but I'm wagering the form follow
> the function very closely and doesn't include tipping it up w/ shims
> under the legs or sawing off the end of the threads on the press screw...
I was wondering that too, it looks to me the top bar, the one with the
wooden screw in it, can rotate. If you look at the left hand side, it seems
only connected to the vertical rail at the center. If that is a peg, that
means the upper bar can rotate around, but would be stationary as far as the
height.
It's not clear if the bottom bar, the one with the hole in it, can slide up
and down. It also looks like to me on the bottom bar, there is an indent
from the wood screw being tightend all the way down, or if the bar moves, it
presses against the screw.
Point is, both bars can't move, there wouldn't be anything holding the whole
thing together. I'm guessing the bottom one with the hole is fixed and
doesn't slide up and down.
So I don't think it's a clamp.
I beleive, whatever the use is, you grab the ball on the wood screw and spin
that whole top peice around, slide something onto the screw, rotate it back
down and tighten.
Like a cylinder of twine or yarn.
Wish there was a bit more info, if either bar can slide, if both vertical
rails have a groove in them.
-bruce
[email protected]
Bruce Esquibel wrote:
> In rec.puzzles dpb <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I presume there's a slot in the legs that let the upper half rise up? I
>> really don't know the precise function but I'm wagering the form follow
>> the function very closely and doesn't include tipping it up w/ shims
>> under the legs or sawing off the end of the threads on the press screw...
>
> I was wondering that too, it looks to me the top bar, the one with the
> wooden screw in it, can rotate. If you look at the left hand side, it seems
> only connected to the vertical rail at the center. If that is a peg, that
> means the upper bar can rotate around, but would be stationary as far as the
> height.
>
> It's not clear if the bottom bar, the one with the hole in it, can slide up
> and down. It also looks like to me on the bottom bar, there is an indent
> from the wood screw being tightend all the way down, or if the bar moves, it
> presses against the screw.
>
> Point is, both bars can't move, there wouldn't be anything holding the whole
> thing together. I'm guessing the bottom one with the hole is fixed and
> doesn't slide up and down.
>
> So I don't think it's a clamp.
>
> I beleive, whatever the use is, you grab the ball on the wood screw and spin
> that whole top peice around, slide something onto the screw, rotate it back
> down and tighten.
>
> Like a cylinder of twine or yarn.
>
> Wish there was a bit more info, if either bar can slide, if both vertical
> rails have a groove in them.
...
The top piece is stationary, you can see a small amount of the
tenon/dowel where the left lag has separated slightly from the end is all.
Indeed, the compression indent on the upper half of the split pieces at
the bottom is quite apparent. From that alone one can infer it was used
to clamp something between the upper interior and bottom (indeed, fixed)
pieces. Altho as noted earlier I don't have a good feel for what that
actually was, I just don't think the wine/whiskey guess is in the right
ballpark. Crystal ball is murky; could even be wrong but just doesn't
feel right...
The question that might give the clue would be how far is the upper
clamp bar allow to move? The oddity in the design in my mind is the
asymmetry between the height and the cutout area and length of screw.
If the object needed the full height then if it were round it doesn't
need to have been so tall and the diameter of the cutout is quite small
in comparison. Which leads me back to the idea there was a very
specific purpose leading to those dimensions but I don't have a good
guess as to what that purpose was. Inspection of the jaws themselves
and other clues only visible from detailed examination might lend a few
clues but not possible from the picture.
My guess is it isn't terribly old, either...there appear to be planer
ripple marks in the clamping pieces that weren't fully removed before
finishing. Note the vertical dark parallel lines in them that are
consistent between the two. The piece was milled, the hole cut and then
the two separated.
Where the piece was located/found _might_ be of some clue as well.
--
"dpb" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Bruce Esquibel wrote:
>> In rec.puzzles dpb <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> I presume there's a slot in the legs that let the upper half rise up? I
>>> really don't know the precise function but I'm wagering the form follow
>>> the function very closely and doesn't include tipping it up w/ shims
>>> under the legs or sawing off the end of the threads on the press
>>> screw...
>>
>> I was wondering that too, it looks to me the top bar, the one with the
>> wooden screw in it, can rotate. If you look at the left hand side, it
>> seems
>> only connected to the vertical rail at the center. If that is a peg, that
>> means the upper bar can rotate around, but would be stationary as far as
>> the
>> height.
