Tool Talk
Classic Auto and Motorcycle Tools => Classic Auto and Motorcycle Tools => Topic started by: DadsTools on June 05, 2020, 02:34:10 PM
-
CRAFTSMAN RHFT RATCHET TYPE STUDY 1968-2009
In attempting to answer questions posted by b.well on GJ regarding dating on Craftsman RHFT ratchets, it became apparent in looking through older posts and other forums that many others in the past had asked similar questions. There was clearly a need to conduct a comprehensive Type Study on the RHFT. After examining many photos and examples, it quickly became apparent that the patent information marked on the handles were key to determining the timeline on these ratchets. After an exhaustive search of all available images and descriptions, related patents (including one not previously recognized), and a little backstory on a lawsuit between Sears and the inventor of the quick release, I was finally able to assemble a solid list of RHFT types along with their characteristic markings and chronology. I had some assistance from b.well, and some inspiration from Jim C.'s amazing TD Type Study. What's unusual about this study is that it relies almost exclusively on the external patent evidence instead of the Sears catalogs. The two posts that follow, TYPE STUDY APPROACH, METHOD & SOURCES and TYPE SUMMARY provide all the background information on the Type Study and how it was arrived at. First posted on GJ, I posted it on Tool Talk as well because I felt it would be appreciated here as well. My apologies that the columns do not perfectly line up because of the font, but it's still in a usable format. Thanks.
[amended 6-22-2020]
Type 1: 1968 =V= "PATENT PENDING" NM QR1 PA (1)
Type 2: 1968-69 =V= "PATENT PENDING" NM QR1 FA (1)
Type 3: 1969-70 -V- "U.S. PAT. 3462731, AND OTHERS" NM QR1 FA (2)
Type 4: 1970-71 -V- "U.S.PATS. 3172675, 3208318, 3467231, 3532013" M QR1 FA (2)
Type 5: 1971 -V- "U.S.PATS. 3467231,3532013 CAN.PAT.870343-1971" M QR1 FA (2)
Type 6: 1972-81 -V- "U.S.PATS. 3467231,3532013 CAN.PATENTED-1971" M QR1 FA (2) (3) (4)
Type 7: 1981-83 -V- "PATENT PENDING" M QR2 FA (5)
Type 8: 1983-86 -V- No Patent Markings M QR2 FA
Type 9: 1986-1995 Post-V Same as Type 8 w/2-Letter “V_” Mfr Codes M QR2 FA (6)
Type 10: 1995-2009 Vary No “FORGED IN” Marking, No-Line Logo, Various Codes M QR2 FA
ABBREVIATIONS [see TYPE STUDY APPROACH et.al. for more details]:
M = model number
NM = no model number
QR1 = 1st Generation quick release having an opening in the stud end for the plunger
QR2 = 2nd Generation quick release having no plunger opening or a “blind” stud
PA = pointed-As in the CRAFTSMAN logo
FA = flat-As in the CRAFTSMAN logo
FOOTNOTES [see TYPE STUDY APPROACH et.al. for more details]:
(1) Some examples are found with a double-spaced P A T E N T P E N D I N G
(2) Types 3 through 6 can be found in both "double-line" and "no-line" CRAFTSMAN logo variations [see Post #53 for more]
(3) A small percentage of Type 6 can be found with a -VV- mfr. code
(4) Late production 1/2" & 3/8" have smaller diameter plungers (QR1-S), poss. 1978-81
(5) Early Type 7 have small model # on top text line, later Type 7 have full-height model # at right
(6) Two-letter V_ mfr codes, typically VE, VF, VG, VH, VJ
-
TYPE STUDY APPROACH, METHOD & SOURCES
[Please see also the Type Summary Section in a separate post]
In any collectible Type Study, one must first decide by what criteria the typing will be determined. This is based in no small part on how the study is intended to be used. In this case, the goal was to assist the collector in determining the production date range of any Craftsman Round Head Fine Tooth (RHFT) ratchet by visual inspection only. The outward appearance and markings were consequently used as the sole assessment criteria for determining each Type and its dating. Since the dual-pawl ratcheting means and tooth count for each drive size remained consistent throughout the RHFT production, only the externally distinct features were required to define each Type.
Easco (formally Moore Drop Forging) and its successor Danaher produced versions of the RHFT for a number of brands besides Craftsman including Master Mechanic, KD, Allen, Ridgid, Napa and others, as well as under its own Easco brand. This Type Study is focused exclusively on the Craftsman versions, although the related patents will apply to these other brands as well.
Minor differences in external markings having no substantive affect on the identification or chronology of a Type are deemed to be a “variation” and are footnoted in the Type List accordingly. This can be a matter of subjective judgment at times, and so individual opinions on these variations may differ. The criterion here is whether a marking would substantially alter the definition or dating of a Type group where its members are otherwise identical.
For example, a —VV— mfr. code is occasionally found on a small minority of Type 6 examples (instead of the characteristic —V— code) while all other markings remain identical. One would be tempted to define this as an additional Type with its own date range by following the assumption that one mark must supersede the other, so that —V— was replaced by —VV— at some point along the timeline. But other authoritative studies have assigned date ranges for —V— and —VV— of 1968-1986 and 1974-1989 respectively (a 12-year overlap), showing that both codes were being used concurrently during the Type 6 date range of 1972-1981. In addition, the —V— code was still being used on the later Types 7 and 8, proving there was no distinct switchover from one mark to the other. Seeking the simplicity of stating something like “—V— was being used, then they switched to —VV—, and then back to —V— again” will not work here, since we have no way to determine exactly when or even why —VV— makes the rare Type 6 appearance (although Jim C.’s TD Study and others have suggested it may represent an alternative plant in the Easco network of manufacturing facilities). Trying to force the evidence into a dogmatic preconceived notion would be like trying to pound a square peg into a round hole instead of letting the evidence take us where it will. What’s more, even the experts cannot say why —V— was used at times on some tools and —VV— on others during their overlapping years. Since all the Type 6 examples are otherwise identical, and neither code alters its date range of 1972-81, we have no grounds to assign —VV— its own Type, and so must include it only as a minor variation within the Type 6 period.
Another example is the lines on either side of the CRAFTSMAN name logo that appear on so many of its hand tools. To my knowledge, no “official” term exists for these lines. Alloy Artifacts calls it the “double-line” logo when there are two lines, and perhaps that’s as good as any. On the RHFT we find two logo variations; one with two lines and one with no lines, or a “no-line” logo. Both logos are found throughout Types 3 through 6. However, each Type has a ‘majority’ variation. All of Type 3 was almost certainly meant to have a double-line logo, and so the very rare occurrence of a no-line logo is a fluke. Type 4 and 5 on the other hand appear instead to have been planned with a no-line logo, since that’s what the overwhelming majority have, So it’s possible that at the end of the Type 3 period that a few were made with the new Type 4 no-line stamp, creating a sort of transitional version. A double-line logo on the Type 4 and 5, however, is more difficult to explain, since the overwhelming majority of them have no lines. But we do know from examining the double-line “teardrop” ratchets from this period that the no-line logo occasionally appears on these as well, so we know that both logo stamps were in use at the factory. Keep in mind that the logo stamp was a separate device from the descriptive panel stamp, and so could be used on any appropriate sized panel. Because the geometry of the raised panels on both the teardrop and the RHFT were essentially the same, both the double-line and no-line stamps could have been applied to either. On the Type 6, it appears that the no-line logo was in use until late in that era and then was changed back to the double-line, but earlier double-line examples are also known to exist. Because of all these inconsistencies, the presence of a double-line or no-line logo can at best be defined only as a variation.
The above two examples illustrate the kinds of judgment calls essential to any Type Study project. A researcher must assess which features are fundamental to the purpose of the Type Study and which are incidental. Our purpose was to provide the reader with a clear, easy-to-use means to accurately identify and date any RHFT. It’s noble to try classifying every observable variable, but not every feature is worthy of its own Type. Sometimes the attempt to Type every variable might even be futile, as is apparently the case with the Plomb / Proto / Penens / Fleet / et.al. pear- and racetrack-head ratchets from the 1940s-50s where it seems like they marked every single production run with a different brand (both for others and their own) and model number (sometimes different numbers for the same brand or the same number for different brands!). Or like the New Britain Kilness ratchet where NMB made the exact same tool marked for so many different brands that I’m still not sure we’ve found them all! Our approach to the RHFT would simply not work with these—the only way to Type these kinds of lines is according to their mechanical geometry, the brand and number markings having to be relegated to mere variations. Otherwise, the resulting list would be so complex and unwieldy as to make it a chore to use, and possibly a project with no end. And so each Type Study must be tailored to the peculiarities of that particular tool line, presented in a format that furnishes both accuracy and ease of use, and in a framework that projects a foreseeable conclusion while lending itself to simple amendment without having to substantially reconstruct it.
It has been suggested that certain product features on the RHFT might be drive-specific. We found no evidence of this. After an extensive search of all available current and archived images online, we found every drive size represented in each Type.
Terminology is another element of any Type Study. Physical features and markings have over time acquired various descriptive terms within the collecting community. Sometimes these terms differ from one another. Manufacturers themselves sometime disagree in their descriptions of a given feature. For the sake of the RHFT, we used the ‘official’ terms specified in the related patents: the drive part on which a socket is placed is called the stud; the button activating the quick release is called the release button; the ram that extends out of the stud when the release button is pushed is called the plunger. We have already discussed the use of double-line and no-line logo names.
The Type Study makes use of the following abbreviations for saving space:
M = handle shows a model number
NM = handle shows no model number
PA = pointed-As in the CRAFTSMAN logo
FA = flat-As in the CRAFTSMAN logo
QR1 = 1st Generation quick release having an opening in the stud end for the plunger
QR2 = 2nd Generation quick release having no plunger opening or a “blind” stud
Speaking of the two quick release variations, we found instances where a later QR2 rebuild kit was installed in an earlier QR1 style ratchet (and vise versa). Fortunately, the easily recognized ‘blind-stud’ of the QR2 is linked to a later patent date as well as a different series of model numbers. Once you know what to look for, you won’t confuse them or be fooled. The patent for the QR2 will be explained in the separate Type Summary posting under the Type 7 entry. For now, here are the distinct model numbers for each drive size and QR style:
___________QR1_________QR2
1/4"_______43178_______43187
3/8"_______43788_______43781
1/2"_______44978_______44977
3/8" Flex___42792_______42794
1/2" Flex___44973_______44983
The RHFT Flex-Head ratchets were first introduced in 1978 during the Type 6 era. All the examples we’ve seen conform to the very same Type Study definitions and chronology as the standard Type 6 through Type 10.
One other product in the line is the RHFT ratcheting torque wrench, briefly offered in a 3/8” drive #44466 and a 1/2" drive #44465 between 1978 and 1981. The only thing they share in common with the other RHFT wrenches is the ratchet heads, which themselves also conform with the Type Study from the handful we’ve seen: 1978-80 = QR1, 1981 = QR2. The difference with these is that, unlike the other ratchets, the model numbers stay the same with the change to the QR2. They are included here simply for the sake of thoroughness.
Honorable mention goes to the obscure Quick Release Extension Bar sold in the general catalogs and stores for only two years between 1972-74. It was made to work with the Roberts QR1 extending plunger in both the RHFT and Teardrop ratchets, which engaged the bar’s center rod activating the QR on the stud end. A plastic collar was installed on the bar shank against the shoulder of the female drive end, so that two fingers could be placed on it providing leverage when pressing the QR button with the thumb. Not many were sold, and the collars invariably broke, which led to its ultimate demise. While not strictly an RHFT item, it is kind of a sad orphan that deserves a home, so we’re giving it a place here. The QR bar was made in two lengths and drive sizes: 43533 3” 3/8dr, 43534 6” 3/8dr, 43535 3” 1/2dr, and 43536 6” 1/2dr.
This Craftsman Type Study is unique in that it was compiled almost entirely without the use of any Sears catalog references. Most type studies depend heavily on these catalogs out of necessity, even though they can be fraught with inconsistencies, omissions and inaccurate artists’ renderings. For example, the RHFT first appeared in the 1970 catalog, and so the community has generally presumed this was the first year of production. Yet the patent markings on the ratchets themselves prove that production began two years earlier. At the time, Sears had the largest retail distribution channel in the country for its Craftsman branded tools, and so an item certainly did not need to be in the catalog to be sold successfully. When we needed a tool back in the day, we just drove to Sears—we didn’t look in the catalog first.
We used the catalogs only for comparing handle logo images to the actual artifacts, the debut date of the flex head, the date range of the torque wrenches, and for a little help in determining the starting date for the Type 10. Other than these, we were fortunate that the patent markings allowed us to use the USPTO and Canadian issued patents exclusively for our Type dating, which are far more reliable than any catalog. Not only do these government-issued dates make this Type Study uncommonly precise, but their rapid succession during those early RHFT years sheds additional light on that important transition period when =V= was changed to —V—, pointed-A changed to flat-A, and when model numbers first appeared on the tools. While we can’t form any across-the-board conclusions about the markings on the entire hand tool line from this single ratchet study, we can now say for certain that the decision to transit from older markings to newer happened at least as early or late as a particular year.
There are seven patents related to the handle markings on the RHFT. They are as follows:
--US 3172675 Ball Socket Attachment for Impact Tool, filed 2-19-63, issued 3-9-65, inventor Victor E. Gonzalez, no assignee, acquired by Sears in 1968 [Note: this and the following patent number were not originally intended to be associated with the RHFT—their solitary appearance on the Type 4 is explained in the Type Summary section.]
--US 3208318 Quick Release for Socket Wrenches, filed 4-24-64, issued 9-28-65, inventor Peter M. Roberts, assigned to Sears 6-15-65, assigned back to Roberts by Sears 2-17-81
--US 3467231 Pawl Reversing Mechanism for Ratchet Wrenches, filed 2-12-68, issued 9-16-69, inventor Henry J. Haznar, assigned to Moore Drop Forging.
--US 3532013 Quick Release Mechanism for Fine Tooth Ratchet Wrenches, filed 5-1-68, issued 10-6-70, inventor Henry J. Haznar, assigned to Easco Hand Tools Inc.
--Canadian 870343 Pawl Reversing Mechanism for Ratchet Wrenches, filed N/A, issued 5-11-71, inventor Henry J. Haznar, owner Moore Drop Forging [Note: This is the Canadian counterpart to the corresponding US 3467231 patent]
--Canadian 888494 Quick Release Mechanism for Fine Tooth Ratchet Wrenches, filed N/A, issued 12-21-71, inventor Henry J. Haznar, owner Moore Drop Forging [Note: The Canadian counterpart to the corresponding US 3532013 patent]
--US 4399722 Socket Wrench Including Quick-Release Adapter, filed 3-6-81, issued 8-23-83, inventor Vincent Sardo Jr., no assignee [Note: This previously un-referenced patent solves the mystery surrounding an often misidentified RHFT type (even by Alloy Artifacts), and will be explained in greater detail in the Type Summary section.]
