Files
- lt.luke
- G-General
- Posts: 9899
- Joined: Fri May 09, 2003 7:56 am
- Location: Oklahoma
- Contact:
Files
Guys,
Have a chance to dig through some "old" files. Any help on correct vintage markings and sizes?
Wingnut, is this covered on your "Whizz"?
Have a chance to dig through some "old" files. Any help on correct vintage markings and sizes?
Wingnut, is this covered on your "Whizz"?
Luke Sparks
MAJ (R), USA
GPW 12078 http://g503.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=95&t=102532
https://www.homesteadersfinest.com/
MAJ (R), USA
GPW 12078 http://g503.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=95&t=102532
https://www.homesteadersfinest.com/
- lt.luke
- G-General
- Posts: 9899
- Joined: Fri May 09, 2003 7:56 am
- Location: Oklahoma
- Contact:
Re: Files
I know there are Nicholsons in the bunch. Probably others. Do you know yours are the correct vintage?
Luke Sparks
MAJ (R), USA
GPW 12078 http://g503.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=95&t=102532
https://www.homesteadersfinest.com/
MAJ (R), USA
GPW 12078 http://g503.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=95&t=102532
https://www.homesteadersfinest.com/
- mudbox
- G-Colonel
- Posts: 1526
- Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 3:09 pm
- Location:
Re: Files
I don't... Since the logo hasn't changed they would be near impossible to date.lt.luke wrote:Do you know yours are the correct vintage?
Pretty sure the Disston and Heller are correct vintage, but the Heller isn't the correct spec.
Good luck in your search. I'd like to see some pics if you find anything good.
-Jason
- lt.luke
- G-General
- Posts: 9899
- Joined: Fri May 09, 2003 7:56 am
- Location: Oklahoma
- Contact:
Re: Files
Ok
Luke Sparks
MAJ (R), USA
GPW 12078 http://g503.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=95&t=102532
https://www.homesteadersfinest.com/
MAJ (R), USA
GPW 12078 http://g503.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=95&t=102532
https://www.homesteadersfinest.com/
- Wingnutt
- G-Lieutenant General
- Posts: 5029
- Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2011 1:17 pm
- Location:
Re: Files
Just picked this up this weekend. No idea of the vintage, but it’s a 10” flat with smooth cut. Adding it here since it varies from the Heller Nucut mudbox added above. NUCUT on the tang of this one as well.
TEMPORARY DUTY
- mudbox
- G-Colonel
- Posts: 1526
- Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 3:09 pm
- Location:
Re: Files
Any luck with that box of files, Luke?
How about some pics of the file handles in here as well?
I have a question about the SKROO-ZON handle re: approximate vintage.
Looks like the Lutz tool company is still making this file handle today, but this appears to be an early example.
Stamping reads:
SKROO-ZON
U.S. Patents Granted
Foreign Patents Pending
Can anyone help me date it? It's a nice handle and in great shape.
Here is a pic of the rest of my file handles for the GMTK
Top to bottom:
SKROO-ZON
LINK
LUTZ
unmarked
-Jason
How about some pics of the file handles in here as well?
I have a question about the SKROO-ZON handle re: approximate vintage.
Looks like the Lutz tool company is still making this file handle today, but this appears to be an early example.
Stamping reads:
SKROO-ZON
U.S. Patents Granted
Foreign Patents Pending
Can anyone help me date it? It's a nice handle and in great shape.
Here is a pic of the rest of my file handles for the GMTK
Top to bottom:
SKROO-ZON
LINK
LUTZ
unmarked
-Jason
- lt.luke
- G-General
- Posts: 9899
- Joined: Fri May 09, 2003 7:56 am
- Location: Oklahoma
- Contact:
Re: Files
Life has gotten in the way...no progress.
Luke Sparks
MAJ (R), USA
GPW 12078 http://g503.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=95&t=102532
https://www.homesteadersfinest.com/
MAJ (R), USA
GPW 12078 http://g503.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=95&t=102532
https://www.homesteadersfinest.com/
- Hartofoak
- G-Major
- Posts: 937
- Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2010 2:06 pm
- Location: Berkshire England
File Handles
Here are a couple of interesting posts from AZ Jeff and Roger Briggs;
viewtopic.php?f=48&t=223003&hilit=+file+handle#p1309369
viewtopic.php?f=48&t=144633&p=834044&hi ... le#p834044
viewtopic.php?f=48&t=223003&hilit=+file+handle#p1309369
viewtopic.php?f=48&t=144633&p=834044&hi ... le#p834044
MB 298781 DoD: est. 01-19-44 (ex British Army 1958)
T1 Trailer: "Transportation Equipment Co."
MVMTS toolboxes & tools
T1 Trailer: "Transportation Equipment Co."
MVMTS toolboxes & tools
- d42jeep
- G-Brigadier General
- Posts: 2290
- Joined: Tue Feb 25, 2014 4:06 pm
- Location: Albany/Fallen Leaf Lake, CA
- Contact:
Re: Files
-Don
PS: I found that I own a few more!