>>
>> It's not clear if the bottom bar, the one with the hole in it, can slide
>> up
>> and down. It also looks like to me on the bottom bar, there is an indent
>> from the wood screw being tightend all the way down, or if the bar moves,
>> it
>> presses against the screw.
>>
>> Point is, both bars can't move, there wouldn't be anything holding the
>> whole
>> thing together. I'm guessing the bottom one with the hole is fixed and
>> doesn't slide up and down.
>>
>> So I don't think it's a clamp.
>>
>> I beleive, whatever the use is, you grab the ball on the wood screw and
>> spin
>> that whole top peice around, slide something onto the screw, rotate it
>> back
>> down and tighten.
>>
>> Like a cylinder of twine or yarn.
>>
>> Wish there was a bit more info, if either bar can slide, if both vertical
>> rails have a groove in them.
> ...
>
> The top piece is stationary, you can see a small amount of the tenon/dowel
> where the left lag has separated slightly from the end is all.
>
The top piece of the 'clamp' section is not necessarily stationary. If it
were, then why the mortice running from the top 'clamp' section to the upper
stretcher? Put the photo into an image processing program and add a lot of
fill light.
And 'milling' can be a manual process, so the age is not determined.
Lobby Dosser wrote:
...
> The top piece of the 'clamp' section is not necessarily stationary. ...
That's what I said; the top section is what the other poster was saying
wasn't...
> And 'milling' can be a manual process, so the age is not determined.
Indeed, but those are definitely characteristic marks of a power planer
that weren't removed.
--
In article <[email protected]>, dpb <[email protected]> wrote:
>Lobby Dosser wrote:
>....
>
>> The top piece of the 'clamp' section is not necessarily stationary. ...
>
>That's what I said; the top section is what the other poster was saying
>wasn't...
>
>> And 'milling' can be a manual process, so the age is not determined.
>
>Indeed, but those are definitely characteristic marks of a power planer
>that weren't removed.
That does not mean it's of recent manufacture. I'd like to point out that
electric motors have been in existence for nearly two centuries; even the AC
motor dates from the late 19th century. DC motors were used to power machinery
as early as 1837.
Further, "power" tool does not necessarily imply *electric* power, either:
both steam engines and water wheels were used to power woodworking equipment
in the 18th century, if not earlier.
Doug Miller wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, dpb <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Lobby Dosser wrote:
>> ....
>>
>>> The top piece of the 'clamp' section is not necessarily stationary. ...
>> That's what I said; the top section is what the other poster was saying
>> wasn't...
>>
>>> And 'milling' can be a manual process, so the age is not determined.
>> Indeed, but those are definitely characteristic marks of a power planer
>> that weren't removed.
>
> That does not mean it's of recent manufacture. ...
That depends on what your definition of "recent" is.
I didn't say it was built yesterday; I'll stand by the assessment it's
not yet 100...
--
Doug Miller wrote:
...
> That does not mean it's of recent manufacture. I'd like to point out that
> electric motors have been in existence for nearly two centuries; even the AC
> motor dates from the late 19th century. DC motors were used to power machinery
> as early as 1837.
And, that dates it as not colonial and under the premise that it's rare
to have anything that's the first of anything as not likely being an
example of some of the first available material having been run thru a
power thickness planer or surface jointer.
> Further, "power" tool does not necessarily imply *electric* power, either:
> both steam engines and water wheels were used to power woodworking equipment
> in the 18th century, if not earlier.
When was the first modern-style rotating knife thicknesser...I don't
know for absolute certain but certainly latter 19th century I'm sure and
I'm thinking more likely early 20th or last 20 years of 19th.
You not believe those are planer/jointer marks, btw.... ???
--
humunculus wrote:
> On Jul 9, 5:04 am, J Burns <[email protected]> wrote:
>> The feet seem to contact the floor at six points. The corner contact
>> points would provide stability, while the center ones would help it
>> support a lot of weight. They appear to be adjustable.
>
> I think the center 'contact points' are actually round knobs, and that
> the legs are attached by wooden bolts, and are removable. Whatever it
> was for, possibly portability is a factor?
>
> --riverman
Ahh, that's been bugging me!