The second patent listed above for a quick release mechanism invented by Peter M. Roberts and issued in 1965 (3208318) was the object of a long court battle between Roberts and Sears. Roberts had assigned the patent to Sears, but in 1969 sued Sears over infringement and that the retail giant had defrauded him in the agreement. The case went though multiple trials and appeals, and was not completely settled until 20 years later. While it is not the intent of this Type Study to substantially involve itself with this matter, the discussion of which would fill many pages on its own, it merits mentioning because it played a role in the patent history of the RHFT. The Haznar quick release patent, the patent pending marks on Types 1 and 2, the appearance of its number on the Type 4, and the 1981 filing of the Sardo quick release patent were all influenced to some degree by the legal wrangling between the two parties. We will confine ourselves to its brief mention only in those instances where it directly affects the RHFT typing details.
A fascinating revelation during the December 1976 Roberts trial and of particular interest to collectors is the sheer volume of QR ratchets sold by Sears. In the 11 years between late 1965 and the trial, it was documented that Sears sold a staggering 17 million units! That averages over 1.5 million units a year, or almost 29,000 a week. And while the numbers are not sorted between Teardrop and RHFT ratchets or drive sizes, it’s apparent that huge quantities were made of each. The 6/15/65 agreement between Roberts and Sears called for a 2-cent per unit royalty up to a maximum of $10,000. It was reported that Sears paid this off sometime in 1966 only nine months after the agreement—that’s 500,000 units sold! No wonder Roberts sued. In preparation for the market launch of the Teardrop QR ratchet toward the end of 1965, Moore Drop Forging produced 750,000 QR ratchets for Sears, at times as many as 40,000 units per week. The general public would have no idea of these numbers had it not been for the trial. There are a number of takeaways in this for collectors. First, what you see for sale on websites like eBay, yard/estate sales and flea markets represent only a tiny fraction of what’s out there still in the garages and tool boxes of private hands. Second, just because you’ve not seen a specimen personally does not necessarily mean it doesn’t exist. Too, it gives us an insight into the kinds of quantities Sears could sell just through its stores without even listing the item in a catalog. And finally, we don’t have a situation where a particular model or type was made and then languished for months or years before that production run was finally sold out—Sears was flipping these runs at a dizzying pace, and a change in style or markings could be released in mere weeks after the decision was made. The documented evidence from the court case is beyond mere speculation, personal observation or catalog representation—they are indisputable fact.
As is the case with virtually all patented products, an item marked PATENT PENDING means a patent application has been filed with the USPTO but has not yet been approved for issue. Once approved, a manufacturer will change the markings to show the issued patent number. We interpreted the RHFT markings accordingly.
The Craftsman mfr. code study by Gary Lauver was used as the source for the date ranges of the —V— and —VV— codes. Observations posted by numerous GJ members in multiple RHFT-related threads were relied on to determine both the last year of its appearance in a Sears catalog (2008) and the last year it was still offered for sale online (2009).
-
TYPE SUMMARY
TYPE 1: The first issue of the RHFT ratchet, characterized by three distinct handle markings: the pointed-As in the CRAFTSMAN logo, =V= mfr code and PATENT PENDING.
In 1968, Moore Drop Forging filed two patent applications with the USPTO for both the ratcheting mechanism and the quick release (QR1) of the original RHFT, both invented by employee H.J. Haznar. The same two patents were also filed with the Canadian Patent Office for a total of four pending applications (this total will figure prominently in the early years of the RHFT history). The first was for the ratcheting mechanism and was filed 2-12-68; the second for the quick release was filed 5-1-68. Although the Canadian filing dates are not available online, the drawings and abstracts are the same as in the US applications and so were likely submitted the same year.
The drawings in these two patents help to narrow the Type 1 dating. The 2-12-68 drawings show approximations of the RHFT mechanism, but the later 5-1-68 drawing shows a scale image of the actual tool down to the head shape, thumbwheel and even the sculpted geometry of the shank. This indicates that at the time of these later drawings, the engineering was completed and the tool was already being made under the pending first patent, which places the start of the Type 1 production between February and May of 1968. This also tells us that the =V= code and the pointed-A were still in use at that time.
It’s important to note that at the time of the 1968 Moore patent filings, Sears already had an issued quick release patent assigned to it in 1965 (Roberts 3208318), and so the patent pending marking on the Type 1 shows that this earlier 3208318 patent was never intended to be associated with Moore’s RHFT. This fact will play a role in subsequent analysis.
TYPE 2: Same as Type 1 except it has the flat-As in the logo. It was assigned its own Type because of the flat-A’s importance in helping to date other Craftsman hand tools. Vintage Craftsman enthusiasts universally recognize that the transition from pointed-A to flat-A happened some time around 1968, and the Type 2 confirms this. Starting with Type 2, the pointed-A never appears again in the RHFT series.
The PATENT PENDING means Type 2 was also made prior to the first RHFT patent that was to be issued later by the USPTO on 9-16-69. This places Type 2 production on the RHFT timeline between May 1968 and September 1969. The double-line =V= marking suggests this code was still in use as late as 1969.
TYPE 3: Changes to both the patent markings and the mfr code characterize the Type 3. The earlier pending marks are now replaced with U.S. PAT. 3462731, AND OTHERS. The number refers to the first RHFT patent issued on 9-16-69 by the USPTO for the ratchet mechanism. Its appearance on the handle shows that the Type 3 started production after this date.
The “AND OTHERS” is a curious statement that still strikes us oddly today. The “U.S. PAT.” is singular, and along with just one number demonstrates that Moore—now operating as Easco Hand Tools—had only a single legitimate RHFT patent in hand (the previously mentioned Sears patent was not included). If it actually had more, it would have used the plural “U.S.PATS.” as it did on the later Types when it definitely had multiple patent numbers. So what is the meaning of this ambiguous “AND OTHERS” when they truly had no other patents issued yet?
Recall that Moore filed four patent applications in 1968. The management apparently expected the OTHERS to be issued very shortly after the first. Since there was only a single other US patent pending, they were also counting on the two Canadian pending patents to make up the OTHERS. So they decided to claim AND OTHERS anticipating that by the time the Type 3 production was completed and being distributed, they would certainly have the OTHERS in hand. But as the markings on the Type 4 will reveal, things did not turn out quite the way they expected.
For now, we can confidently date the range of production for the Type 3 as beginning after the first-issued patent cited on the handle, but before the second legitimate RHFT patent was finally issued on 10-6-70, and so between September 1969 and October 1970.
The other important Type 3 marking is the first use of the single-line —V— mfr code on the RHFT. The double-line =V= never appears again on any RHFT, revealing that this change was a permanent transition. This also confirms that the new —V— code was in use as early as 1969.
TYPE 4: One of the more interesting of the RHFTs is the Type 4, which is characterized by the presence of four different US patent numbers 3172675, 3208318, 3467231 and 353201, as well as a model number. At first glance, these numbers might lead one to think this version was issued somewhat later in the RHFT timeline. But a careful assessment of the marking on both Types 3 and 4 uncovers its true vintage and meaning.
The last two numbers are legitimate RHFT US patents that referred specifically to that tool; 3467231 for the ratchet mechanism and 3532013 for the quick release. This is the first appearance of the 3532013 patent, which confirms the Type 4 was made after its 10-6-70 issue date.
So far, so good….but what’s the story on the first two patent numbers? This has always been puzzling since they were both issued back in 1965. Had they been originally intended to reference the RHFT, we would have seen them pompously displayed on the 1968-1969 Types 1 and 2 handles instead of the relatively lame “patent pending” mark. Anyone who has ever looked up the first patent 3172675 knows this has virtually nothing to do with the RHFT. The second number 3208318 is the previously mentioned 1965 Sears/Roberts quick release that was never intended to be associated with the RHFT—from its start, the RHFT was dependent solely on the 1968 Moore quick release. So why were these two numbers placed on the handle?
The only answer that fits all the facts is that these two 1965 numbers weren’t placed on the Type 4 because of any relevance to the RHFT, but because of the overly-optimistic AND OTHERS claim on the Type 3. At the time of the Type 4 production run, Easco (the new company name) had been issued only one more of the pending patents (3532013), giving it a total of just two. That comprised only a single added ‘other’ number, which did not add up to the plural OTHERS it had promised publicly on the previous Type 3. One can imagine how unhappy this would have made Sears management. So Sears and Easco had to dive into their patent repertoire to fish up a couple of patents that ‘sort-of, kind-of’ looked like they might have something remotely to do with the RHFT to take the place of the two still-pending Canadian patents that had not yet been issued, slapped them on the handle, and said, “See? There are the OTHERS we promised!” I call these two the imposters that masqueraded as the real thing for a handful of months until the first legitimate RHFT Canadian patent was finally issued in 1971. Once Easco had its bona fide OTHERS, the imposters were expunged from the record and quietly slipped back into the filing cabinet, never to be seen on the RHFT again.
Having finally uncovered the first two patent numbers as imposters, we can now reckon the date range for the Type 4 production based on the second genuine RHFT patent issued 10-6-70 (US3532013), but before the third genuine patent (Canadian) that would be issued 5-11-71, or between October 1970 and May 1971.
Type 4 is also the first RHFT to display a model number. This is important to the Craftsman timeline because it confirms the appearance of model numbers on the hand tools as early as 1970.
TYPE 5: The Type 5 is characterized by the removal of the two ‘imposters’ (since they were no longer needed as stand-ins) and replaced by the first Canadian-issued patent number along with its 1971 year of issue. Including the 1971 issue year on the handle is kind of unusual on a Craftsman hand tool. Perhaps it was added to fill out the second text line on the handle, or to possibly ‘refresh’ the image of the RHFT by proudly proclaiming a brand new date.
Canadian patent 870343 was issued 5-11-71, and so Type 5 production commenced after that date. However, the issuing of the second and final Canadian patent at the end of that same year was to make the Type 5 short-lived, giving it a production date-range between May 1971 and December 1971.
TYPE 6: The Type 6 is characterized by the change in the Type 5 Canadian patent markings from CAN.PAT.870343-1971 to CAN.PATENTED-1971, replacing one of the numbers with a word.
This brings us to the next RHFT puzzle—why would Easco remove a legitimate patent number when it was previously motivated to stuff every patent number it could on the handle? The answer here seems to have been dictated by necessity. The issue of the second Canadian patent (888494 for the quick release) on 12-21-71 now left Easco with four legitimate patent numbers to fit on the second text line of the handle, and so something had to go to make the needed room. It could not remove the “CAN.” because that is what delineated the US numbers from the Canadian ones. It could not justify removing any US numbers in favor of Canadian ones, not only because of their historical importance, but also because the US patents held the greater clout in the domestic marketplace than their less prestigious Canadian counterparts. The 1971 also appears to have been deemed too important to sacrifice, or perhaps its removal wouldn’t have provided the needed space anyway. Easco apparently decided that the best solution was to absorb both Canadian patents into the blanket-term PATENTED in place of the numbers.
Given that the second patent’s 12-21-71 issue date was at the start of the holidays, any subsequent production run would have had to wait until the new year, which gives us a starting date for Type 6 production no earlier than January 1972. Its end in March of 1981 would be brought about by a fifth and final RHFT patent.
During the latter part of the Type 6 period, the diameter of the plunger on the 1/2" and 3/8" was reduced, creating a “small plunger” variation. The internal mechanism and assembly differs slightly, but is still a 2-piece affair that functioned similarly. The reason for this change is uncertain. Todd F. from the Tool Talk forum confirmed it’s not required for the elusive QR extension bar. The QR means is the same and so provided no infringement protection from the Roberts patent lawsuit (at this time, Sears still had complete ownership of the patent anyway). They might have been addressing a service issue by thickening the stud metal or improving the mechanism’s reliability, or had simply found a less expensive means for producing it. A review of the artifacts and their markings suggests a date for the change around 1977-78, and ran until the end of the Type 6 in 1981.
TYPE 7: The Type 7 is the most challenging to place chronologically in the RHFT timeline. Its PATENT PENDING mark leads many to believe it was made prior to the issue of the first RHFT patents (even Alloy Artifacts assigns it such an early date). Yet the presence of a model number and the absence of the older =V= code makes this ‘early’ solution untenable. So, what patent application is being referred to as PENDING, since a final patent number never appears on any subsequent RHFT?
Fortunately, the tool itself provides the needed clue. The Type 7 is the first RHFT to have a “blind” stud with no plunger opening. All prior Types had a plunger that protruded from the stud end when the release button was pushed. It is this feature—what we’re calling the ‘2nd Generation’ quick release, or the QR2—that is the link to the actual patent in question.
An extensive search turned up an unassigned 'orphan' patent filed by Vincent Sardo Jr. on 3-6-81 and issued on 8-23-83 as patent 4399722. The abstract explains that the invention is an improvement specifically directed at the Haznar patents 3467231 and 3532013 (look familiar?). The Fig. 1 drawing shows a near-perfect rendering of the Craftsman RHFT ratchet with its shank design, head shape, thumbwheel, release button, selector knob, and even the geometry of the raised panel handle. There can be no doubt this patent is ‘hard-wired’ to the RHFT. This was the missing puzzle piece that finally allowed us to correctly identify the Type 7 and place within the RHFT timeline.
The need for this new patent was due to the ongoing lawsuit between Sears and Peter Roberts over his earlier 1965 patent 3208318 for the original quick release mechanism. We’ve mentioned this patent a couple of times for the role it would ultimately play in the RHFT history. Roberts entered into an agreement with Sears in 1965 assigning it all patent rights. He later filed suit in 1969 claiming Sears swindled him. The legal battle went on for two decades with the parties finally settling in 1989. A judge decided in May 1979 that Sears should return the patent rights to Roberts. To quote a comprehensive article on the case by the Washington Post, “Under court order, Sears later would reassign the patent to Roberts and introduce a quick-release wrench that, it said, differed significantly from his.”
Sears reassigned the patent back to Roberts on 2-17-81. This left it without a patent under which to continue manufacturing its QR ratchets without infringement. Sears would need to “introduce a quick-release wrench that….differed significantly from his.” This explains the new patent application only a couple of weeks later on 3-6-81 for an improved quick release mechanism and its associated PATENT PENDING mark on the Type 7. It also helps explain why the extending plunger in Roberts and Haznar was replaced with a blind stud having no extending plunger so that it "differed significantly" from Roberts.
Roberts’ design relied on a singly located QR groove cut into the plunger to receive the dropping detent ball. The plunger could not be allowed to turn because the groove would have rotated away from its vertical alignment with the detent ball opening. But the RHFT called for a rotating selector disk and release button in the same assembly so these had to be separate parts from the non-rotating Roberts plunger. This two-part device is what’s provided in the RHFT Haznar patent.
Sardo’s improved QR patent provides for the plunger and release button to be made as a single piece that could be rotated together. This was accomplished by employing an orbital groove around the entire diameter of the plunger so that no matter how it was rotated, the groove would be in a position to receive the dropping detent ball. The new design was incorporated into the QR2 quick release found on the Type 7 and later RHFTs, as well as the teardrop ratchets. This improvement is the one depicted in Fig.2 of the Sardo patent application and indicated by the PATENT PENDING handle marking. Sardo has a thrown-together contrived feel—it’s essentially a ‘CYA’ cover-your-butt patent lacking any remarkably innovative features. It got the job done with an uninspiring but serviceable solution that was also different than Roberts and had no prior patent art.
