Craftsman Teardrop Ratchet (1956-1993) Type Study ©

[Northwoods]

Wow!  I hope Mrs. Jim C. didn't decide it was time to do the laundry while all those rats were disassembled.
Oh, the humanity!

Nothing to worry about.  She knows where the measuring tape, pliers, screwdrivers and hammer are located out in my shop.  After that, she pretty much leaves everything else alone.  Now, she would probably notice six disassembled ratchets on my bench and might ask, “How many of those do you have/need?”  My response is usually something like, “How many pairs of shoes do you have/need?”  That typically ends the discussion and she goes back in the house.


Kinda like Mrs. Northwoods.  She says she is just glad I'm not out drinking and chasing wild women.  And it gives her a guilt-free excuse to haunt the mall.  But she does object that my tools are beginning to take over too much of the house.
Jim C.

[Chillylulu]

Jim,

My first guess about the stamped pawls was that they were to differentiate the 32 vs 40 teeth when first made. After they went to a single tooth count they would stop needing the stamp.

But I changed my opinion as I read down. Why only 1 in 5 for 1/2" ratchets?  It makes sense if you consider how many Craftsman ratcgets needed rebuilding.  I wiukd guess that  most of those found were not used by pro mechanics.

Your guess seems the best explanation so far, IMHO.

Chilly

[Jim C.]

Hey Chilly,

Sorry I missed this post from a month ago!  I promise I wasn’t blowing you off.  I just missed it..... Anyway, I really tried to come up with theories as to why some gears and pawls are stamped with tooth counts and others are not.  I considered a few but kept coming back to “repair kits.”  The trouble with being the sole evaluator is that there’s no “devil’s advocate.”  The repair kit theory seems like the best one to ME.  I could be right or I could be wrong.  It’s never bad to have another idea or theory come from an outside observer or two.  You could be right as well.  Unless we find a known repair kit from that time period, the real answer may always be just speculation.  Thanks for weighing in!

Jim C.

[Downwindtracker2]

Great study, finding the differences is always interesting. Of course, I didn't find mine. I think it's a type 8. I would have bought it around that time frame. Here is the kicker, it doesn't have any patient dates, or even patient pending. I bought it at Simpson-Sears in Richmond,  B.C. Canada. It has just FORGED IN USA -V- 43785. rather lightly stamped I might add.

[Jim C.]

Great study, finding the differences is always interesting. Of course, I didn't find mine. I think it's a type 8. I would have bought it around that time frame. Here is the kicker, it doesn't have any patient dates, or even patient pending. I bought it at Simpson-Sears in Richmond,  B.C. Canada. It has just FORGED IN USA -V- 43785. rather lightly stamped I might add.

Sounds like it could be a Type 9A or Type 10A depending on whether or not your ratchet has an oil port/hole or not.  Type 9A has the oil hole.  The Type 10A does not.

Jim C.

[Downwindtracker2]

Thanks Jim. The stamp is what is what I found so odd, very light, the Craftsman face side has no lines , like your #8. It could be a Canadian export model ? I do have a fleamarket find #9A, it has lines and the shorter Craftsman. I also have another fleamarket find, a #12.

 I once had fun trying to date a American Stanley #4 hand plane, a 1949 . Because it was a transitional type, some of one, some of another, I was able to get a year fix. Canadian pre-war were much easier, they had the month and year stamped on them.

[Jim C.]

Can you post a few pictures of the ratchet?  Let’s see what you’re talking about.

Jim C.

[Downwindtracker2]

These is doubly embarrassing, one, while I have good skill set, computers aren't in it. Second, looking closely at #8 , I don't think it's #8, certainly not #9.  Your photo of the 3/8 #8 without the lines threw me. However,the Craftsman is 2.16" long compared to the 1.73" of what I think is a #9A. Which makes me think, they never intended to stamp the lines.  Both have oil holes and model #s . Trying to think back which car I worked on with it. In 1971 I bought a new SIMCA 1204, I'm pretty sure I worked on the preceding SIMCA 1000 with it, that car was a bit tool prone. My lack of driving skills didn't help. 

[Jim C.]