I wonder why someone with the tools and craftsmanship to make three
fancy wooden screws, would fail to smooth the top clamp jaw.
I think it was a kit, assembled by a peddler who had fine sandpaper and
varnish but nothing to smooth ripples in a board.
If it was built when lumber was milled by machine, metal screws should
have been readily available. Why didn't the kit provider supply them?
I think the provider was an unemployed man for whom the price of metal
hardware was an obstacle. Millions of Americans were in economic
straits in the 1920s; the Depression made it worse.
The size of the frame suggests to me that it was to hold something about
the size of a soccer ball. The holder would sell if it appealed to the
customer and the price was right.
"dpb" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Lobby Dosser wrote:
> ...
>
>> The top piece of the 'clamp' section is not necessarily stationary. ...
>
> That's what I said; the top section is what the other poster was saying
> wasn't...
>
>> And 'milling' can be a manual process, so the age is not determined.
>
> Indeed, but those are definitely characteristic marks of a power planer
> that weren't removed.
>
> --
>
>
I don't think so. Look at it after using some fill light on it.
In article <[email protected]>, dpb <[email protected]> wrote:
>Doug Miller wrote:
>....
>
>> That does not mean it's of recent manufacture. I'd like to point out that
>> electric motors have been in existence for nearly two centuries; even the AC
>> motor dates from the late 19th century. DC motors were used to power
> machinery
>> as early as 1837.
>
>And, that dates it as not colonial
Not necessarily. Think water power. One water wheel driving a system of
pulleys and belts can operate a lot of machinery. I agree it *probably* is not
colonial, but I'm not willing to say it's *definitely* not.
>and under the premise that it's rare
>to have anything that's the first of anything as not likely being an
>example of some of the first available material having been run thru a
>power thickness planer or surface jointer.
>
>> Further, "power" tool does not necessarily imply *electric* power, either:
>> both steam engines and water wheels were used to power woodworking equipment
>> in the 18th century, if not earlier.
>
>When was the first modern-style rotating knife thicknesser...I don't
>know for absolute certain but certainly latter 19th century I'm sure and
>I'm thinking more likely early 20th or last 20 years of 19th.
I don't know. I wasn't able to find any references on that.
>
>You not believe those are planer/jointer marks, btw.... ???
I think it's conceivable that they're natural (e.g. curly maple), but I agree
it's more likely that they're marks from rotating knives.
Scott Lurndal wrote:
> J Burns <[email protected]> writes:
>>>
>> One interesting thing about the form is the wooden screw. Tightened
>> down several times a day, it wouldn't last long. I would expect it to
>> be a simple threaded dowel so that somebody with dowels and a die could
>> replace it easily. Instead, the screw has a fancy, finished knob, as if
>> it were intended to last years. That leads me to believe it was
>> designed to hold something that didn't require much pressure and wasn't
>> changed often.
>
> What makes you think the wooden screw wouldn't last? They are quite
> rugged and were used daily in woodworking trades for bench screws and
> clamping.
>
> Once upon a time, that 'fancy finished knob' was standard workmanship.
>
> scott
I seem to recall using clamps with wooden screws. Did they mate with
metal fittings?
I liked the way they didn't vibrate loose. For a real carpenter, they
would mean self-reliance: he could make and replace them.
I seem to recall that good wooden screws (intended to last) had threads
with a square cross section, and had a larger diameter and coarser pitch
than to a metal screw for the same job. The screw for 1980 appears to
have an outside diameter of only 1/2" and a fairly fine pitch, like a
metal screw I might expect to see used for such a clamp.
Fancy finished knobs may have been standard workmanship, but I wouldn't
expect one on the handle of a screw-in push broom. The manufacturer
would have to start with a bigger piece of wood, and shaping the knob
would increase labor costs. Price is an important consideration for a
threaded wooden device that may not last long.
Doug Miller wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, dpb <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Doug Miller wrote:
>> ....
>>
>>> That does not mean it's of recent manufacture. I'd like to point out that
>>> electric motors have been in existence for nearly two centuries; even the AC
>>> motor dates from the late 19th century. DC motors were used to power
>> machinery
>>> as early as 1837.