4399722 also describes a “quick-release adaptor” that is essentially an extension bar with its own built-in QR mechanism. Sears sold this bar in its catalogs and stores for a short time back in 1972-74 under cover of Roberts’ patent. Having now lost that cover, Sears needed to protect itself for this past infringement, and so it included the bar in the 1981 Sardo CYA patent application. Since the original QR bar was activated by the Roberts protruding plunger, Sardo had to show its new QR ratchet with the same kind of plunger to make it look like the two were designed to work together so that the unusual act of patenting two devices at once appeared plausible on the surface. That the Type 7 QR was implemented with a blind stud incapable of working this bar that Sears never intended to produce again further illustrates Sardo’s contrived nature.
Todd F. from the Tool Talk forum disassembled and photographed the blind stud QR2, revealing a curious spring and second ball in place of the previous forward-protruding extension of Roberts' device. But the remainder of the one-piece orbital groove, plunger and release button component is identical to that depicted in Sardo’s Fig. 2 drawing.
The 3-6-81 application date and the 8-23-83 issue date of 4399722 finally enables us to correctly place the Type 7 in the RHFT timeline during this patent’s pending period from March 1981 to August 1983. It is the last Craftsman RHFT to carry a patent marking.
TYPE 8: The Type 8 is the first RHFT to have no patent markings, and the last to bear the —V— mfr code. It conforms to the same standard markings found on many other Craftsman raised panel wrenches: FORGED IN U.S.A. followed by the mfr code and the model number. Based on the citing of 1986 as the final year of the —V— code by Lauver and other sources, we can assign a date range for Type 8 production from the end of the Sardo patent’s pending period to the end of the —V— series, or from August 1983 to some time in 1986.
The Type 8 leaves us with one final RHFT mystery—what happened to the QR2’s 4399722 patent number? Why wasn’t the number stamped on the handle after its issue date like with all other previous RHFT patents? We should expect to see it prominently displayed after patiently waiting out the pending period. But starting with the Type 8, patent markings are never again shown on the handle.
The likely answer is in the 1981 reassignment of 3208318 to Roberts, which left Sears legally exposed were it to continue selling the RHFT. The sole purpose of the subsequent filing by Sears of the QR2 patent and its re-design of the mechanism was to legally protect itself from another infringement suit by Roberts. Fortunately for Sears, Roberts’ patent expired shortly thereafter on 9-28-82 during the pending period of QR2 4399722 patent. The patent expiration of the Roberts quick release passed it into the public domain where anyone could reproduce it without fear of infringement. Since Sears no longer needed the protection afforded by 4399722 at the time it was issued on 8-23-83, there was no longer any need to stamp the patent number on the handle. Considering the years of legal entanglement over this case, we can imagine it seemed best to just let the whole affair pass into history.
TYPE 9: Type 9 represents the post-V period. They are essentially the same as Type 8 except they now have a 2-letter mfr code beginning with V and ending with another letter. These are typically VE, VF, VG, VH or VJ. The date range begins when the single-V ends in 1986 and continues until early 1995.
TYPE 10: Type 10 is the last of the RHFT ratchets, characterized by the removal of the “FORGED IN” markings from the handle, leaving only the “USA” mark (the mfr code and the model number are still there). The double-lines are also removed from both sides of the handle leaving a no-line logo. These can have a variety of mfr codes. The date range for Type 10 is 1995 until the very end of the RHFT series. The last catalog appearance for the RHFT was in 2008, and was still available online at least through 2009. To find the manufacturer and dates for the various Type 10 codes, refer to Gary Lauver’s excellent Craftsman Hand Tool Manufacturers & Date Ranges study at https://www.garagejournal.com/forum/...ad.php?t=84807
-
A very extensive study !
Welcome to Tool Talk !
-
wow....just wow. thanks - may take a while to absorb some of that. :tongue:
-
Looking good Dad and many thanks for the kudos!! Like I’ve written throughout the course of the TD Type Study, I’m always open to incorporating better/more accurate information into the TD study. If you believe any of your RHFT info can be applied to the TD study, I’m listening. My goal has always been to make the TD study as accurate as possible, and making those changes is easy enough. The biggest issue I had was fine tuning the dates of manufacture/availability. I cited the sources of information I used, but in some instances, I relied on memory, experience using/seeing the ratchets back in the day, and conversations with a couple hard core Craftsman collectors. Consequently, when I listed the dates, I was sure to add “(+ / -)” hopefully informing the reader that the dates are approximate. Anyway, great job on the RHFT type study, and welcome aboard!
Jim C.
-
Very nicely done!! And welcome to Tool Talk. Looks like you’re going to fit right in.
Mike
-
Hello, DadsTools. Welcome to Tool Talk, and thanks for sharing the Type Study!! Regards, Lou
-
Looking good Dad and many thanks for the kudos!! Like I’ve written throughout the course of the TD Type Study, I’m always open to incorporating better/more accurate information into the TD study. If you believe any of your RHFT info can be applied to the TD study, I’m listening. My goal has always been to make the TD study as accurate as possible, and making those changes is easy enough. The biggest issue I had was fine tuning the dates of manufacture/availability. I cited the sources of information I used, but in some instances, I relied on memory, experience using/seeing the ratchets back in the day, and conversations with a couple hard core Craftsman collectors. Consequently, when I listed the dates, I was sure to add “(+ / -)” hopefully informing the reader that the dates are approximate. Anyway, great job on the RHFT type study, and welcome aboard!
Jim C.
Thanks, Jim. There may be a few details in the RHFT study that could apply to your TD study. I had the benefit of having so much patent info on the handles that referring to the catalogs was not even necessary. Referencing the government patents instead made some of the study data the most accurate possible. The patents give us the most precise dating on certain features like when =v= changed to -v-, pointed-A to flat-A and the first use of model numbers on the tool. It also sheds light on the -v- vs. -vv- issue (which the RHFT proves it's not necessarily a sequential matter). These might be referenced to tweak any of your own findings if needed.
The APPROACH section may provide some alternative ideas. This can be a sensitive topic since it involves personal perspective, style and intent. Everyone is different and all have their own style. One major difference came from my experience as a collectible book author, the influence of which was to keep me always focused on the reader, in this case, what approach would best serve the reader's purpose, or presenting it in the most practical way for readers to use. The reader--or Study user--is king. One could just cut out my little list/chart and use that to quickly identify and date without ever having to read the little essays, the purpose for which were to provide the background and the evidence for the chart in a separate place. I further divided it into the APPROACH and SUMMARY sections to distinguish general information from specific Type information, again with the reader in mind. My decisions as to what were Types and what were just variations were also guided by what I thought would be most practical for the reader's use.
Your remarkable study was guided more from a historian's perspective, which is a different, more detail-oriented perspective where artifact, identity, details and dating merge into a single narrative, more like a history than a reference. It too is a valid approach, and can address details in a way a generalized reference might not. Perhaps something in this overview might be useful too.
-
DadsTools. Congratulations on a truly excellent study. I was thinking of doing one myself but now there is no need. My wife thanks you. Your method of using patents instead catalogs is genius. I am that guy you talked about in your study that separates every little variance into a separate category. I have the “no-line” and “double-line” logos separated as well as the “single-space” and “double-space” fonts in the word “Patent Pending” on the 1/4-inch type 1 and 2. It’s ironic then that I never noticed the existence of the type 5. Every thing with “1971” went into one pile. Not to worry, I had some in my “spares” drawer and have some coming from eBay. Now I just need to make more space in the display drawer.
I have some information on the “quick-release adaptor” in the 4399722 patent. I actually have two of them. I’ll post some pictures when I dig them up.
Great Study. Welcome to Tool Talk.
Todd F.
-
DadsTools. Congratulations on a truly excellent study. I was thinking of doing one myself but now there is no need. My wife thanks you. Your method of using patents instead catalogs is genius. I am that guy you talked about in your study that separates every little variance into a separate category. I have the “no-line” and “double-line” logos separated as well as the “single-space” and “double-space” fonts in the word “Patent Pending” on the 1/4-inch type 1 and 2. It’s ironic then that I never noticed the existence of the type 5. Every thing with “1971” went into one pile. Not to worry, I had some in my “spares” drawer and have some coming from eBay. Now I just need to make more space in the display drawer.
I have some information on the “quick-release adaptor” in the 4399722 patent. I actually have two of them. I’ll post some pictures when I dig them up.
Great Study. Welcome to Tool Talk.
Todd F.
Thank you so much for your kind words, as well as your wife's gratitude!
I certainly did not want to give the impression that discounting certain details while elevating others was preferable in some way. The pastime of collecting can be as broad or granular as is satisfying and pleasing to the individual. My intent for the Study was not to suggest how one should collect the RHFT series, but only as a practical reference for those who do collect them so they might better understand what they have and where it belongs in the RHFT timeline. All the speculation and unanswered questions I found during my preliminary research through various forums convinced me that such a study on the RHFT was needed by the community, and believed I might be capable of making that contribution. It may surprise some that I myself am not a collector of Craftsman tools, but that didn't make the work any less exciting or rewarding--being an 'outsider' of sorts may have even afforded me a fresh perspective. Relying solely on the patents allowed me to pull a few new rabbits out of the hat. I am grateful it is being received well.
I was not aware of a distinction between a single- or double-spaced PATENT PENDING on the Types 1 and 2. This is a perfect example of why I chose the approach of classifying such features as variations when they had no direct effect on identifying its type or chronology. That the variation exists on both Types suggests there is no "one stops and the other starts" sequence, and so to try establishing another Type for this would have bogged things down chasing after a detail that might have no chronological order and ultimately no influence on the proper identification and timeline placement of Types 1 and 2. It's one of those judgement calls I wrote about. That this new-to-me finding does not disturb the Type Study timeline tends to validates my approach--I wanted to have a main framework where each new finding could be added just as a variation without requiring a re-write of the Type List. A serious collector will of course want to consider each variation separately, as they should--the only distinction is in the criteria of a Study as to what determines a full-fledged Type as opposed to a lessor variation within a Type.
I would very much like to see whatever additional information you might have on the adapter described in 4399722. The patent has a sort of 'contrived' feel to it--it is highly unusual to describe two inventions in a single patent, in this case the adapter and the new ratchet quick release. It also seems a bit disingenuous that the title and drawings seems to paint the adapter as the main object with the quick release almost an afterthought, whereas the abstract states substantially the opposite. The Roberts/Sears lawsuit pretty much establishes that the main purpose for the patent was for the quick release, so its unclear why the adapter was lumped together with it. I did read a single post somewhere in one of the related GJ threads where a member makes reference to a couple of unusual extensions he bought back in the 70s but was discontinued after only a couple of years because of issues with it. Perhaps this is the same 'adapter'. In any event, it's uncertain whether such an extension could even be justifiably included in a ratchet study.
BTW, great collection!!!
-
DadsTools. Congratulations on a truly excellent study. I was thinking of doing one myself but now there is no need. My wife thanks you. Your method of using patents instead catalogs is genius. I am that guy you talked about in your study that separates every little variance into a separate category. I have the “no-line” and “double-line” logos separated as well as the “single-space” and “double-space” fonts in the word “Patent Pending” on the 1/4-inch type 1 and 2. It’s ironic then that I never noticed the existence of the type 5. Every thing with “1971” went into one pile. Not to worry, I had some in my “spares” drawer and have some coming from eBay. Now I just need to make more space in the display drawer.
I have some information on the “quick-release adaptor” in the 4399722 patent. I actually have two of them. I’ll post some pictures when I dig them up.
Great Study. Welcome to Tool Talk.
Todd F.
Todd, I was wondering if the 1/4" drive in Types 1 and 2 were the only ones you've seen with the singe- and double-spaced variations? It appears in your excellent photo that all the lettering on the single-spaced version were compressed--even the V is narrower. I wonder if there's a difference in the length of the grip or the panel? Perhaps it was shortened some and needed to have the markings compressed for the lesser available space?
If anyone else has this variation or another not on the Type Study List, please show 'em!
-
DadsTools, I found that particular variation only in the 1/4" drive types 1 and 2. I’ve posted a picture below of my type 1 and 2 RHFT ratchets in all three sizes. The 1/2” and 3/8” have the same basic geometry as the single spaced 1/4".
The biggest variance, not mentioned in your study, is the change that takes place in the type 7. The phrase “PATENT PENDING” is moved to the left and the font of the part number more than doubles in size. In Jim’s study of the Teardrop ratchet, these are referenced as the type 11 and 12. While this change is visually significant, substance wise, it’s inconsequential. But…after collecting and handling these wrenches, the small font ratchets collectively seem older than the large font ones. The depth of the stamp seems deeper and the surface of the metal curves down into the stamped letters. The large font appears to have been made with a slightly different process making the stamp more flush with the surrounding surface. Was there a change in the process where one stopped and the other started? I have no idea. It’s just a gut feeling on my part and in the grand scheme of things makes no difference.
I will address the “quick-release adaptor” in a separate thread as not to de-rail the ratchet study. Though I’m still puzzled about the roll played by the 4399722 patent. The patent clearly shows the plunger protruding from the front side of the square stud. In fact, the “quick-release adaptor” requires it to function. Yet after the issuance of the patent, all Craftsman ratchets are missing the protruding plunger.
Keep up the good work. I have a feeling that your RHFT study will be the “go-to” reference for years to come.
Todd F.
-
DadsTools, I found that particular variation only in the 1/4" drive types 1 and 2. I’ve posted a picture below of my type 1 and 2 RHFT ratchets in all three sizes. The 1/2” and 3/8” have the same basic geometry as the single spaced 1/4".
The biggest variance, not mentioned in your study, is the change that takes place in the type 7. The phrase “PATENT PENDING” is moved to the left and the font of the part number more than doubles in size. In Jim’s study of the Teardrop ratchet, these are referenced as the type 11 and 12. While this change is visually significant, substance wise, it’s inconsequential. But…after collecting and handling these wrenches, the small font ratchets collectively seem older than the large font ones. The depth of the stamp seems deeper and the surface of the metal curves down into the stamped letters. The large font appears to have been made with a slightly different process making the stamp more flush with the surrounding surface. Was there a change in the process where one stopped and the other started? I have no idea. It’s just a gut feeling on my part and in the grand scheme of things makes no difference.
I will address the “quick-release adaptor” in a separate thread as not to de-rail the ratchet study. Though I’m still puzzled about the roll played by the 4399722 patent. The patent clearly shows the plunger protruding from the front side of the square stud. In fact, the “quick-release adaptor” requires it to function. Yet after the issuance of the patent, all Craftsman ratchets are missing the protruding plunger.
Keep up the good work. I have a feeling that your RHFT study will be the “go-to” reference for years to come.
Todd F.
Thanks for the info. If I'm following you correctly, then the distinction in Jim C.' Types 11 and 12 are also observed in the RHFT Type 7?
I honestly had not taken note of the details in every type in Jim's Study (my bad). Looks like we can now affix a more precise dating for Jim on these TD Types 11 and 12 because the pending marks must refer to 4399722. There's no way around this, as the TD QR was always tied to Roberts 'lawsuit' patent. Jim also observed that the pending mark is also associated with the introduction of the "blind" stud. Similarly, once the Roberts patent expired, the patent number was never stamped in the TD Type 13. I think we've helped tweaked the dating for Jim here.