While there’s not always a lot more to post in this thread, when I find something new, I’ll be sure to keep the information up to date.  Anyway, I recently picked up a set (1/2”, 3/8” and 1/4”) of Type 1 ratchets.  These ratchets aren’t overly common, but every once in a while I come across one for the right price.  Because the Type 1 had a few variations that were discussed earlier in the thread, I seem to gravitate to them and try to acquire them when possible.  After a few years, I now have several examples in all three sizes.  So, every time I get a ratchet, I take it apart, clean it, lubricate it and then reassemble it.  As for the three Type 1 ratchets I just got, the routine was the same.  I started with the 1/2”, then the 3/8” and last but not least, the 1/4”.  When I disassembled the 1/2” and 3/8” ratchets, I didn’t note anything unusual.  When I got to the 1/4” model I didn’t initially notice that its pawl was “bat wing” shaped.  It wasn’t until I started to reassemble it that I noticed that the pawl was not rounded on the bottom.  If you’ve ever taken apart a Type 1, then you know that those rounded bottom pawls are tricky in terms of getting them back into the head of the ratchet.  So as I was putting the bat wing pawl back into ratchet, it dawned on me that it went in without any trouble.  It was then that I noticed its shape was different.  It was a bat wing, which by its design is easier to re-install.

The bat wing pawl was used in Type 2 and later Craftsman teardrop ratchets.  To the best of my knowledge, the rounded pawls were only characteristic to the Type 1 ratchets.  Well, that’s not entirely true.  It appears that user friendly design changes were being made as early as the Type 1 ratchets.  After finding the bat wing pawl, I took a look at a few of my other Type 1, 1/4” drive ratchets.  To my surprise, I already had another one with the bat wing pawl that I hadn’t noticed when I previously took it apart.  If you look at the photo below, the ratchets on the ends have the bat wing pawls, while the two in the middle have the rounded pawls.  I think it’s safe to say that examples with the rounded pawls came earlier in the Type 1 production.  The other thing I noticed was that the tabs on the ends of the directional lever retention springs were significantly longer on the ratchets with the rounded pawls. (See the second photo.)  Those ratchets fitted with the bat wing pawls were much shorter.  I’d have to look at more examples, but that might be an external telltale in determining if the ratchet has the rounded or bat wing pawl prior to disassembling it.

Now you’re probably wondering if the same can be said of the 1/2” and 3/8” Type 1 ratchets.  Well, after checking more than a dozen 1/2” and 3/8” versions in total, I didn’t find a single bat wing pawl.  Maybe I need to look at more examples, or the bat wing pawl was only fitted to the 1/4” version.  For now, I don’t really know.

Jim C.

[Jim C.]

Following up on my last post regarding Type 1 tooth counts, pawls and retention ring spring tabs, I decided to take a look at the Type 1, 1/2” and 3/8” drive ratchets.  Recall from the last post that when the early rounded pawl was dropped in favor of the bat wing pawl, it seemed that the tabs on the directional lever retention spring got shorter. Not a big deal, but a possible telltale in determining if the ratchet is an early production (rounded pawl) or later production (bat wing pawl) version of the Type 1, 1/4” drive.  Also recall that none of the 1/2” drive or 3/8” drive Type 1 ratchets in my collection had the bat wing pawl.  That doesn’t mean they don’t exist, I just haven’t seen one.

Early production 1/2” drive ratchets had 40 teeth and what I noticed were extremely long socket post retention ring spring tabs.  If you take a look at the first photo below, notice the Type 1 early production 40 tooth ratchets are highlighted with blue and the later production 1/2” drive 32 tooth examples are highlighted with red.  Take a close look at the second and third photos. If you compare them, see how much longer the tabs are on the 40 tooth ratchets as compared to those on the 32 tooth versions?  The fourth photo compares the two side by side. See the difference? 

The fifth and sixth photos compare the 3/8” drive Type 1 ratchets.  The early production Type 1, 32 tooth ratchets are highlighted with green and the later production Type 1, 24 tooth ratchets are highlighted with yellow.  Once again, there’s a clear difference between the length of the tabs on the retention springs when comparing the early and later production examples.  It appears that once the Type 1, 1/2” and 3/8” tooth counts were reduced, the tabs on the retention springs were shortened.  I know, I’m picking fly sh*t out of pepper.  I guess I like the details.  For easy identification purposes however, I’d say that unaltered factory original Type 1 ratchets can be determined to be early production or later production based on the length of the retention ring spring tabs.  Having looked at nearly twenty Type 1 examples between all three drive sizes, there appears to a consistent pattern.  On the 1/4” drive, long tabs equal early production with a rounded pawl while short tabs equal later production with a bat wing pawl.  On the 1/2” and 3/8” drive ratchets, long tabs equal an early production 40 tooth gear and a 32 tooth gear respectively, while shorter tabs equal a later production 32 tooth gear and a 24 tooth gear respectively.  You’re probably wondering how you got by all this time without that amazing information.   


Jim C.