>> And, that dates it as not colonial
>
> Not necessarily. Think water power. One water wheel driving a system of
> pulleys and belts can operate a lot of machinery. I agree it *probably* is not
> colonial, but I'm not willing to say it's *definitely* not.
There was power, there was no rotating-knife thicknesser/planer.
>
...
>> You not believe those are planer/jointer marks, btw.... ???
>
> I think it's conceivable that they're natural (e.g. curly maple), but I agree
> it's more likely that they're marks from rotating knives.
No way is that curly grain even from a picture like that.
--
Sonny wrote:
> After further consideration, I don't think 1980 was meant for anything
> other than to sell. Someone put it together and passed it off as an
> old tool or appliance. All the finish is the same, no patina and no
> discoloration or wear where a clamped item would be placed. The ball
> handle is not discolored from oil from someone's hands. No edges are
> rough or worn from use. The dip in the upper "clamp", where the screw
> touches, was part of the make, not worn from use. That screw is not
> so stable that it would hit only at that spot. The center knob piece,
> under/center of the feet cross-piece, functions to attach the legs
> more securely. I don't think these center pieces were part of the
> original idea. The legs ended up being unstable (poor jointery), so
> those center pieces were added to further secure the legs.... and they
> additionally gave the faux tool/appliance more ammunition for passing
> it off as something unique.
>
> Traveling salesmen sold tonics that had no function, but to fill the
> salemen's pockets. If that piece would ever sell, I suspect another
> would be put up for sale.
>
> Sonny
If the width if the frame is an indication of the size of the object to
be clamped, the sliding bar would be near the top bar and the screw
wouldn't have to be stable to hit the dent.
If it's furniture that went to the attic within 13 years, it wouldn't
show much use.
Before 1933, a holder for a small barrel of homemade wine may have been
a hot item to peddle. In this case, perhaps an unemployed vet showed a
sample to friends at the American Legion hall, took orders, and
assembled them from kits.
On 7/12/2010 12:27 AM, J Burns wrote:
> Sonny wrote:
>> After further consideration, I don't think 1980 was meant for anything
>> other than to sell. Someone put it together and passed it off as an
>> old tool or appliance. All the finish is the same, no patina and no
>> discoloration or wear where a clamped item would be placed. The ball
>> handle is not discolored from oil from someone's hands. No edges are
>> rough or worn from use. The dip in the upper "clamp", where the screw
>> touches, was part of the make, not worn from use. That screw is not
>> so stable that it would hit only at that spot. The center knob piece,
>> under/center of the feet cross-piece, functions to attach the legs
>> more securely. I don't think these center pieces were part of the
>> original idea. The legs ended up being unstable (poor jointery), so
>> those center pieces were added to further secure the legs.... and they
>> additionally gave the faux tool/appliance more ammunition for passing
>> it off as something unique.
>>
>> Traveling salesmen sold tonics that had no function, but to fill the
>> salemen's pockets. If that piece would ever sell, I suspect another
>> would be put up for sale.
>>
>> Sonny
>
> If the width if the frame is an indication of the size of the object to
> be clamped, the sliding bar would be near the top bar and the screw
> wouldn't have to be stable to hit the dent.
>
> If it's furniture that went to the attic within 13 years, it wouldn't
> show much use.
>
> Before 1933, a holder for a small barrel of homemade wine may have been
> a hot item to peddle. In this case, perhaps an unemployed vet showed a
> sample to friends at the American Legion hall, took orders, and
> assembled them from kits.
Could this have been a theatrical prop of some sort?
On 7/11/2010 11:43 PM, dpb wrote:
> Doug Miller wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>, dpb
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Doug Miller wrote:
>>> ....
>>>
>>>> That does not mean it's of recent manufacture. I'd like to point out
>>>> that electric motors have been in existence for nearly two
>>>> centuries; even the AC motor dates from the late 19th century. DC
>>>> motors were used to power
>>> machinery
>>>> as early as 1837.
>>> And, that dates it as not colonial
>>
>> Not necessarily. Think water power. One water wheel driving a system
>> of pulleys and belts can operate a lot of machinery. I agree it
>> *probably* is not colonial, but I'm not willing to say it's
>> *definitely* not.
>
> There was power, there was no rotating-knife thicknesser/planer.
Some Googling found <http://preview.tinyurl.com/37749jh>, which suggests
that the original patent for the planer was issued in 1802 and they
didn't become available as usable tools until 1827.