I would also tend to agree that the "large" font is later than the "small" font in this variation, but on different grounds independent of physical examination in hand. For many years, the standard format for the raised panel wrench markings had been FORGED IN USA followed by the mfr code then followed by the model number. The RHFT had never really followed that convention because of its unique patent markings. We know that Sears was anxious to put that pending mark on the RHFT asap to cover its legal liability, and simply followed the marking style precedent established on earlier RHFTs. However, based on the large font variant, it appears that Sears finally decided to make the RHFT panel markings conform to its other panel wrenches. So it moved the FORGED IN USA with the PATENT PENDING all the way to the left, followed by the code, followed by the model, essentially bringing in line with the rest of the raised panel tools. When the Type 8 was introduced, Sears merely dropped the pending mark to make the style conform to the rest of its lines. That would be my assessment based on a 'forest' as opposed to a 'trees' view.
I agree with you that the change is substantively inconsequential. The Type 7 is defined by the 'lawsuit' pending patent and the blind stud that "differed significantly" from the Roberts quick release. It's like the 1960 Lincoln Cent when the Mint changed the die from a small date to a larger format date, creating an important variety, but both are still 1960 pennies, both have the same design, format and alloy. To try 'typing' the small and large fonts leads down a slippery slope of determining when one ends and the other begins, plus having to add another Type to the list, neither of these efforts substantially altering the fundamental meaning of the Type 7 (if you catch my drift). My feelings are that from a practical and functional perspective, both are minor variations within the same Type. Another one of those judgement calls.
Do we have any photos of the RHFT with this variation on them? I'd like to add this variation in the Type Study footnotes.
I agree it seems odd that Roberts' protruding plunger is still depicted in 4399722, yet the production patent pending stud has none. Here's what I think went on. As I mentioned before, 4399722 has such a contrived look and feel to it, plus the odd feature of having two different inventions claimed, the 'adapter' QR extension bar and the 'improved' QR ratchet. It was clearly a 'cover-your-butt' patent. Your report of having a couple of these odd extensions shows they were produced. I bet Sears produced it under the cover of Roberts original 1965 patent. When Sears was forced to assign the patent back to Roberts, they were left exposed on the QR extension too, so they stuffed both adapter and ratchet into the CYA 4399722. Here's the thing though--in order for both devices to have any rational relationship, they would have to work together some way. An examination of the patent shows that the protruding plunger in 4399722 was necessary to activate the QR means in the adapter. So, while both were depicted and claimed this way, the real objective was not to manufacture the adapter and the ratchet QR together, but only to get the adapter and the new QR covered by this new patent as protection for both against Roberts. The main claim for the new ratchet QR was a one-piece plunger/release button as opposed to Roberts' two-piece. This new design allowed them to make a "blind" stud that "differed significantly" from Roberts. They never had any intent to make the adapter with it--the adapter was included as a CYA for past infringement. One of the more contrived, insincere (i.e., slimy) patents I've seen.
-
Do we have any photos of the RHFT with this variation on them? I'd like to add this variation in the Type Study footnotes.
The second picture in the above post shows both versions of the type7.
Todd F.
-
Do we have any photos of the RHFT with this variation on them? I'd like to add this variation in the Type Study footnotes.
The second picture in the above post shows both versions of the type7.
Todd F.
Thank you!
-
Based on the information provided by Todd F. (thank you!), we have two additional footnotes to add to the Type List:
--some Types 1 and 2 are found with a double-spaced P A T E N T P E N D I N G mark as opposed to the typical single-spaced PATENT PENDING
--early Type 7 have a small model number on the first text line above the pending marks; later Type 7 has a full-height model number at the right of the panel
Neither of these variations alter the fundamental description and date range for any of the Types, and so the List is still perfectly accurate and usable as it was (the patent information and associated dates are still king!). These variations are being added as footnotes for the sake of thoroughness. Thanks again!
-
Looks like after the -VH- forge mark is when the deletion of the phrase "FORGED IN" took place on the type 9.
-
Looks like after the -VH- forge mark is when the deletion of the phrase "FORGED IN" took place on the type 9.
Sure looks like it. I chose to end the Type 8 at the end of the -V- era primarily because the single-V code has long been a focal point for Craftsman collectors and those who buy the vintage Cman as users. But the FORGED IN mark persists after 1986, changing only by the introduction of different mfr codes with two letters. Once again, Todd, this was one of those judgement calls. One could have argued that Type 8 should have continued through until the FORGED IN was dropped, making Type 9 those that only have the USA. But I felt that most Cman enthusiasts would feel that the end of -V- to be the more important delineator, especially since vintage collectors don't seem to have much interest in the post-V tools.
Sure would be nice to have some idea around what year they dropped the FORGED IN mark, if there is such a distinct point in the timeline. I'd love to at least footnote it. Lauver places VG as Danaher 1994-95, VH as Danaher 1994-97, and VJ as Danaher 1994-2008. So according to Lauver, all three of these codes cross overlap. So the year could be a toss-up. And of course, the catalogs NEVER show the descriptive side of the handle. Yet another dice throw in the floating craps game of The Craftsman Dating Lottery.
As always, Todd, thanks a million for the great photos! I feel they're a big help to everybody.
-
No doubt I relied on the Lauver manufacturer’s code study throughout the Teardrop study. It’s a great reference! I ended the TD study at 1993 when the configuration of the ratchets changed. Specifically, the directional selector and quick release button went from being made of metal to plastic. I know the Cman catalogs can be less than accurate, but using that as a reference, the change occurred around 1993. I have a photo of a ratchet with the plastic selector and quick release button that has a -VG- code. The last ratchet (which I believe was 1993) in the TD study also has a -VG- mark. So there was overlap between the two styles of ratchets in terms of manufacturer’s codes (-VG- in this instance) and I think that started as early as 1993. Lauver lists the -VG- code as 1994 - 1995. During the course of the TD study, it was my opinion that of the Type 14 codes, those being -V-, -VE-, -VF-, VF, and -VG-, the two VF codes were the most common. Lauver listed the VF codes as early 1990s. The VF codes may well have extended into the early 1990s, however, I clearly recall having seen the VF code on TD ratchets in 1988. Lauver does not list a time frame for the -VE- code. That was one of the hardest to find, so I believe it wasn’t around too long. The point I’m making is that after the well known single line (-V-) code ended (1986), the dates associated with the codes that followed may be up for some debate.
Jim C.
-
No doubt I relied on the Lauver manufacturer’s code study throughout the Teardrop study. It a great reference! I ended the TD study at 1993 when the configuration of the ratchets changed. Specifically, the directional selector and quick release button went from being made of metal to plastic. I know the Cman catalogs can be less than accurate, but using that as a reference, the change occurred around 1993. I have a photo of a ratchet with the plastic selector and quick release button that has a -VG- code. The last ratchet (which I believe was 1993) in the TD study also has a -VG- mark. So there was overlap between the two styles of ratchets in terms of manufacturer’s codes (-VG- in this instance) and I think that started as early as 1993. Lauver lists the -VG- code as 1994 - 1995. During the course of the TD study, it was my opinion that of the Type 14 codes, those being -V-, -VE-, -VF-, VF, and -VG-, the two VF codes were the most common. Lauver listed the VF codes as early 1990s. The VF codes may well have extended into the early 1990s, however, I clearly recall having seen the VF code on TD ratchets in 1988. Lauver does not list a time frame for the -VE- code. That was one of the hardest to find, so I believe it wasn’t around too long. The point I’m making is that after the well known single line (-V-) code ended (1986), the dates associated with the codes that followed may be up for some debate.
Jim C.
Good info. Makes perfect sense to end it when they introduced the plastic parts, not only from a Typing perspective, but also that the plastic was when most Cman enthusiasts seem to lose interest in the TD ratchets (for good reason!).
Within the scope of your study, did you observe any handles up to 1993 that did not have the FORGED IN mark, but just the USA?
-
Hey Dad,
Every ratchet in the study was stamped with “FORGED IN U.S.A.” I can’t say I recall ever seeing one that falls within the scope of the study, lacking that stamp on the handle.
Jim C.
-
I've been giving much thought to both the findings of Jim C. in his TD Type Study and in the Todd F. RHFT collection. The issue revolves around the removal by Sears of the "FORGED IN" handle marking, leaving just the "U.S.A." mark. One of my criteria in the RHFT for defining what is a major Type as opposed to a variation within a Type is if the visible feature being considered represents a distinct delineator in the RHFT timeline, or in other words, a chronological distinction where one feature ends at such a time and another supersedes it. I also had to consider whether the feature change was striking enough to merit its own Type classification. To put it another way, did the change effect the overall meaning of the artifact with respect to the RHFT history? Was the feature an important 'event' within the RHFT story?
For example, in the Type List, we have a number of footnoted (f) variations for which I made certain judgement calls based on these criteria. The double spacing noted in f1 did not change the overall meaning of Type 1 markings in the timeline, and its dating uncertain. Based on the randomness of f2, it's impossible to date, nor does it affect the historical meaning of Types 3 through 6. The same can be said for the occasional -VV- in Type 6. We could determine that the f4 change from small to large model numbers happened sequentially in the timeline, but the date of the change is ambiguous while the distinguishing information on both are still the same (i.e., one could still accurately identify both the distinctness of Type 7 and its place within the RHFT history regardless to small or large model number). According to Lauver, most of the various mfr codes in Type 9 (noted by f5) ran concurrently so are impossible to sequentially date them, nor do they otherwise change the distinguishing information found on that Type.
Now we come to the latest finding that there appears to be reasonably firm date range for the removal of the "FORGED IN" marking. It also presents a distinct change in the information markings on the handle. Moreover, it indeed appears sequential in that once the FORGED IN is dropped, it never appears again, making a major distinction between 'before' and 'after' examples with a correspondingly different date range. This seems to meet all my given criteria for a major Type.
Should I add a Type 10 for this change, or simply list it as a variation? Your thoughts?
-
Hey Dad,
Since you asked, I’d give it its own Type. It does meet your evaluation criteria and I think it does create a mile marker on the time line. Lumping the non FORGED IN examples into Type 9 creates a lot of variation within that type, and may insinuate a careless ending to what is really a gem and well executed presentation of the information. As I struggled to get the date ranges as close as I could when writing the TD study, I was always glad to get a solid date or two because it allowed me to set a milestone for evaluating date ranges for other types. If you think you generally know when the FORGED IN was eliminated from the handle stamp, I’d call that a mile stone worth recognizing with its own type. When I set the evaluation criteria for the TD study, I considered the FORGED IN U.S.A. stamp but since EVERY ratchet had the stamp, I thought it was meaningless to include. Your RHFT study has both, so I’d make the distinction.
Jim C.
-
I’m reluctant to even start this post but here goes. It has to do with the “double-line” and “no-line” logos. First, let me say that none of this alters any of the time line for the RHFT but just refines or clarifies some of the footnotes. I’ve been pouring over my own collection and looking at dozens of eBay posts to make verify the following information. I’m 99.9 percent certain it’s correct.
All type 1, 2, 3, 7 and 8 have “double-line” logos.
All type 4 and 5 have “no-line” logos.
Type 9 with “FORGED IN” (VG and VH) have “double-line” logos.
Type 9 without “FORGED IN” (VJ and up) have “no-line” logos.
Type 6 has both.
After getting all my RHFT ratchets lined up in the toolbox drawer, I made another observation that has to do with the type 6 ratchet. There are two noticeably different size plungers on the 1/2” and 3/8” type 6 ratchets. Some of the plungers are the same size as the types 1 through 5 but some are much smaller. Then I figured out that all of the small size plungers are on the “double-line” ratchets and all of the large plungers are on the “no-line” ratchets. All ratchets before the type 6 have large plungers, lines or not. The only RHFT ratchet with the -VV- forge mark is the 3/8”, with “double-lines” and it too has the small plunger so the pattern holds true. There seems to be no size difference in the plungers on the 1/4” models but my sample size is very small.
I checked the Teardrop ratchets and found the same thing. The type 9a comes with and without the logo lines. The 9a with “no-lines” has the large plunger and the 9a with “double-lines” has the small plunger including the 1/4”. The 9b, 10a and 10b all have “double-lines” and all have small plungers. So again, the pattern holds. The type 11 teardrop, like the type 7 RHFT, is when the part numbers change and the plunger goes away.
So, besides the cosmetic variation between having lines or no-lines, there appears to be a mechanical difference as well, albeit a small one. Perhaps this was a failed attempt to change the quick release design to make it “differ significantly” enough to satisfy the terms of the Roberts lawsuit. Again, none of this helps with any of the dates. Just food for thought.
I should close my toolbox drawers and stop looking at them.
Todd F.
-
I noticed the different plunger sizes back when I was writing the TD Type Study. I didn’t connect them to your Roberts patent theory. I really didn’t give them much thought. That’s an interesting argument Todd. I’m going take another look at the lines too.
Jim C.
-
Todd F.--I'd like you to confirm something for me. I know you have a ton of these RHFT, and some having both large and small diameter plungers. With these plunger types, you can see the end of the plunger in the stud opening. Please confirm that when you turn the selector to change direction, that the visible end of the plunger does not rotate with the selector knob.
-
Neither the large or small plunger rotate with the selector. Their orientation remains fixed while the selector and quick release button are rotated. Tomorrow I will disassemble both types as far as I can to see what makes them tic.
Todd F.
-
I'm still backtracking the many images I looked at during the study. eBay current, eBay sold, plain quick release listings (not everyone knows RHFT or fine tooth), Terapeak and worthpoint showing listings eBay and elsewhere going way back, non-eBay images on the web, related posts in forums, related youtube videos. Very, very many, so it's going to take time.
I did find this so far, a 3/8 Type 6 having the double-line logo but also having the large plunger.
https://www.ebay.com/itm/Vintage-Craftsman-3-8-034-Drive-Round-Head-Ratchet-/153871038103?hash=item23d36db697%3Ag%3ARpEAAOSwq9ZedBiy&nma=true&si=8B4kIN14eif%252FgXkXXl7gHGz6uR4%253D&orig_cvip=true&nordt=true&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2557
Another, in 1/2, double line, large plunger
https://www.ebay.com/itm/Vintage-Craftsman-v-Series-44978-1-2-034-Drive-Thumb-Wheel-Ratchet-Quick-Release-/333400974223?hash=item4da03f238f%3Ag%3Ao3cAAOSw6IJd0H8J&LH_ItemCondition=4&nma=true&si=8B4kIN14eif%252FgXkXXl7gHGz6uR4%253D&orig_cvip=true&nordt=true&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2557
-
Any of the three "heads" (QR1 large, QR1 small and QR2) will fit in any of the RHFT "bodies" (type 1 through 9) and can be swapped out in about 30 seconds with a pair of needle nose pliers. They still sell the rebuilt kits on eBay that may have any of the “head” types in them. And then there's the Craftsman Lifetime Warranty. When you take a broken ratchet back to Sears they hand you another one that may or may not say "REBUILT" on it. You could end up with any of the 9 "bodies" with any of the 3 "heads", but it was usually the latest "head" at the time. Sometimes the salesman would rebuild your broken ratchet right there in the store and hand it back to you. If the ratchet went back to the factory for rebuild it would be stamped as such. And if they installed a QR2 “head" into a type 4, 5 or 6, that made the part number invalid so they would strike over the part number so you couldn't read it. So finding a very small percentage "large plunger" QRs in a type 6 with " double-line" logo is not surprising. I’ve purchased many Frankenstein ratchets over the years, like a type 1 with a QR2 “head. But the overwhelming majority of the of the ratchets I've seen support the pattern.