- Attachments
-
- Handle finalists
- image.jpg (79.29 KiB) Viewed 3808 times
-
- Even more handles
- image.jpg (96.01 KiB) Viewed 3818 times
-
- Shur-grip and no name
- image.jpg (82.02 KiB) Viewed 3941 times
-
- More handles
- image.jpg (59.33 KiB) Viewed 3943 times
Last edited by d42jeep on Sun Nov 02, 2014 10:44 am, edited 4 times in total.
Ford GPW 76344 DOD 11/42 Built in Richmond, CA
- Wingnutt
- G-Lieutenant General
- Posts: 5029
- Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2011 1:17 pm
- Location:
Re: Files
You gotta love the name 'SKROO-ZON'. One of my original kit handles, following a similar 'phonetic' branding and spelling approach, was a 'SHUR-GRIP'. I never was able to track the maker down, but now - thanks to Jasno and Don - I'm pretty sure it was a Lutz. The shape of the handle and the ferrule is exactly the same, and the naming convention certainly follows suit. (Lutz was one of the mfgr's I was disappointed to NOT find in the War Supply Contracts books, by the way.) The other file handle was a Disston No. 3. The patent number on these Disston handles, which they called Strongholds, is for the coil-spring ferrule that widens and thereby squeezes the tang when its inserted into the handle slot. It's a dead ringer for the handles in their 1941 catalog. Some photos:
TEMPORARY DUTY
- Wingnutt
- G-Lieutenant General
- Posts: 5029
- Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2011 1:17 pm
- Location:
Re: Files
As long as we're on this topic, I have a VERY IMPORTANT question for all GMTK collectors:
How are you measuring the length of your files?
The manuals we had until very recently (hold that thought!) did not indicate whether the lengths specified were total length, or the more esoteric length (without the tang), which is how machinists would order files from period catalogs. Using the figures that accompanied the 1942 through 1945 manuals, and comparing the length of the files to the other tools, the lengths seemed to be total length, to me, not 'machinist' length.
So I will stick my red neck out and say that I've been using total length.
However, you may or may not have noticed that the 1938 OQMG Circular 4 includes the following specification: "LENGTH (POINT TO SHOULDER)"
"Shoulder" is not a term I can find in any other period references I have. But I know that period catalogs, as I alluded to above, describe a file's length as excluding the tang, and a 1941 Disston catalog I have describes it as "heel to point." I think Disston's "heel" is the OQMG's "shoulder".
If we read "LENGTH (POINT TO SHOULDER)" in the recently found 1938 OQMG Circular 4 to mean excluding the tang, we have to read "Length" that way in every ensuing manual, even though the ensuing manual's dropped that crucial little parenthetical phrase!
Note that the lengths of the files never changed.
I am humble enough to admit that this means that all the files I have been collecting are two inches TOO SHORT.
All the 10" flats I have had were really 8" flats, the 8" three-squares are 6" three-squares, etc.
Fortunately, this misreading of the later manuals is not too costly to fix, considering how common and cheap old files are.
(A subtle, unexpected benefit of Silly's MB finding that OQMG Circ 4!)
How are you measuring the length of your files?
The manuals we had until very recently (hold that thought!) did not indicate whether the lengths specified were total length, or the more esoteric length (without the tang), which is how machinists would order files from period catalogs. Using the figures that accompanied the 1942 through 1945 manuals, and comparing the length of the files to the other tools, the lengths seemed to be total length, to me, not 'machinist' length.
So I will stick my red neck out and say that I've been using total length.
However, you may or may not have noticed that the 1938 OQMG Circular 4 includes the following specification: "LENGTH (POINT TO SHOULDER)"
"Shoulder" is not a term I can find in any other period references I have. But I know that period catalogs, as I alluded to above, describe a file's length as excluding the tang, and a 1941 Disston catalog I have describes it as "heel to point." I think Disston's "heel" is the OQMG's "shoulder".
If we read "LENGTH (POINT TO SHOULDER)" in the recently found 1938 OQMG Circular 4 to mean excluding the tang, we have to read "Length" that way in every ensuing manual, even though the ensuing manual's dropped that crucial little parenthetical phrase!
Note that the lengths of the files never changed.
I am humble enough to admit that this means that all the files I have been collecting are two inches TOO SHORT.
All the 10" flats I have had were really 8" flats, the 8" three-squares are 6" three-squares, etc.
Fortunately, this misreading of the later manuals is not too costly to fix, considering how common and cheap old files are.
(A subtle, unexpected benefit of Silly's MB finding that OQMG Circ 4!)
TEMPORARY DUTY
- d42jeep
- G-Brigadier General
- Posts: 2290
- Joined: Tue Feb 25, 2014 4:06 pm
- Location: Albany/Fallen Leaf Lake, CA
- Contact:
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 47 guests