[DadsTools]

Hi, Jim C. Over on the RHFT Type Study, you asked if there were any details that might be incorporated in your TD Type Study here. I wasn't sure at first, but Todd F. pointed out something I'd overlooked. Your Types 11 and 12 describe the appearance of a PATENT PENDING mark on the handles, accompanied by the introduction of what I call the "blind" stud without a protruding plunger (the term used in the RHFT patents for that extending pin). We now know these two changes are directly related to the lawsuit between Sears and Peter Roberts involving his patent for the quick release that was used on the TD and later "borrowed" for the RHFT. You talk about this in your Type 4 discussion, and Roberts patent 3208318 on your Type 5.  As explained in the RHFT Study, Sears was forced by court order to re-assign this patent back to Roberts, which it did on 2-17-81. Since Sears could no longer legally make the QR in the TD or the RHFT without infringing Roberts, it needed its own QR patent to allow it to continue making these QR ratchets. Within a couple of weeks, the new patent was filed with the USPTO by Vincent Sardo Jr (presumably an employee of Sears) on 3-6-81. This is the PATENT PENDING filing referred to on the TD Types 11 and 12, and the RHFT Type 7. The reason for the change in the stud from a protruding plunger to one having no plunger opening was also to protect itself from infringing Roberts. Sears announced that it would "introduce a quick-release wrench that, it said, differed significantly from his[Roberts].” hence the blind stud to visually show it obviously "differed significantly" from the Roberts QR.

The Sardo patent was filed 3-6-81 and issued as patent 4399722 on 8-23-83. This provides us with reliable, hard USPTO dates that the TD Types 11 and 12 as well as the RHFT Type 7 PATENT PENDING ratchets could have only been produced between these two dates.

The Roberts 3208318 QR patent finally expired on 9-28-82. It then passed into the public domain so anyone was free to make it. Since Sears no longer needed the Sardo patent after this date, it probably saw no need to mark the 4399722 patent number on the later ratchets. This is why all patent markings just disappear starting with the TD Type 13 and the RHFT Type 8.

All of this is discussed in greater detail in the RHFT Study. Hope this is helpful.   

[Jim C.]

Hi, Jim C. Over on the RHFT Type Study, you asked if there were any details that might be incorporated in your TD Type Study here. I wasn't sure at first, but Todd F. pointed out something I'd overlooked. Your Types 11 and 12 describe the appearance of a PATENT PENDING mark on the handles, accompanied by the introduction of what I call the "blind" stud without a protruding plunger (the term used in the RHFT patents for that extending pin). We now know these two changes are directly related to the lawsuit between Sears and Peter Roberts involving his patent for the quick release that was used on the TD and later "borrowed" for the RHFT. You talk about this in your Type 4 discussion, and Roberts patent 3208318 on your Type 5.  As explained in the RHFT Study, Sears was forced by court order to re-assign this patent back to Roberts, which it did on 2-17-81. Since Sears could no longer legally make the QR in the TD or the RHFT without infringing Roberts, it needed its own QR patent to allow it to continue making these QR ratchets. Within a couple of weeks, the new patent was filed with the USPTO by Vincent Sardo Jr (presumably an employee of Sears) on 3-6-81. This is the PATENT PENDING filing referred to on the TD Types 11 and 12, and the RHFT Type 7. The reason for the change in the stud from a protruding plunger to one having no plunger opening was also to protect itself from infringing Roberts. Sears announced that it would "introduce a quick-release wrench that, it said, differed significantly from his[Roberts].” hence the blind stud to visually show it obviously "differed significantly" from the Roberts QR.

The Sardo patent was filed 3-6-81 and issued as patent 4399722 on 8-23-83. This provides us with reliable, hard USPTO dates that the TD Types 11 and 12 as well as the RHFT Type 7 PATENT PENDING ratchets could have only been produced between these two dates.

The Roberts 3208318 QR patent finally expired on 9-28-82. It then passed into the public domain so anyone was free to make it. Since Sears no longer needed the Sardo patent after this date, it probably saw no need to mark the 4399722 patent number on the later ratchets. This is why all patent markings just disappear starting with the TD Type 13 and the RHFT Type 8.

All of this is discussed in greater detail in the RHFT Study. Hope this is helpful.   