Todd F.
-
Any of the three "heads" (QR1 large, QR1 small and QR2) will fit in any of the RHFT "bodies" (type 1 through 9) and can be swapped out in about 30 seconds with a pair of needle nose pliers. They still sell the rebuilt kits on eBay that may have any of the “head” types in them. And then there's the Craftsman Lifetime Warranty. When you take a broken ratchet back to Sears they hand you another one that may or may not say "REBUILT" on it. You could end up with any of the 9 "bodies" with any of the 3 "heads", but it was usually the latest "head" at the time. Sometimes the salesman would rebuild your broken ratchet right there in the store and hand it back to you. If the ratchet went back to the factory for rebuild it would be stamped as such. And if they installed a QR2 “head" into a type 4, 5 or 6, that made the part number invalid so they would strike over the part number so you couldn't read it. So finding a very small percentage "large plunger" QRs in a type 6 with " double-line" logo is not surprising. I’ve purchased many Frankenstein ratchets over the years, like a type 1 with a QR2 “head. But the overwhelming majority of the of the ratchets I've seen support the pattern.
Todd F.
I agree that the ability to easily swap out the core on most round head ratchets makes the job more challenging. We could also be dealing with NOS large plunger cores installed in the double-line logo handles for it would be unlikely they'd dump them. The overall wear pattern on the linked examples on both the core and the handle does not display any obvious inconsistency that would cause one to suspect they're not factory (I've not noticed any examples of the over-stamps so far). I've been seeing a few more examples of the large plunger with double lines (I see no need for me to keep posting additional links since it would be redundant at this point) . But I also agree that the overwhelming majority of the examples I've seen so far follow the pattern you discovered.
In the case of the double-line vs no-line, I did not keep score of how many of each I found. I did not have the luxury of having a huge collection before me that I could examine at my leisure. As it was, it took days to find and examine all the online examples (not sure I can afford the time to do it all again, but I'm trying). If I noted an example, I just made note that they did exist.
Is it inappropriate for me to ask how many of these RHFT you actually have? :O
-
There is a picture of my RHFT collection in Reply #9 back on the first page. Three more have been added after I read your study and corrected my oversight and separated the type 5 and 6 ratchets. (had to buy more to fill in the holes). There are 42 RHFT and 11 RHFT flex-heads in the display drawers. There are probably another 20 or 30 in the reject bin. This pales in comparison to my Teardrop ratchet collection. I have all the ratchets in Jim's teardrop study except for the elusive type 4. I'm beginning to think I have a better chance of finding Big Foot than a type 4 teardrop. I have 69 teardrop and 26 flex-heads in the display drawers. The rejects from that are measured in 100s of pounds. I also collect the 15-inch teardrops as well as the 3/4-inch drive ratchets. There's also the Plastic Lever, the Professional Full Polish, the Industrial Full Polish, the Next Generation Thin Profile, the Tri Wing, the Tri Prop Round Head, the Thumb Wheel Quick Clean, the Premium Polished, the Stainless and the Lifetime. And if you want to see my Craftsman Professional Combination Wrench collection, there are pictures of them in my thread in this same forum called "Craftsman Professional Combination Wrench Study" Some people collect stamps.
-
There is a picture of my RHFT collection in Reply #9 back on the first page. Three more have been added after I read your study and corrected my oversight and separated the type 5 and 6 ratchets. (had to buy more to fill in the holes). There are 42 RHFT and 11 RHFT flex-heads in the display drawers. There are probably another 20 or 30 in the reject bin. This pales in comparison to my Teardrop ratchet collection. I have all the ratchets in Jim's teardrop study except for the elusive type 4. I'm beginning to think I have a better chance of finding Big Foot than a type 4 teardrop. I have 69 teardrop and 26 flex-heads in the display drawers. The rejects from that are measured in 100s of pounds. I also collect the 15-inch teardrops as well as the 3/4-inch drive ratchets. There's also the Plastic Lever, the Professional Full Polish, the Industrial Full Polish, the Next Generation Thin Profile, the Tri Wing, the Tri Prop Round Head, the Thumb Wheel Quick Clean, the Premium Polished, the Stainless and the Lifetime. And if you want to see my Craftsman Professional Combination Wrench collection, there are pictures of them in my thread in this same forum called "Craftsman Professional Combination Wrench Study" Some people collect stamps.
"Some people collect stamps." That's funny! It's crazy, isn't it? Got to fill those holes too (glad to have been some service in this, although I'm not sure 'help' would be the right word)! I was beginning to suspect you have 100s....well, if you count the teardrops and others, apparently so. I got carried away like that only once with a particular style of fishing reel made in Japan. I did manage to stop myself. Oh yeah, and Dalton Special fishing lures. I stopped that too. I finally stopped the Harrison tackle when I published that study. A man's got to know his limitations. Or, so I've heard....
I finished my eBay RHFT re-study. That's searching every conceivable way a seller might try to list a RHFT, even down to just the generic terms "quick release" and "thumb wheel" and "round head" because there are many sellers who don't really understand "RHFT" or "fine tooth" nomenclature for these. I also went back over my own photos. I have not yet begin my deep web searching of online images, videos and forums, including historical listings on Terapeak (if my friend will let me leech that again) and Worthpoint (also has non-eBay historical sales). I'm dreading the thought...I'm not even sure I should devote several more days of my life (again) on it. Again. It's not like looking in a drawer. And if you don't want to take up life in front of your computer, you have to look quickly and move on, keep moving, keep moving. At the time of the first marathon, I was primarily shoring up the study Types based in the patent markings, the other details being incidental.
That being said, this latest eBay run yielded seven Type 6 RHFT, 3/8 and 1/2 mixed, that had both large plungers and double-lines. I also ran into my share of false-flag mismatched cores from the other types. But I'd say most were later cores on earlier handles, which makes sense in terms of replacements (more likely than someone placing an older core in a later handle), or mismatches where the wear was noticeably inconsistent between the two parts (I did mention this core-swapping issue in my APPROACH section). The seven I mention appeared to be consistent and displayed no overt evidence that they weren't factory. So, while they indeed embody a small minority compared to the small plunger/double line, they do apparently exist. Perhaps only as factory crossovers mixing old stock parts with new.
The date, as well as the purpose for Sears moving to a plunger of a smaller diameter, is unclear. However, there are several very sound reasons to conclude it had nothing to do with the Roberts lawsuit. I'll cover that in a subsequent posting on this thread, since it involves patent law and the landmark Roberts case, both which are a bit lengthy. My question as to the rotation of the plunger has something to do with this.
In my first expedition into the outer reaches of the webula, I believe I did observe examples of RHFT Types 3 through 6 of both double-line and no-line logos. Did I stop to note how rare each might be? Nope, just kept moving (a return to normal life beckoned). How sure am I of this? Well, I probably wouldn't bet the farm, but I'd sure bet a steak dinner. Hindsight is easy for everybody (including me) once the Study is published. And peer review is fine (although I'm not sure how much a 'peer' I might be in light of yours and Jim C.' impressive collections--I have only two RHFT ratchets at the moment).
So, let's say my theory in my APPROACH section is correct, that the factory on occasion may have used different logo stamps they had on hand to explain the dichotomy. Were this to be sensible, Easco would have had to have two different logo stamps compatible with the same size handles. To the best of my knowledge, the handles for both the RHFT and the TD during the period in question are the same geometry, and so either stamp could have been used on the corresponding drive size of either RHFT or TD. So let's look at Jim C.'s TD Study.
But before we do, we have to make certain considerations. The TD has a different patent pedigree than the RHFT, the TD evolving from Roberts while the RHFT evolved from Hazner. Also with the RHFT, we have a rapid progression of patent marks, each anchored with hard patent event dates during the critical years in question, whereas the TD doesn't have the same number of mile markers in that period and so the TD chronology may be less precise out of circumstance. Yet each year was the same for both model ratchets on the calendar, so that, for example, what was 1970 for one was 1970 for the other too.
According to your collection and your searches,
--all RHFT Type 3 are double-line 1969-70
--all RHFT Type 4 are no-line 1970-71
--all RHFT Type 5 are no-line 1971-72
--all RHFT early Type 6 no lines 1972 to ?
According to the TD Type Study,
--Type 7 all has double line 1970-72 (which means both logo stamps were in use at the time of RHFT T4)
--Type 8 1/2 & 3/8 no lines, 1/4 double lines 1970-72 (with above, both stamps in use at same time of RHFT T3, T4 and T5)
--Type 9a 1/2 no lines, 1/4 & 3/8 double lines 1972-76 (both stamps in use, double-line in early part of RHFT T6)
--Type 9b double lines 1972-76 (same time as early RHFT T6 and TD 9a)
So, during the critical RHFT years in question where all are supposed to have no lines, both double-line and no-line stamps were in use at the factory, and were both in use on the examples in the TD study. Also, the TD study shows there is no absolute cutoff where Sears ended the earlier double-line and began the no-line--both are in use on the same TD Type ratchets during the same time period. ALSO, it shows that the no-line logo was not exclusive to the RHFT, because it was used at times on the TD too. All this while keeping in mind we have hard dates for the RHFT where the variance might be at most in mere months, not in years.
So.....my report of the occasional double-line being stamped on RHFT T4 through early T6 and no-line on T3 is entirely feasible (since both stamps were in house and in use alternatively at the time as seen on the TD), as well as my conclusion that the no-line logo was not an across-the-board wholesale tool line change. That is, unless....there is something very flawed about the TD Study typing and dating during this time period. Which I don't think so.
As all serious collectors know, just because a person has never seen such and such an artifact doesn't mean that such and such an artifact cannot possibly exist. We've all encountered this time and time again.
What we can say for certain from our combined RHFT research and Jim's TD Study is that the double-line logo was in use exclusively on these ratchets until somewhere around 1970. A no-lines logo was then introduced for a short time but was not used exclusively across the entire Sears tool line, both double-line and no-line being applied during that time. Then somewhere in the mid-1970s, it appears as if the short-lived no-line logo was eliminated. Then sometime around the mid-1990s, the no-line logo appears once again and the double-line is eliminated.
-
Dad,
Once again I think your reasoning is persuasive and right on point. When I read your most recent analysis, I did so with a watchful eye, looking for a possible “What about this?” question. But, like I said, I think you got it right in terms of what we know and still don’t know, or may never know. What I do know is that the TD type study got better because of your efforts.
Jim C.
-
There is a picture of my RHFT collection in Reply #9 back on the first page. Three more have been added after I read your study and corrected my oversight and separated the type 5 and 6 ratchets. (had to buy more to fill in the holes). There are 42 RHFT and 11 RHFT flex-heads in the display drawers. There are probably another 20 or 30 in the reject bin. This pales in comparison to my Teardrop ratchet collection. I have all the ratchets in Jim's teardrop study except for the elusive type 4. I'm beginning to think I have a better chance of finding Big Foot than a type 4 teardrop. I have 69 teardrop and 26 flex-heads in the display drawers. The rejects from that are measured in 100s of pounds. I also collect the 15-inch teardrops as well as the 3/4-inch drive ratchets. There's also the Plastic Lever, the Professional Full Polish, the Industrial Full Polish, the Next Generation Thin Profile, the Tri Wing, the Tri Prop Round Head, the Thumb Wheel Quick Clean, the Premium Polished, the Stainless and the Lifetime. And if you want to see my Craftsman Professional Combination Wrench collection, there are pictures of them in my thread in this same forum called "Craftsman Professional Combination Wrench Study" Some people collect stamps.
Todd,
You very well may have the greatest collection of Cman =V= era and later ratchets anywhere in the civilized world. It’s beyond impressive. It’s really awesome to say the least. When you officially open the National Craftsman Ratchet and Tool Museum, I promise to officially donate the TD TYPE 4 so that you can put it on display with the rest of your collection. If I find another one, it’s coming your way!
Jim C.
-
Dad
Another possibility:
I know that Easco had forges and manufacturing facilities in multiple locations. Consider the possibility that one location has the die stamp with lines and the other has the stamp without lines. When an order for a batch of wrenches is submitted to Easco, it is assigned to one factory or another based on scheduling and availability. It’s just matter chance as to which factory makes the wrenches and whether they have lines or not. For the type wrenches that have both lies and no-lines (like the RHFT type 6), it’s possible that there were multiple batches run months or even years apart at different locations or an order may have been so big that they were manufactured at different location simultaneously.
Todd
-
Jim
Thank you for the kind words regarding my collection. I wish my wife was half as enthused about it as you are.
Todd
-
As always, gentlemen, I appreciate your feedback and contributions. I do not think I will embark on my second "deep web" search. It's just too much, and I think it's unnecessary. My own recollections from my first deep search coupled with the findings in the TD Type Study are sufficient to form a tenable conclusion about the logos. Todd, your suggestion about different factory facilities is a possibility.
I mentioned I was going to talk about the small plunger and the Roberts lawsuit not being related. The entire Roberts issue is quite involved. I even contemplated posting a report on it, but I'm not sure how relevant it would be to a tool forum, as a lot of it pertains to legal issues. What I find most intriguing is that after 20 years of court battle, it was finally resolved by a settlement between the parties just five days into the retrial of 1989 without a ruling--to this day, it has never been "officially" determined if Roberts' patent was even valid in light of the prior art (earlier patents or representations from other sources).
For a patent to be issued, an invention must meet three criteria: novelty, utility and unobviousness (I had to contend with these criteria when the initial application for my own patent was rejected because my claims were too broad). Novelty means it must really be new, utility means the novelty has to do something useful. The unobviousness is trickier to determine, having to pass this 'obviousness' test: the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. To assess this, one must try to imagine themselves being ordinarily skilled in the art of the trade in which the patent relates. What "ordinary skill" means is not well defined--it's entirely subjective.
However, we can apply these criteria to the question as to whether the change from a large diameter to a small diameter plunger provided any remedy to Sears against Roberts. The critical consideration is the effect this change might have made specifically to Roberts QR means. In other words, it can't be an issue of it being cheaper to make, more visually appealing or something like that--it would have to affect the specific QR means in Roberts according to the three criteria. Did reducing the plunger diameter create a novel means of QR? No, for the internal QR means were still identical to Roberts. In fact, Roberts abstract provides for plungers of different sizes or shapes. That just one criterion fails is sufficient, but we'll look at the other two. Did the smaller diameter produce a utilitarian function distinct from Roberts? No, for the internal QR means is still Roberts. Was it unobvious? Hmmm....just take a look at the three drive sizes being made--aren't the plungers all different diameters for each drive size? Nothing unobvious here. The lawyers for Sears were VERY smart and would have known these changes meant nothing. They would have also known that a new patent filing would have been necessary. We already know what and when that patent was filed, which was Sardo in 1981, rushed out the door immediately after Sears was finally forced to assign the existing QR patent back to Roberts just a couple of weeks earlier. At the suspected time of the introduction of the small plunger, the legal battle was still in flux and so a remedy was not immediately needed.
So, why did Sears reduce the size of the plunger? There could have been some cost or manufacturing advantage to it. But I wonder....could it have anything to do with the quick release "adapter" extension bar described in Sardo? I've already noted that the Sardo bar may have been made earlier sometime in the 1970s, but that Sears may have made it under to cover of Roberts, and once it lost that cover had to recover itself for it under Sardo. The Sardo drawing shows that the bar is not like the later ones Sears produced with the QR button in the stud right below where the socket rests. The QR mechanism for Sardo has a rod traveling though the entire length of the bar through a narrow channel and activated by a protruding plunger from the ratchet stud. A study of the Sardo drawing reveals that the original large plunger would have been too big to fit up into the QR bar channel, but the smaller plunger would. Is this the answer????
