TYPE SUMMARYTYPE 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