There you go!!  That’s what I’m talking about!  Many thanks Dad!!  I’m always interested in making this thing better.  For what I’ve got into this in terms of time, effort, etc., I’d like to make it as good as can be.
I looked at my original dates and was glad to see that I was in the ballpark, but I’m always happy to tighten up the dates.  In determining the Type 11 dates, I actually recalled back to what I thought was about 1979/1980.  My friend’s older brother got a new set of Cman tools for Christmas and the ratchets in the set all had the Type 11 stamps. I must have been off by a year or so.  Hardly scientific, I know...... About a year or so later, my dad bought me a set of Cman tools and the ratchets were all Type 13 examples.  So, the Type 11 and Type 12 ratchets weren’t around for too long.  Anyway, that’s kind of how a lot of this whole thing went.  I relied on memory, using the ratchets, and Sears catalogs.  Like I said before, nailing down the dates of manufacture/availability was the hardest part of the project.  Any time I can fine tune the dates, I’m excited about that.  Again, many thanks!  I amended the Type Study to reflect the new dates for Type 11 and Type 12.

Jim C.

[DadsTools]

Hi, Jim C. Over on the RHFT Type Study, you asked if there were any details that might be incorporated in your TD Type Study here. I wasn't sure at first, but Todd F. pointed out something I'd overlooked. Your Types 11 and 12 describe the appearance of a PATENT PENDING mark on the handles, accompanied by the introduction of what I call the "blind" stud without a protruding plunger (the term used in the RHFT patents for that extending pin). We now know these two changes are directly related to the lawsuit between Sears and Peter Roberts involving his patent for the quick release that was used on the TD and later "borrowed" for the RHFT. You talk about this in your Type 4 discussion, and Roberts patent 3208318 on your Type 5.  As explained in the RHFT Study, Sears was forced by court order to re-assign this patent back to Roberts, which it did on 2-17-81. Since Sears could no longer legally make the QR in the TD or the RHFT without infringing Roberts, it needed its own QR patent to allow it to continue making these QR ratchets. Within a couple of weeks, the new patent was filed with the USPTO by Vincent Sardo Jr (presumably an employee of Sears) on 3-6-81. This is the PATENT PENDING filing referred to on the TD Types 11 and 12, and the RHFT Type 7. The reason for the change in the stud from a protruding plunger to one having no plunger opening was also to protect itself from infringing Roberts. Sears announced that it would "introduce a quick-release wrench that, it said, differed significantly from his[Roberts].” hence the blind stud to visually show it obviously "differed significantly" from the Roberts QR.

The Sardo patent was filed 3-6-81 and issued as patent 4399722 on 8-23-83. This provides us with reliable, hard USPTO dates that the TD Types 11 and 12 as well as the RHFT Type 7 PATENT PENDING ratchets could have only been produced between these two dates.

The Roberts 3208318 QR patent finally expired on 9-28-82. It then passed into the public domain so anyone was free to make it. Since Sears no longer needed the Sardo patent after this date, it probably saw no need to mark the 4399722 patent number on the later ratchets. This is why all patent markings just disappear starting with the TD Type 13 and the RHFT Type 8.

All of this is discussed in greater detail in the RHFT Study. Hope this is helpful.   

There you go!!  That’s what I’m talking about!  Many thanks Dad!!  I’m always interested in making this thing better.  For what I’ve got into this in terms of time, effort, etc., I’d like to make it as good as can be.
I looked at my original dates and was glad to see that I was in the ballpark, but I’m always happy to tighten up the dates.  In determining the Type 11 dates, I actually recalled back to what I thought was about 1979/1980.  My friend’s older brother got a new set of Cman tools for Christmas and the ratchets in the set all had the Type 11 stamps. I must have been off by a year or so.  Hardly scientific, I know...... About a year or so later, my dad bought me a set of Cman tools and the ratchets were all Type 13 examples.  So, the Type 11 and Type 12 ratchets weren’t around for too long.  Anyway, that’s kind of how a lot of this whole thing went.  I relied on memory, using the ratchets, and Sears catalogs.  Like I said before, nailing down the dates of manufacture/availability was the hardest part of the project.  Any time I can fine tune the dates, I’m excited about that.  Again, many thanks!  I amended the Type Study to reflect the new dates for Type 11 and Type 12.

Jim C.

You're quite welcome, Jim. And thank you very much for the credits you gave me in your post. Very kind. The patent-centric approach was unusual, and ultimately so much more accurate. I was lucky the RHFT fell together so well with that approach, though it did require some creative patent searching to come up with the ones where the numbers were never stamped on the tool, as well some deductive reasoning. But it was when I stumbled onto the Roberts lawsuit and a long in-depth article about it by the Washington Post that all the various elements sucked in together like a video of an explosion played in reverse. It was an almost eerie gestalt. I was grateful to be free from what I call the Sears Catalog Carnival and the thick forest undergrowth of the Craftsman Dating Lottery. I got lucky.