There's a couple other points of interest with regard to the QR patents. The Roberts patent calls the protruding rod the pin, while Haznar calls it a plunger. I think it's because Haznar also shows the RHFT dual pawls riding on pins, and so the use of pin for the center rod would have been confusing and redundant to the examiner.
Why did Sears need the Haznar patent for the RHFT QR anyway, when it already had the Roberts TD QR? Because the TD had a separate selector and pawl, so all its QR button had to do was to push straight through the head. But the RHFT was a round head with a selector integrated in the ratchet core. Additionally, the RHFT release button was set in a rectangular opening in the selector so that when the selector was turned, the button would be forced to turn with it. Trouble was that the Roberts QR mechanism (which the RHFT also employed) had only a single groove cut into the side of the plunger to allow the detent ball to drop in, so that groove had to be aligned with the ball position at all times, which means the plunger could not rotate with the button/selector. Which means the RHFT plunger had to be made as a separate part from the button or in two pieces, whereas the TD button/pin could be made in one piece. This is why the TD evolves naturally from Roberts, but the RHFT is forced to evolve from Haznar.
Todd F., this is why I asked you to confirm that the RHFT plungers of either size remain stationary as the selector is turned--the plunger is a separate part from the selector/button.
So....how does Sardo solve Sears' dual problem of protecting itself from Roberts while providing a QR that would work with both the TD and the RHFT? Roberts and Haznar had only a single groove in the plunger, which required it to stay in alignment with the detent ball. Sardo employed an orbital groove, or a groove that was cut around the entire plunger. The plunger could now be turned a full 360 degrees if needed, and the groove would always be in a position to receive the detent ball dropping down when the button was pressed. Sears incorporated that new design in both the TD and RHFT, marked them both PATENT PENDING, and made the stud with no opening to blatantly show just on visual inspection that it "differed significantly" from Roberts.
-
Dad
I've disassembled all three types of the RHFT Quick Release mechanisms and I will be posting the details in a hours but here are some preliminary observations. Although the Sardo Patent "differs significantly" from the Roberts Patent there was never a Craftsman ratchet build using the Sardo design. Both the QR1 with the large diameter plunger and the QR1 with the small plunger have a "ramp" machined into them that when pulled inwards by spring tension, force the retaining ball above the surface of the stud to hold the socket. Neither have the a groove machined around the plunger. The QR2 is a totally different design that has no plunger at all and also looks nothing like the Sardo design. I think you'll be surprised when you see how it works. Just give me a few more hours to refine the post.
Todd
-
Dad
I've disassembled all three types of the RHFT Quick Release mechanisms and I will be posting the details in a hours but here are some preliminary observations. Although the Sardo Patent "differs significantly" from the Roberts Patent there was never a Craftsman ratchet build using the Sardo design. Both the QR1 with the large diameter plunger and the QR1 with the small plunger have a "ramp" machined into them that when pulled inwards by spring tension, force the retaining ball above the surface of the stud to hold the socket. Neither have the a groove machined around the plunger. The QR2 is a totally different design that has no plunger at all and also looks nothing like the Sardo design. I think you'll be surprised when you see how it works. Just give me a few more hours to refine the post.
Todd
This would not surprise me. I've mentioned a couple of times that Sardo feels contrived. However, its connection with the Haznar RHFT is indisputable. Sardo's filing date of 3-6-81 only days after the reassignment of the original patent back to Roberts 2-17-81 is too close to be coincidence. Remember that the application took a little time to get to the USPTO in the mail, and then probably sat a bit in the in-basket before it was finally opened, read and registered. Sardo gave Sears a patent pending mark they could immediately stamp on the ratchets. Its orbital groove would have also solved the problem of needing something different than Roberts while providing a single design that could be used both on the TD and RHFT.
But again, it wouldn't surprise me that the actual mechanism they ultimately put in the RHFT would be different still. We already know from the lawsuit and other details that Sears was certainly not the most ethical player, and Sardo has all the earmarks of being merely a contrived CYA patent. I'm anxious to see it.
-
Here it is, I‘ve disassembled the three kinds of Quick Release Cores as far as possible without causing any damage and here are the results:
First of all, just to keep everything straight, I’m going to call them QR1-L for the large plunger, QR1-S for the small plunger and QR2 for the blind-stud version.
Figure 1 shows all three, QR1-L, QR1-S and QR2 from left to right. Right away you can see there are differences in all three and you can also see that the QR1-S has the Quick Release mechanism still installed. More on that later. The parts that have to do with the ratcheting action and direction selecting are identical in all three versions and won’t be discussed here. The terms “up” and “down” in this discussion are in reference to the drawings in figures 2 through 4.
The QR1-L (figure 2) is, in every detail, identical to the Haznar Patent – 3532013. During normal operation, the spring pushes up on the under side of the release button, that pulls up on the plunger via the threads pulling the “ramp” against the Socket Retaining Ball pushing it out of the bore until it runs into the staked area around the hole and holding the socket in place. Pressing the Quick Release Button compresses the spring, moving the plunger down, moving the “ramp” away from the Retaining Ball allowing it to slide back into the bore to release the socket. Downward travel is limited by the full compression of the spring. Upward travel is limited by the retaining ball contacting the staked area which limits the upward travel of the plunger due to the ramp contacting the retaining ball. Disassembly of the QR1-L is accomplished by removing the core body from the ratchet housing and removing the reversing lever disc. Then one or both of the pawl retaining pins is removed allowing pawls to be removed, allowing the balls and small spring to be removed from the transverse bore in the release button. Next you simply unscrew the button counterclockwise until it comes out. After that the plunger (now unrestrained by the button and compressed spring) can be pushed out of the bore until the retaining ball can be dropped into the detent in the plunger (gravity works well for this). The ball and plunger now fit fully within the diameter of the bore and can be pushed out in either direction. (It really takes less time to accomplish this than it does to read about it here).
The QR1-S Quick Release mechanism is not made to be removed or disassembled! The reversing mechanism can be taken apart, but not the Quick Release portion. The Quick Release Button spins freely while the plunger remains fixed. No amount of pulling, pushing or rotating will remove it. The plunger and the button are hooked together somehow (I have a theory) and inserted into the bore. Then the Socket Retaining Ball is inserted into its bore and stud is staked around the hole preventing removal of the ball, plunger and button.
Figure 3 is a sketch I made showing the way I think this might work. The extended shaft on the release button would have a “U” shaped groove machined around its circumference and the plunger would have a hole drilled in its backside with a smaller hole drilled perpendicular to it. Once the shaft is inserted into the plunger and the ball is inserted into the hole in the side, the whole assembly is locked together when it’s inserted into the bore of the stud. Once the retaining ball is staked into place, removal is not possible. It could also work with two balls spaced 180 degrees apart on the shaft or some type of circlip. Let me reiterate, this is pure speculation on my part but it has to look similar to this based on the way the two parts interact. I can tell the plunger still has the same “ramp” as the QR1-L. When the button is depressed, I can rotate the plunger a few degrees in either direction until the sides of the ramp contact the ball. If there were a groove cut all the way around the plunger, it would rotate 360 degrees. The major difference between the QR1-L and the QR1-S is the method used to join the plunger to the button. I’m seriously contemplating sacrificing one of these heads and grinding out the staked metal to get it apart and see how close my theory is to reality.
The QR2 is shown in the sketch in figure 4 and is an even greater departure from the QR1-L. The hole in the end of the stud for the plunger is gone as well as the plunger itself. In their place is a second ball (I’ll call it the “keeper” ball for clarity) and a small spring. Both the keeper ball and the retaining ball appear to be the same size, I can’t verify this because the bore for the retaining ball is staked at both ends but with just enough room for the ball to move in and out to allow removal of the socket when the release button is depressed. When assembled, the keeper ball sits adjacent to the retaining ball keeping the retaining ball in place to retain the socket. When the Quick Release button is pushed, the keeper ball is moved further into the bore, compressing the spring and is no longer adjacent to the retaining ball allowing it to move inward and the socket is able to be removed. The release button is prevented from being removed from the assembled unit by a ridge on each side that sits against the under side of the selector lever disc. When the mechanism is removed from the ratchet body, the disc comes off and the release button can be pulled straight out. A slight tap on the workbench and the keeper ball and spring fall out. The retaining ball cannot be removed.
I speculate that the elimination of the plunger with its ramp, (the defining feature of the Roberts patent) was a “significant enough deviation” to comply with the requirements of the lawsuit settlement.
Now who’s going to help me put these ratchets back together?
Todd F.
-
Hello, Todd. Thanks for sharing!!! If I had to bet on who could put these back together, my money would be on you!!! Regards, Lou
-
That's very exciting, Todd! Ambitious work! I'm not sure if I would destroy a RHFT core just to see that deeply inside. But that's up to you. I certainly don't think it's necessary for its relevance to the Type Study--its relevance has already been established by the current extent of disassembly.
Which brings up what is to me the guiding principle. The intent of the RHFT Type Study is not about defining every minute mechanical internal detail, but only that which enables us to identify and date an artifact in the Type Study. The disassembly you've done so far is more than sufficient for this purpose without having to take a hacksaw to it!!! There's only so many that are still extant.
Your disassembly sheds some light on the purpose of the what you are calling the QR1-S. It appears to be involved with a change in how the QR is manufactured during the Type 6 era. It may have been a means to manufacture it more efficiently and inexpensively. It may also have something to do with implementing a smaller diameter plunger to effectively engage the rod inside the QR extension shown in Sardo, which might have been originally made or planned to be made during this period back in the later 1970s. Or a combination of both.
Understand what I am about to say is not to diminish your exposure of the internal differences in the QR1-S, which is certainly significant to the serious collector as well as an important contribution to the RHFT knowledge base (thank you!). What I want to point out is that, in relation to the criteria of RHFT Study, it's not significant enough to merit any re-typing. The inner QR means is still purely Haznar. All patents allow for these kinds of variations in manufacturing, size and materials, as long as the novel means for effecting its utility is the same. In this case, we still have the plunger as a separate component from the button, so that the button can rotate with the selector while the plunger is held relatively stationary (non-rotational). That's still Haznar. The means by which the detent ball is released is still a groove cut at a singular location on the plunger, and so must also be kept aligned at the same degree as the detent ball in order to effect its utility. That's pure Roberts, which Haznar carried over in the RHFT, and which was apparently also flagged in the Roberts lawsuit. So the internal details prove that the QR1-S was not introduced as a way to work around Roberts--it's essentially the identical mechanism.
We've all heard the saying that you can't see the forest for the trees, meaning that focusing too exclusively on the details can cause one to lose sight of the overall scheme of things. I've noticed in other type studies I've seen that there seems to be a tendency to get so deep into the trees that the forest is neglected, thereby drifting into over-complication and esoterica. To me, both forest and trees are continuously important. Not criticizing, just observing. The path of the RHFT Study is to keep both the trees (and all their details) and the forest (with the clarity and context of its overarching perspective) in sight at all times, hence the decisions regarding what is a type and what is a variation within a type. In this case, the overarching definition of the Type 6 is its immovable connection to the two Haznar patents and the corresponding handle markings, both which are easily identified and date-ranged. The QR1-S is just a tree within that forest--important to be sure, but nonetheless incapable of redefining the Type 6.
It would be interesting to see if this modification to the manufacturing is also implemented in the 1/4, which you reported showing no change to the plunger diameter.
Which brings us to the Type 7 and the QR2. The RHFT defines and dates the Type 7 according to the PATENT PENDING mark linked to Sardo. If that connection is severed, then the Type 7 is called into question. I think that the differing device in the disassembled ratchet does not disturb this relationship.
--First is the Sardo dating, its indisputable hard connection with the Craftsman RHFT, and its redesign of the QR mechanism which fulfills the need of protection from Roberts.
--The PATENT PENDING mark requires that a real patent application had to be on file with the USPTO. A very extensive search revealed no other patent besides Sardo that fills this requirement while being date-correct for the circumstances and is so solidly tied to the RHFT.
--The fundamental improvements of the QR in Sardo is the ability to make the release button and the plunger as a single piece, so that the plunger can now rotate in its channel along with the button when the selector is turned. I disagree with second part of this statement in the analysis of the QR2 internals, "The hole in the end of the stud for the plunger is gone as well as the plunger itself." It can be seen that the plunger is still there, now made as a single piece with the button so that the two can rotate together, just as the Sardo improvement claims (the older iterations clearly show the button and plunger as two separate parts as in Roberts/Haznar). So this element is also solidly tied to the patent pending Sardo, and along with the blind stud is sufficient to meet the 'significant difference' distinct of QR2 from the Roberts/Haznar QR1. What is different is from Sardo is that the means to lock the detent ball in place is no longer part of the plunger, but is now a 'dual-ball' arrangement that is activated by the one-piece plunger/button. But we already know that Sardo does not show the blind stud seen in the production wrench. This in itself was not enough to disqualify Sardo as the PATENT PENDING patent because of all the other strong ties Sardo has to it. Unless a different patent can be found that shows the dual-ball and that is at least equally tied to the Type 7 PATENT PENDING mark in its abstract, claims, drawings and date, Sardo is still the best candidate. And so the dual-ball in itself is insufficient to disqualify Sardo as the PATENT PENDING on the Type 7, thereby maintaining the integrity of the Study typing. And there's still one more consideration....
--Finally, the disassembled QR2 shows a two-sided cutout on the end of the plunger leaving something like a screwdriver blade. While it is not the orbital groove I anticipated from Sardo, it actually still constitutes a groove that the detent ball falls down into when the button is pushed, and so it is the groove--not the dual-ball--that effects the quick release function. So here again, the groove is not completely eliminated either. Now take a look at figure 3 in Sardo of the QR adapter. Note the dual recess in the internal bar and numbered 55. The abstract reads, the ball 53 retreats into the plunger groove 55. Notice that the recess is on both sides of the rod--if you cut off the end of the rod at the front of the recesses and replaced it with a ball and spring like in the dissembled example, the remaining recess would still look and function identically to Sardo. The duplicate recess on the opposite side of the rod, or a 'two-sided' recess is the tell (it's not the groove from Sardo Fig.2 as I mistakenly anticipated, but actually the groove from Fig.3!). Sears made this 'screwdriver' end identical to the two-sided Sardo in Figure 3. The disassembled QR2 parts are still primarily Sardo, with only the very end of the Sardo adapter plunger being replaced by a ball and spring. In fact, it's questionable whether the dual ball could even be patented in the face of the Sardo dual recess, since the dual ball only provides a means to make a blind stud (which is a different objective) and to lock the detent ball in place--it in no way alters the means by which the detent ball retreats into a groove to effect the quick release utility.