<http://www.owwm.com/MfgIndex/detail.aspx?id=919> tells a somewhat
different story, but its date of 1828 is close enough to 1827. This,
however, also says that Woodworth, the inventor, was quoted as saying
that he first saw the technique being used by "the shaking Quakers",
which I am guessing means the Shakers. If it was a Shaker invention
that puts the planer in the 1790s or later I believe. So it would have
not been made in colonial times, but it might be an original Shaker piece.
> ...
>
>>> You not believe those are planer/jointer marks, btw.... ???
>>
>> I think it's conceivable that they're natural (e.g. curly maple), but
>> I agree it's more likely that they're marks from rotating knives.
>
> No way is that curly grain even from a picture like that.
Doesn't look like curly maple to me either and the pattern's too regular
for tiger maple.
J. Clarke wrote:
>
> Some Googling found <http://preview.tinyurl.com/37749jh>, which suggests
> that the original patent for the planer was issued in 1802 and they
> didn't become available as usable tools until 1827.
>
> <http://www.owwm.com/MfgIndex/detail.aspx?id=919> tells a somewhat
> different story, but its date of 1828 is close enough to 1827. This,
> however, also says that Woodworth, the inventor, was quoted as saying
> that he first saw the technique being used by "the shaking Quakers",
> which I am guessing means the Shakers. If it was a Shaker invention
> that puts the planer in the 1790s or later I believe. So it would have
> not been made in colonial times, but it might be an original Shaker piece.
>
They look like 2x4s to me. In that case, the exact dimensions could
date them. in the 1920s, a dressed 2x4 had to be within 1/4" of its
nominal dimensions.
In article <[email protected]>, dpb <[email protected]> wrote:
>J Burns wrote:
>....
>
>> They look like 2x4s to me. ...
>
>I also thought that a very good possibility...
>
Suggesting that it may be a modern repro of, or repair to, something old.
Best suggestion so far IMO is Gunner's notion that it might have been intended
to hold a wheel or tire.
J. Clarke wrote:
...
> Some Googling found <http://preview.tinyurl.com/37749jh>, which suggests
> that the original patent for the planer was issued in 1802 and they
> didn't become available as usable tools until 1827.
>
> <http://www.owwm.com/MfgIndex/detail.aspx?id=919> tells a somewhat
> different story, but its date of 1828 is close enough to 1827. This,
> however, also says that Woodworth, the inventor, was quoted as saying
> that he first saw the technique being used by "the shaking Quakers",
> which I am guessing means the Shakers. If it was a Shaker invention
> that puts the planer in the 1790s or later I believe. So it would have
> not been made in colonial times, but it might be an original Shaker piece.
...
I'm on slow dialup so tend to avoid the random googling as generally the
load time of stuff is so long as to make it an all day effort for
anything I don't have a starting point for.
That's roughly 20-30 years ahead of what I'd have guessed altho I'm
still thinking post Civil War era at earliest for this piece and doubt
that...
As another poster noted (but I'd held in hip pocket to see if anybody
else thought so, too), looks to me like it was fabricated from dimension
lumber.
--
Sonny wrote:
>> Could this have been a theatrical prop of some sort?
>
>> If the width if the frame is an indication of the size of the object to
>> be clamped, the sliding bar would be near the top bar and the screw
>> wouldn't have to be stable to hit the dent.
>
>
> Yep, both sound reasonable. Also, it could have possibly been a third
> hand, if it did have a function. The unit is not big or built to
> handle a heavy object or aggressive work. The "clamp's" max opening
> may be 10" X 10", but whatever may be clamped, it is not clamped
> tight... hand tight. And whatever bulk (?) is clamped, seems it would
> be compressed to subsequently fit or guided into the notched area.
>
> With regard to it being a third hand, if a woman/anyone would be
> alone; weaving, quilt making, mattress making or some other task using
> fabric, thread, feathers, cotton stuffing or some other domestic
> manufacture of a softgoods product, maybe she would need a third hand
> to hold something stable, as she performs an adjacent task. How many
> times have we needed a third hand, when clamping/assembling a wood
> project together?
>
> Its clamping function can't be the end product alone, I don't think.