I wanted to mention an unexpected consequence of adjusting the dates on the Types 11 and 12. The Patent Pending mark tied to the Sardo pending patent (4399722) was absolutely essential to protect Sears against another Roberts lawsuit. Sears simply could not continue to make the RHFT QR without Sardo. The T11 and 12 have now been date-advanced to the the pending dates between 3-6-81 and 8-23-83. But the Type 13 without the pending mark is still dated 1982-85. Because of the lawsuit, both T12 and T13 could not have been being produced concurrently.

Is it possible that Sears dropped the patent pending mark immediately following Roberts patent expiration on 9-28-82? Yes, it's possible, but we have no evidence of that. All we can say with confidence is the Sardo pending date-range of 1981-83 is directly linked to the patent pending mark on the ratchets, and that patent-pending and 'patent-free' versions would not have been produced concurrently.

In any event, if one decides to go with the hard, known, non-speculative patent pending date range of 1981-83 for T11 & T12, one cannot have a starting date for T13 of 1982. It would need to be pushed ahead to the 1983 date. If one speculates that the patent pending mark was removed when Roberts expired in 1982, one would have to apply the same speculation to move the end date of T12 back to 1982 also. I don't see how overlapping dates can be maintained credibly in the same study--T12 has to give way to T13 either in 1982 or 1983. For me, lacking any hard evidence that the patent pending mark was dropped in 1982, I would tend to follow the hard date of Sardo's pending period ending in 1983. But that's one of those judgement calls I talk about.

I noticed you list the end of T13 and beginning of T14 at 1985. It's still unclear to me how that year was arrived at, though I might have simply missed it. I followed Lauver's end of the -V- mark (no other code letters) in 1986, and in forum comments he seems very confident of this date. Because of the quantity of T13s you've seen, leading you to conclude it was made for at least a few years, perhaps moving T13 from 82-85 to 83-86 would give you the same number of production years while reconciling the overlap now that the T12 end date has been adjusted based on the Sardo pending period. How does this seem to you?

[Jim C.]

Hey Dad,

I’m totally in agreement with your thinking.  The reason I didn’t change my Type 13 start date from 1982 to 1983 is actually sort of funny.....You see, I’m waiting for my parents (who are well into their eighties) to call me back.  My dad and mom are fanatics when it comes to keeping records on expenses, saving owner’s manuals, etc.  Their records go back decades.  If you recall, I mentioned that my dad bought me a set of Cman tools.  The set included the Type 13 ratchets I depicted in the teardrop study.  It was right around the time I bought my first old car, which was late Fall of 1982.  After I got the car (which needed some work), I was going back and forth to my uncle’s house to borrow tools.  My dad saw that I was serious about the car and as a result, he bought me my own basic set.  It wasn’t too long after I got the car.  Exactly when that was, well, somewhere during late 1982, or in 1983...... I think.  See?  I wasn’t kidding when I said I relied on memory.   So I’m waiting for an answer from my parents, hoping they still have a record of the tool set purchase.  My best guess was 1982!  Once again, I’m in the ballpark.   Stay tuned...

Jim C.

[DadsTools]

Hey Dad,

I’m totally in agreement with your thinking.  The reason I didn’t change my Type 13 start date from 1982 to 1983 is actually sort of funny.....You see, I’m waiting for my parents (who are well into their eighties) to call me back.  My dad and mom are fanatics when it comes to keeping records on expenses, saving owner’s manuals, etc.  Their records go back decades.  If you recall, I mentioned that my dad bought me a set of Cman tools.  The set included the Type 13 ratchets I depicted in the teardrop study.  It was right around the time I bought my first old car, which was late Fall of 1982.  After I got the car (which needed some work), I was going back and forth to my uncle’s house to borrow tools.  My dad saw that I was serious about the car and as a result, he bought me my own basic set.  It wasn’t too long after I got the car.  Exactly when that was, well, somewhere during late 1982, or in 1983...... I think.  See?  I wasn’t kidding when I said I relied on memory.   So I’m waiting for an answer from my parents, hoping they still have a record of the tool set purchase.  My best guess was 1982!  Once again, I’m in the ballpark.   Stay tuned...

Jim C.

I very much hope they still have that receipt! As I said, it's entirely possible that Sears did in fact remove the patent pending mark on the next production run following the Roberts patent expiration on 9-28-82 because it would have no longer been needed for infringement protection. But in the face of the hard pending dates for Sardo, we need more than just speculation IMO. It's also entirely possible that Sears removed the pending mark only after Sardo was issued, since there would have been no complication with maintaining that mark during the pending period. So I an indeed very interested in that documentation if you can get it.

What were your thoughts on the end of T13 / beginning of T14 happening in 1986 instead of 1985?