Now here's the legal aspect to all this. In the lawsuit, Sears argued that Carpenter 1660989 and Gonzales 3172675 anticipated Roberts, and thereby invalidated Roberts as being obvious to anyone having ordinary skill in the art could have easily derived the Roberts QR based on the prior art. Roberts argued that the difference was that Carpenter and Gonzales patents describe a means by which the detent ball is locked into place preventing a socket from falling off, while his patent described instead a quick release, the main utility of it was to allow a socket to be easily removed by a smooth operating means (the groove). The jury in the first trial agreed with Roberts on those grounds. Now take a look at the disassembled QR2 with the dual ball. What's the purpose of the second ball? To lock the detent into place preventing a socket from falling off--just as was the purpose of Carpenter and Gonzales. But the two-sided recess on the end of the QR2 plunger is instead what actually effects the quick release function--as was the purpose of Roberts, Hazner and Sardo. The dual-ball facilitating a blind stud and a locking means would not have protected Sears as per legal precedent established by the elimination of Carpenter and Gonsalez. Only the recess built into a rotatable plunger being one-piece with the button as a quick release means had any chance.
Yes, this was very long-winded, but legal arguments always are. The entire case of the change to the QR2 and the corresponding PATENT PENDING on Type 7 is entangled with a means to legally protect Sears from Roberts infringement, not because of any real mechanical advantage or improvement. Hence the contrived Sardo patent. If you don't review the legal aspect of this structure with all its 'unobvious' subtleties, there's no way of really understanding the intent and the mechanism of the QR2, nor its relationship and context with the various patents involved. The RHFT Study's Type 7 and its definition remains undisrupted by these new findings.
-
Well, I took the leap and ground out the stake on the QR1-S and disassembled it. I actually did it before your previous post this morning. So what did I find? It’s not like the drawing I made with the ball and “U” shaped groove but something even simpler. And of course, the first thought I had was “Why didn’t I think of that”? You can see in the pictures exactly how it works much easier than I can explain it in writing. It locks the plunger and release button together longitudinally while still allowing them to rotate with respect to each other. The plunger still has a “ramp”, but it has a “U” shaped cross section unlike the flat “ramp” of the QR1-L yet still functions the same way.
BTW. On the QR2, the recess at the end of the release button extension is not “a two-sided cutout like a screwdriver blade” but is indeed a 360-degree machined “groove”. I think the third picture below shows this better. My drawing should have indicated that clearer also. I can only do so much with a stubby pencil.
I still owe you a new thread on the two extension adapters I own, and how they relate or don’t relate to the Sardo patent. I think a new thread is required to keep your study on track. (We’ve already gone off on a few wild tangents).
At least we all know for certain now what’s inside the Quick Release of the RHFT ratchet.
Todd F.
-
Like you said, "just because you've never seen one, doesn't mean it doesn't exist".
I was beginning to think that the flex head did not exist in 1/2-inch drive but one popped up this morning in perfect condition. My collection just increased by one.
BTW. It has the "double-line" logo and a small plunger.
Todd
-
Well, I took the leap and ground out the stake on the QR1-S and disassembled it. I actually did it before your previous post this morning. So what did I find? It’s not like the drawing I made with the ball and “U” shaped groove but something even simpler. And of course, the first thought I had was “Why didn’t I think of that”? You can see in the pictures exactly how it works much easier than I can explain it in writing. It locks the plunger and release button together longitudinally while still allowing them to rotate with respect to each other. The plunger still has a “ramp”, but it has a “U” shaped cross section unlike the flat “ramp” of the QR1-L yet still functions the same way.
BTW. On the QR2, the recess at the end of the release button extension is not “a two-sided cutout like a screwdriver blade” but is indeed a 360-degree machined “groove”. I think the third picture below shows this better. My drawing should have indicated that clearer also. I can only do so much with a stubby pencil.
I still owe you a new thread on the two extension adapters I own, and how they relate or don’t relate to the Sardo patent. I think a new thread is required to keep your study on track. (We’ve already gone off on a few wild tangents).
At least we all know for certain now what’s inside the Quick Release of the RHFT ratchet.
Todd F.
Thank you for all this information! I regret the destruction of your core, but sometimes sacrifices are made for the advancement of human knowledge! Your efforts are very much appreciated.
I hope everyone understands that my main focus through all this has been the Type Study and how any of this new information might disrupt it. I mentioned in another forum about being given math problems in grammar school where the teacher would instruct the students to be prepared to show how you arrived at your answer, or to 'prove' your work. So, in a sense, all this new information serves as a challenge to the work I did., which requires me to 'prove' my work. Even if the additional data was not presented as a challenge, it still represents such. If I'm going to boldly present a Type Study to a community of collectors when I myself am not a collector of these ratchets, I better be able to back it up!
The framework of the RHFT Study is based almost entirely on the patent info--that is what constitutes the 'forest' here. It's all 'pencil-pusher' work, having no physical collection myself to which to refer, just photos and descriptions found online. Fundamental to its framework are the patents that furnished critical information not available from just an examination of the artifacts (the trees) alone. The Roberts vs Sears lawsuit is intrinsic to the entire RHFT series. Perhaps no other tool patent had been analyzed in such depth over 20 years of litigation. That analysis not only tells us what the physical ratchet structures are, but also their interpretation. The discovery of the Sardo patent--a patent that as far as I know has never been previously referenced in any discussion of the Craftsman quick release ratchets--was a major breakthrough. Then I discovered the Roberts lawsuit info. As I mentioned in messages with Jim C., the resulting gestalt was like watching a video of an explosion played in reverse--all the disparate puzzle pieces sucked in together to create a single, clear image. It was almost eerie to me. I had found the key.
Sardo is essential to this forest-image. So your discovery of the dual-ball device in the QR2 threatened to disrupt that image, since the device is not shown in Sardo. I went back to the in-depth arguments of the Roberts suit. The arguments as to the relevance of Carpenter and Gonzales were crucial. The court decided in Roberts favor--that the object of the patent was NOT about how the detent ball was locked into place, but the means by which the quick release was effected (Carpenter used a combination groove and spring for the locking device, Gonzales used an orbital collar, neither which was ever actually manufactured). Then it became clear--the dual-ball was only a means to lock the detent ball into place and had nothing directly to do with the quick-release means. Whether the detent locking was accomplished with an extension to the plunger or a second ball (or whatever other possible device) was inconsequential--it was how the detent ball retreated back into the stud to effect the quick release that was the only vital consideration. This knowledge allowed me to actually understand the true meaning of what I was seeing in your disassembly photo. The ball still retreated into a groove, even though that groove was open-ended. And the groove was not the one in Roberts, but the one in Sardo. Sardo had been vindicated, and the forest-image of the RHFT Type Study preserved. That I devoted some length to argue the point seemed little when compared to the 20-year argument of the lawsuit.
Based on your initial photos and drawing, it appeared that the orbital groove of Sardo was not employed, but something more resembling the groove depicted it Sardo Fig.3 that when the detent-locking end was removed, resembled a screwdriver tip. I did not anticipate this, and so I was once again challenged. THANK YOU for now providing a more detailed close up. There it is! Just as Sardo described--a new one-piece assembly of plunger and button (it is the "plunger") with an orbital groove to effect the quick release so that the entire assembly could now be rotated with the selector switch. This embodies the Sardo QR improvement. If you cut off the end of the plunger past the orbital groove (which is the inconsequential detent lock according to the court's findings) and replace it with a ball and spring, the remaining quick-release one-piece mechanisim of button/plunger/orbital groove is pure Sardo Fig.2. THANK YOU! Not just for me, but for the RHFT historical record, as well as the collector community. Everything falls together, everything is consistent, everything is just as it appears to be. Sardo is the PATENT PENDING on the RHFT Type 7.
Your disassembly of the QR1-S is also quite valuable. Here we have the two-piece assembly of Haznar where the button rotates but the plunger does not, along with the Roberts singly located quick-release groove. This proves the change in plunger diameter had nothing to do with a defense against Roberts.
Which leaves us with the question as to why the change was even made to a smaller diameter plunger? There has to be a reason--companies don't make such changes just on a whim. You mention having examples of the quick-release 'adapter' extension bar depicted in Sardo, the one with the mechanism traveling through the interior length of the bar and actuated by the protruding plunger in the ratchet. If this is the case, I suspect that the change to the smaller diameter plunger might have been made so that it was narrow enough to fit into the bar's interior channel. Boy....wouldn't that sew up things nicely! You might be the only one who can test this theory. When you dig out those extensions, please try them on both a QR1-L and a QR1-S ratchets--if the L can't activate the bar's quick release but the S can, we have our answer. It might also help us to ultimately date both the extensions and the QR1-S.
-
Looks like after the -VH- forge mark is when the deletion of the phrase "FORGED IN" took place on the type 9.
Thanks! Very helpful. It's looking like the removal of the FORGED IN also corresponds to the removal of the double lines in the logo side of the handle.
-
Like you said, "just because you've never seen one, doesn't mean it doesn't exist".
I was beginning to think that the flex head did not exist in 1/2-inch drive but one popped up this morning in perfect condition. My collection just increased by one.
BTW. It has the "double-line" logo and a small plunger.
Todd
Nice find on the flex ratchet!
I found the attached documents as part of the Roberts vs Sears trial appellate summary. The court summary is dated Nov. 2, 1977. One of the appendices contains these kinds of documents that were apparently part of a Sears stores internal catalog from which stores could order replacement inventory for their stock. Most involve the TD ratchets that were at the heart of the suit. These pages refer to the RHFT. The internal Sears dating for these is 1974-76. So we would imagine they were originally created in 1974 and intended to have a two-year life span. "Apparently" as I'm not 100% certain, but they were probably the latest available prior to the trial. Perhaps they were included in the case to prove Sears was still selling these QR ratchets based on the Roberts design. The quality is not good, but they were mid-70s technology of type-written pages probably xeroxed over and over again.
In any event, they show that at the time of their printing, the 1/2" flex head RHFT Type 6 did not yet exist. This might help explain why yours was so hard to find, since they were made for a short number of years. I seem to recall someone mentioning on one of the many forum posts I read that they were introduced in 1977. Hope you find it useful.
-
OK Folks.....looks like I may have all the amendments we need for what should be the final update on the RHFT Type Study. The added information has come from various sources including Jim C.'s TD study and additional research. I want to especially thank Todd F. for the great photos, the discovery of the small-diameter plunger variation in the Type 6 ratchets, and for actually disassembling three cores in his collection so we can see what's inside!!!! Amazing, Todd--thank you for your contribution to the RHFT knowledge base! The changes are as follows:
--A new Type 10 in the Study List to differentiate the later examples where the "FORGED IN" marks and the double-line logo were removed.
--Change the List entry description for the Type 9 to accommodate the above T10 addition. Also corresponding edits to the footnotes.
--Additions and changes to the T9 and T10 SUMMARY entries to reflect the above.
--Additional notes in the SUMMARY and APPROACH sections for the double-line vs no-line variations in the T3 through T5.
--Additional notes in the SUMMARY section for the T6 regarding the small plunger and double-line logo variations.
--Additional notes in the SUMMARY section for the 'two-ball' mechanism discovered by Todd F. inside the T7 blind stud.
--Add the 1978-81 Craftsman RHFT torque wrenches to the model list in the APPROACH section along with corresponding notes.
No changes were necessary in the Type List for T1 through T8, the T9 description changing only to differentiate it from the additional T10. That's quite a relief! It means we got the job done pretty much right the first time around.
All these amendments will take a little time so not everything will be changed at once. I wanted to cover all these in the above list so at least you know what to expect. Please be patient over the next day or so while I complete the work.
Thank you all again!!!
-
Type List is amended! The APPROACH and SUMMARY sections will soon follow. Thanks!
-
Catalogs confirm the introduction date of the RHFT Flex-Head. First mention of the RHFT Flex-Head is in the 78-79 catalog. Without much fanfare, the part numbers are just listed Flex-Head ratchets and a note in parentheses says “(Wrenches 9-42792 and 9-44973 have fine-tooth, double-pawl design)”. No picture. First time the RHFT Flex-Head has its picture in print is the 82-83 catalog. Check out the price jump from 78 to 82. That’s a 40 percent increase on the 1/2 inch.
Notice the picture of the RHFT in the 78 catalog has the no-line logo and the 82 picture has the double-line logo.
Todd F.
-
Catalogs confirm the introduction date of the RHFT Flex-Head. First mention of the RHFT Flex-Head is in the 78-79 catalog. Without much fanfare, the part numbers are just listed Flex-Head ratchets and a note in parentheses says “(Wrenches 9-42792 and 9-44973 have fine-tooth, double-pawl design)”. No picture. First time the RHFT Flex-Head has its picture in print is the 82-83 catalog. Check out the price jump from 78 to 82. That’s a 40 percent increase on the 1/2 inch.
Notice the picture of the RHFT in the 78 catalog has the no-line logo and the 82 picture has the double-line logo.
Todd F.
Thanks, Todd. This is useful information as it helps us try to tighten up some of the dating. I find it interesting that the flex head RHFT is introduced in the 78 catalog almost like a footnote.
As I've mentioned before, Todd, I'm not a collector of Craftsman ratchets myself, and so I think when I look at these catalogs I fail to notice things that collectors do, but at the same time I might catch something about the overall presentation that the collector isn't looking at. This 78 'minimalist' listing makes me wonder if this was done for the sake of available space? When I worked for a magazine publisher in their ad department, we would sometimes have to make such decisions, reducing the size of certain articles or even cutting them altogether.
Take for example the intro of the RHFT in the 1970 catalog. Now we already know it had been selling in the stores for a couple of years prior. We also know that many have assumed that the 1/4 drive was introduced only later in 1971 because that's the first catalog in which it appears. But if you take a look at the 70 RHFT page, it gets you to thinking that because of the layout, they may have chosen not to include a description of the 1/4" just because they didn't want to allocate the space for it! After all, it was already selling like hotcakes in the stores. So we know it existed and was being sold at the time. It could very well be that they left it out simply for the sake of allocating the available space to what they deemed more important. It might also explain the omission of certain drive sizes in other catalogs. I feel this is a viable explanation--I know from experience that such publishing decisions are made all the time. It might just be the reason why they introduced the RHFT flex head in such a tiny way.
Yes.....the no-line logo versus the double-line logo. We know it's a for-real variation, but it's a tricky thing to tie down. We know the double line came back to the RHFT sometime in the latter part of the Type 6. The TD, however, seems to have a somewhat random mix of either leading up to that same time period. I have a theory about it based on scrutinizing the marketing approach and art as well as the tools themselves. I'm still working at confirming this. But as a result I suspect that the seeming connection between the QR1-S and the double-line is coincidental, or in other words, two distinct design change features--one mechanical, one artistic--that happen to have been made around the same time. Which is why we find a few exceptions.
-
I just posted a new topic in this forum about the two ratchet extensions I own.
Here's the link:
http://www.papawswrench.com/vboard/index.php?topic=25691.0 (http://www.papawswrench.com/vboard/index.php?topic=25691.0)
Todd F.
-
DOUBLE-LINE & NO-LINE LOGO VARIATIONS ON THE RHFT RATCHET TYPES and RELATED TOPICS
The CRAFTSMAN RHFT TYPE STUDY chart footnotes Types 3 through 6 can be found in both "double-line" and "no-line" CRAFTSMAN logo variations. Although it's enough to identify a logo variation for these Types, it says little about the reasons for these marks. Because of its breadth, it seemed best to cover the subject under its own essay separate from the APPROACH and SUMMARY sections.