> There's some other task to be done, in conjunction with whatever is
> being clamped.
>
> Sonny
Here's the helping-hand function I visualize. It would display a small
wine barrel with the tap high enough to draw a glass.
http://www.winestuff.com/acatalog/Final_Touch_Beverage_Keg_with_Stand.html
With 1980, the four corners of the cutouts would contact the barrel,
securing it without much screw pressure. When the wine level got low,
the long legs would make it easy to tip everything forward with one hand.
During Prohibition, homemade wine was the only legal alcoholic beverage.
humunculus wrote:
> On Jul 13, 1:53 am, J Burns <[email protected]> wrote:
>> During Prohibition, homemade wine was the only legal alcoholic beverage.
>
> No, 'medicinal' whisky was available also. But that doesn't change
> your overall point.
>
> --riverman
I wasn't familiar with that.
James Madison, primary author of the Constitution, drank a pint of
liquor a day. John Adams would drink a tankard of hard cider when he
got up in the morning. After terrorizing small distillers by fielding a
larger army than he'd commanded in the revolution, George Washington
built the largest distillery in North America.
Early in the 20th Century, alcohol was the fifth largest industry in
America. Per capita consumption was about what it is now. Alcohol
taxes amounted to 30% of federal revenues, so the income tax had to be
enacted before Prohibition.
At their 1917 meeting, the American Medical Association voted in favor
of Prohibition. In 1922 they reversed their position, saying alcohol
was vital to treat many diseases, including diabetes and cancer. The
law was changed to permit prescriptions. If you wanted a bottle of
liquor, you'd pay your doctor the equivalent of $40 and your druggist a
similar amount.
Charles Walgreen had 20 drugstores in 1920. In 1930 he had 525. He
hated fires because firemen would always steal a case of liquor.
In article <[email protected]>,
"Alexander Thesoso" <[email protected]> wrote:
> 1975 A locksmith would use this part of a lock-picking set. Put the short
> end in a key slot. Use the long end to apply gentle torque while fiddling
> with the pins/tumblers to pick a lock.
Yes. It is commonly called a "tension wrench".
<http://www.lockpicks.com/stainlesssteeltensionwrenches.aspx>
Joe Gwinn
On 2010-07-08, Rob H. <[email protected]> wrote:
> I need help finding an answer for two of them this week:
>
> http://55tools.blogspot.com/
Posting from Rec.crafts.metalworking as always.
1975) This looks like a tension tool as part of a lock picking set.
Perhaps a little thick (and thus stiff) for the task, but
useable.
1976) Part of a maker's logo - but rather large, so perhaps
the logo is on an advertising sign.
1977) At a guess -- this is inlaid in a woodworker's bench, and by
pressing on one end, the other end stands up to serve as a
workpiece stop or by pressing the other end, the workpiece can
slide up it.
1978) Bowl for washing hands, and the smaller ones are for storing
soap in, with the holes draining the excess water to the soap
does not turn into goo.
1979) Hmm ... sort of looks like a chunk of pumice (volcanic rock
that floats) on a support rod.
Or -- it might be a heating element, given what looks like a
hint of a power cord near the left hand end.
1980) Stocks for punishing a misbehaving dog?
Otherwise, something for supporting one end of a rotating shaft.
Now to see what others have suggested.
Enjoy,
DoN.
--
Email: <[email protected]> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---
"Rob H." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>I need help finding an answer for two of them this week:
>
> http://55tools.blogspot.com/
>
>
> Rob
1975 Paint can opener?
1978 soap dish to drain water of of bar soap ?
On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 21:56:59 -0400, the renowned "Ed Huntress"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd E. Sponenburgh" <lloydspinsidemindspring.com> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> humunculus <[email protected]> fired this volley in news:039c8032-c2e8-
>> [email protected]:
>>
>>> 1979 looks like a Crinoid stem, but since its so prominently
>>> displayed, I'll say its a piece of Corporalite.
>>
>> Given the current state of Corporations in general, your term might be
>> correct. But, I think it's "coprolite", meaning petrified shit.
>>
>> <G>
>> LLoyd
>
>Maybe "corporalite" is corporate shit. It could be part of a Chevrolet. d8-)
It could be corporal shit, which ranks below general shit and major
shit, but above private shit.
Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
[email protected] Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com