Any discussion about the Craftsman logo as it appears on the tools should probably begin with a historical overview. The earliest logo applied to the tools back in 1927 was the name stamped or forged into the tool in plain block letters. The logo was enhanced in the early 1930s with geometric letters and the C extended to form an underline under the name (this is often called the “long-C” or “underline-C” logo by collectors). The upper sides of the “A” were sharply angled inward to create what we call today the “pointed-A” that persisted on the tools until the late 1960s when it was changed to a “flat-A” version (it’s interesting to note that from the early 1930s the main ‘print’ logo for advertising and catalogs always had a flat-A).
Around 1945 we see a divergence of the way the logo is rendered. In the catalog print version, the underline-C is still the official logo with its “REG. U.S. PAT. OFF.” in the underline. But a new style is introduced on the hand tools with no underline and a C of the same height as the other letters. One can imagine this version was easier to apply on a lot of different kinds of tools and gave a cleaner, more modern look. It wouldn’t be until 1954-55 that Sears adopted it as its official company print logo.
A feature of the new logo as used on the tools was the adding of double parallel lines that were not part of the official print version logo. Sometimes the lines are merely artistic enhancements with very short lengths bracketing the name like on the “Heritage” logo name plates and tools such as pliers. However, when the logo appears on long enclosed areas like the recesses in an adjustable wrench handle or on the raised panels of wrenches, the lines are extended as long as possible. In such applications, the double lines are used as artistic space fillers (apparently, the Sears art dept. abhorred a vacuum). The lines are also applied to the ‘descriptive’ side of the wrench handles, so they are not exclusively used just with the logo. The lines are even seen as space fillers on some Dunlap branded tools. These double lines became a trademark ‘signature’ marking for the post-war Craftsman era.
When interpreting the various markings on raised panel wrenches like the RHFT and teardrop ratchets, it’s helpful to keep in mind this idea of the lines being more space fillers than an intrinsic part of the logo. An example illustrating this perspective are the smallest 1/4” and 5/16” sizes in the vintage raised panel end wrench sets during the “=V=” era (more on the V in a moment). Because the stampings are not always perfectly centered, a vertical misalignment of double lines on such a skinny panel might cause a portion to travel off the panel or make any crookedness much more noticeable to the eye. Sears solved this by employing only a single line on both the logo and descriptive sides of these small wrenches, which are clearly used as space fillers like the double lines on their larger siblings. We also see this same single-line usage on the Type 3 RHFT panels where the descriptive side contains two lines of textual content where there’s no room for the usual symmetrical double lines, and so a single line is used on either side of the top text line merely as an artistic space filler. These single lines would be highly inappropriate if a double-line was actually an integral part of the company logo.
This leads us to briefly mention the mfr code “V” for Moore Drop Forging, maker of most post-war end wrenches and ratchets. At the beginning of this modern period, the panel wrenches had CRAFTSMAN on one side and FORGED IN U.S.A. on the other, each flanked on both ends by long double filler lines extending to the side edges of the panel, interrupted at their far ends only by size markings where needed. When Sears decided to stamp Moore’s V code on the panels, it made a small opening in the double lines to the right of the FORGED IN U.S.A. and stamped the V in it. For the small panel wrenches mentioned before, the same kind of opening was made in the single line to receive the code letter. What this means is that the double or single lines were never an intrinsic part of the V code, no more than they were part of the Craftsman name or the “Forged in USA” text. They are artistic filler lines in which these figures were embedded.
Since the lines are not a part of the code, there really is no such thing as a double-line “=V=” mfr code. In most cases, the V is not even centered in these lines, looking more like ====V===. We find the same thing in the small-sized wrench examples previously noted where the V is embedded off-center in a single spacer line like ------V----. We use the terms “=V= “and “–V–“ as a convenient device for dating even though it’s somewhat of a misnomer, and cannot be accurately applied to single-line Vs found during the “=V=” era.
A change in design took place with the introduction of model numbers on the panel wrenches around 1970. Because of the extra space required by the number, the filler lines could no longer be relied on to provide enough space inside them to accommodate a code letter. So the code was moved from the filler lines and repositioned between FORGED IN USA and the newly applied model number. Small lines were added at each side of the code letter as a kind of separator to keep it visually distinct from adjacent content. This is what we normally call a “–V–“code. But the lines are used like a pair of brackets or quotation marks to isolate the letter—they are still not actually part of the mfr code.
A misconception brought about by our common usage of these terms is the belief that “=V=” signifies Moore Drop Forging while “–V–“ was a new code made for Easco when it bought the company. It’s well known that Easco acquired Moore in 1967, whereas “–V–“ didn’t come online until about 1970 with the addition of model numbers. That’s about a 3- to 4-year discrepancy. The real distinction was not between Moore and Easco, but the decision by Sears to add the model numbers.
And so there really isn’t a “=V=” or a “–V–“ mfr code. There is only V, from about 1946 to 1986, while the lines are merely design elements. We still use these terms for convenience sake (as we do in the RHFT Study), but we shouldn’t lose sight of what they actually represent.
A note before beginning the double-line vs. no-line variation discussion. During the period covered by Types 3 to 6, Moore/Easco was making both the RHFT and teardrop ratchets with virtually identical raised panels on the handles. The stamps for these were two separate pieces of tooling, one for the ‘obverse’ logo side and a ‘reverse’ stamp for the descriptive side. This means that an obverse stamp for the teardrop could feasibly be struck on the RHFT obverse and vise versa. For many years, the workers needed only one obverse logo stamp for all handle panels of the same size, so that both the RHFT and teardrop ratchets could be struck with the exact same double-line logo stamp. Suddenly in 1970, there was now for the first time a single no-line logo stamp dedicated to only one particular tool in the entire wrench line—the RHFT ratchet. You can imagine the confusion this caused among different shifts of workers in up to four plants robotically accustomed to using the same double-line stamp on all the handles for many years. Mistakes were surely made, as the artifacts tell. This kind of error would have probably been allowed to pass by quality control since the wrenches did have the correct size logo, lines or not. A double-line logo occasionally appearing on the no-line Types 4 and 5 RHFT is no doubt from having been struck with the obverse stamp still in use on all the teardrop ratchets and other drive tools.
Now on to the RHFT logo variations……
Type 3 [1969-70]: The primary or “majority” logo format for this type is the traditional double-line. A few rare examples are found with a no-line logo. The probable reason for this will become more apparent in the Type 4.
Type 4 [1970-71]: This is the very first raised panel wrench issued with a no-line logo during the double-line era. Sears must have had a very specific purpose in mind for the removal of what had been an essential part of its signature panel wrench design for decades. The artifacts themselves provide no clue as to why this change was made.
I believe the answer lies in two related catalog events that took place during the same year. Although the RHFT had been selling in the stores since 1968, its first Craftsman tool catalog appearance was in 1970. The second event was in its presentation. During the late 1960s, Sears designed a CRAFTSMAN COMMERCIAL logo to label those power and hand tools it was promoting as heavy duty. In its large consumer catalog, Sears was also using a white oval with the words Sears Best in script to indicate its premium products in various categories like clothing, electronics and appliances. In 1970, Sears applied this Sears Best oval for the first time in the Craftsman tool catalog in addition to its existing commercial labeling, but assigned it exclusively to only one item in the whole book—the RHFT ratchet.
Sears had been selling the quick release ratchets like hotcakes in its stores. The RHFT was the premium flagship of its drive tool fleet, and Sears would want to make a big splash for its catalog debut. How could Sears visually distinguish this Sears Best tool from all the other wrenches, ratchets and breaker bars? By removing the old traditional double lines, which gave the RHFT handle a modern, more polished and sophisticated appearance than its counterparts. It was the only raised panel tool at the time to lose its double lines, and the only tool in the 1970 catalog to receive this special designation. And the only explanation that appears to makes any sense—the connection here is too compelling.
Customer orders from the 1970 catalog for the RHFT would have been filled with those ratchets in production at the time: the later Type 3 and the Type 4. This could explain why a few Type 3s can be found struck with the new no-line logo stamp. The Type 4 was intended to be struck entirely with no-line logos, so the occasional examples of a double-line logo in these were probably struck inadvertently with the stamps still in use for the teardrop ratchet handles.
Type 5 [1971]: The Type 5 is essentially a continuation of the Type 4 story line. For the 1971 Craftsman tool catalog, the RHFT is once again the only product in the entire book to be distinguished with the oval Sears Best label. It is still the only Craftsman drive tool to have a no-line logo. Here too, examples with a double-line logo would have been struck with in-house teardrop ratchet stamps.
Type 6 [1972-81]: The Type 6 begins its reign with the same no-line logo as Types 4 and 5. However, it was soon joined by teardrop ratchets and breaker bars also having no-line logos for no apparent reason.
Once again, the catalogs offer valuable insights. Starting with the 1972 Craftsman tool catalog, the RHFT no longer has an exclusive to the Sears Best oval. In an apparent move to begin eliminating the Craftsman Commercial label, Sears was now applying the Sears Best oval to a small number of other power and hand tools. Here we find the very kind of one-to-one correlation we’re looking for—Sears takes away the RHFT’s exclusive to the Sears Best label in the catalog by spreading it to other items, while at the same time it takes away the RHFT’s exclusive to the premium no-line logo on the tools by spreading it to breaker bars and the teardrop ratchets. When you have two different witnesses telling the very same story, you tend to believe them. It’s the best explanation we have for no-line logos appearing on other tools around this time. Over the next several years, Sears replaced more and more of the Craftsman Commercial crowns in the catalog with the Sears Best oval until it finally discontinued the commercial label in 1976.
Then suddenly, for some inexplicable reason, the premium no-line logo simply vanishes! The teardrop ratchets, the RHFT and the breaker bars all magically appear with the old double lines again sometime in the latter half of the 1970s. There had to be a very good reason for this.
Can the catalogs give us a clue this time too? They do. It can be found at the very top of the first inside page of the 1976-77 50th Anniversary catalog. It announces: “1976-77 marks the 50TH ANNIVERSARY of our famous CRAFTSMAN Trademark!” This is a bit odd since it doesn’t celebrate 50 years of the brand as you would normally expect from a company, but celebrates the trademark itself. Displayed throughout the catalog is a celebratory logo of the Craftsman name in 3-dimensional letters ascending on an incline. But it’s not the original block-letter logo from 1927, nor is it the underline logo from the 1930s through the wartime—it’s the modern lettering style introduced in 1945. And what was the design element seen on all the tools with the newly minted 1945 logo? The double lines. If you’re going to celebrate the trademark anniversary with the 1945 rendition, then it’s only natural to bring back the double lines that went with it. And so in this instance also, we have two different witnesses—the catalog and the tools—that seem to be telling us the same story. There’s no question that Sears returned the lines to the tools at some point around this time, and so the trademark-celebration explanation makes perfect sense. We see a good quantity of Type 6 RHFT in both no-line and double-line logos, and so it’s not surprising to find a date somewhere near the middle of its lifespan. Jim C.’s extensive Teardrop Type Study photos also indicate a return of the double lines about 1976. There are a couple of other supporting factors. When the no-line logo was first introduced on the RHFT, it was an exclusive premium marking that went along with the Sears Best labeling. It was less a distinction once the label began spreading to other catalog items along with the no-line logo to other drive tools. When Sears did away with its “commercial” labeling in 1976 and instead applied Sears Best to all its top-end catalog items, any remnant of the RHFT’s unique status among the entire Craftsman product line was gone, and with it the original purpose of the no-line logo. One can also imagine that Easco benefited by a return to the days when only a single logo stamp was needed to strike all similar-sized handle panels. It’s a perfect storm. So I think we can finally assign dates to the no-line (1972-76) and the historical double-line (1976-81) Type 6 logo variations.
It has been suggested that the return of double lines on the Type 6 and teardrop ratchets were to indicate the change from the large to small diameter QR plungers. But there’s no good reason why the entire drive tool line was changed back to a double-line logo for a detail so small that hardly anyone would even notice. We also find enough minority examples of a double-line handle with a large plunger (both parts appearing to have uniform wear) to show the plunger change occurred after the return of the double lines, around 1977-78.
_________
Some final thoughts about the catalogs. Our use of them primarily to associate artifacts with the ad campaigns provides an opportunity to discuss the limitations of trying to identify variations just from their photos. There was no Photoshop back in the day. Typeset strips of paper containing text were pasted (where the term “cut and paste” originates!) onto a master sheet alongside photos that were also pasted. Then the paste-up layout was photographed as a whole (remember camera-ready art?), and the final image ‘burned’ to a plate. It was very costly and time-consuming. Because of catalog size and cost restraints, large catalogs were printed on thin porous paper that made poor surfaces for photo rendition. Looking at any older catalogs from the era we’re studying and before, it’s easy to see that every single b&w shot is artist enhanced or even skillfully drawn from scratch, all by hand, so that the lettering and edges of the hand tools would be crisp and black in the finished book. The point is that the image you’re seeing is not the native image of the tool itself. Moreover, the art was drawn according to an individual artist’s conception of the item. In a recent mid-1960s catalog search for possible flat-As, we not only found both pointed and flat As, but also square, conventional, block and even arched As, none of which appeared on any Craftsman tool of the day. Or the three different hand drills side by side having the EXACT SAME cord, just like the four soldering pencils on 1970 Pg. 73 (some of the fanciful renditions are rather amusing). There are many hundreds of examples, all hand-drawn according to that artist’s interpretation. So we can’t fully trust the tool markings seen in these catalogs.
Then there are the photos themselves. Photo shoots were also costly and time-consuming. Companies re-used as many photos as possible from previous shoots. A photo in a 1965 catalog might have been shot back in the 1950s. For example, two pointed-A sockets pictured at the upper right on Pg. 8 of the 1964 catalog are the very same images on Pg. 106 in the 1971 book. Again, there are many, many examples.
Take the RHFT. The b&w photo on Pg 107 in the 1971 catalog (reused from 1970) and the color photo from the back cover both show double-line logos. Yet we know for an absolute fact from the artifacts and the patent dating that from at least October 1970 until well past 1971, all RHFT had a no-line logo. The variation shown in the catalog simply didn’t exist anymore.
The 1976 Pg. 50 b&w ratchet photo shows a large RHFT in the foreground with separate photos of both a standard and flex-head teardrops arranged in the background. The same three images are shown in both the 1977 and 1978 catalogs at differing pose angles and scale. However, the 1978 RHFT is also flipped vertically. Why can you still read the Craftsman name without needing a mirror? Because the logo was hand-drawn by an artist. Just like it was for the 1976 and 1977 catalogs. Nobody can tell for sure from these photos which handle logo was actually shipping. When you look at the background ratchet images, you see the standard teardrop was inked with a double-line while the flex-head has a no-line logo. Well....which is it? And finally, the reused image in the 1978 catalog shows oil ports on the teardrops. Weren’t those discontinued by this time? They’re missing on at least three of the six TD ratchets pictured on Pg. 123—which three are correct? Or did the artist simply forget to draw the others in?
Catalogs were created to sell products, just like any sales literature. They were not designed as historical or archival records. What is depicted in them can be trusted only so far. We must seek corroboration wherever possible from alternative authoritative references as well as the artifacts themselves.
-
I have completed all the updates to the essays. Some interesting content has been added to the APPROACH section (including some interesting facts exposed in the Roberts/Sears trial), so you might want to take another look at that.
Thanks!