Nail puller patent

[Neals]

This Bridgeport sure-grip 56 puller has a patent #70884 on it. I can't find the patent. US patent lists it but I can't view the image. Google and datamp don't seem to have it. Can anyone help?

[Bus]

Try Patent No. 708,841


http://www.datamp.org/patents/displayPatent.php?number=708841&typeCode=0

http://www.google.com/patents?id=mStoAAAAEBAJ&pg=PA2&dq=nail+patent:708841&hl=en&sa=X&ei=IpLdT4vpEYb-9QTY4fy8Cg&ved=0CDcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=nail%20patent%3A708841&f=false

[Neals]

Thanks Bus! There is no 1 on the puller but it is identical except for a couple cosmetic differences.

[rusty]

And patent 70,884 is for a coat hook in any case :)

[scottg]

Still the best nail puller ever conceived. Fast and accurate and bites out less wood than anything else.
I used one for years. Still have one somewhere.
   
  Also the worlds champion blood blister raiser. 
  If you handle one very much, careful or not,
    one day it'll get ya.
      yours Scott 

[Neals]

Its a keeper/user. Looks better than the one I've had for a few years. Yes they do bite.

[Branson]

This Bridgeport sure-grip 56 puller has a patent #70884 on it. I can't find the patent.

Where did you find the patent number?  I have a #56 -- Suregrip (Crescent Bridgeport) and I can't find any patent markings anywhere.

As I read the patent info, patent No. 708,841 is about the construction of the movable jaw, allowing for the movable jaw to be fabricated from a sheet steel stamping (figure 4) instead of being drop forged.  The finished part, installed is shown in figure 5.  The manufacturer note says of this patent, "Not known to have been produced."

Seems like we still have a patent number mystery...

[Bus]

I'm sure that's the patent the manufacturer was referring to, often the final product differs from the marked patent date or number.

Other Bridgeport nail pullers can be found marked with the following patent dates:

Jan 9, 1906 (No. 809,803)
Dec. 2, 1913 (No. 1,080,210)
Also no patent date or number

[Neals]

I guess I should have read the patent closer. The movable part on mine is drop forged I think. You can see the ridge all the way around where it hasn't been milled. In the picture you can see the round medalion in the middle of the lower hand grip. On one side is forged pat no 70884. steel.
(Assuming the . is the bottom of the missing 1) On the other side is Made in USA THE BRIDGEPORT  HDW. MFG. Corp

[Branson]

I'm sure that's the patent the manufacturer was referring to, often the final product differs from the marked patent date or number.

The patent seems to cover the means of making the movable jaw only, and that patented jaw is not the one on Neals' puller.  The site says this patent was not produced. So why would the company refer to this patent?  The general shape of the jaw was used before and after -- it's not a matter of differing from the patent.  So far as can be told, that patent covers something that is not present, and was probably never manufactured. 

[Branson]

The movable part on mine is drop forged I think. You can see the ridge all the way around where it hasn't been milled. In the picture you can see the round medalion in the middle of the lower hand grip. On one side is forged pat no 70884. steel.
(Assuming the . is the bottom of the missing 1) On the other side is Made in USA THE BRIDGEPORT  HDW. MFG. Corp

Yours looks just like mine.  My medallion reads Bridgeport forged steel on one side.  The other side is completely blank.

[Neals]

Seems like every answer brrings up a couple new questions.

[Branson]

Seems like every answer brrings up a couple new questions.

So, here's something more.  There's a 56 just up on eBay:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/OLD-TOOL-BRIDGEPORT-HARDWARE-NO-56-SUREGRIP-NAIL-PULLER-/390433065598?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item5ae79fca7e

The medallion on this one is Bridgeport Forged Steel on both sides.

But maybe something like an answer.  There are several other nail pullers on eBay just now and all of them have a movable jaw that attaches like  pliers or smithing tongs.  The 56 is different from these in that the pivot point in the jaws is surrounded by the moving jaw.  And in that, it does look like the patent drawing, just drop forged rather than stamped steel plate.

If this amounts to  Bus's "the final product differs from the marked patent date or number..." then maybe the mystery is solved, except for "Not known to have been produced." on the patent page.

Bus, what does the Jan 9, 1906 (No. 809,803) drawing look like?  Or the Dec. 2, 1913 (No. 1,080,210) drawing?

[stanley62]

Branson,

  Try to find patent pictures.  I have the 2 you are looking for, but system keeps choking everytime I try to download.
http://www.nonesuchtools.com/patent/shotgun.htm

  Jim

[Neals]

Branson I think you have nailed it. After reading page 1 lines 95 to the end and the first 4 lines of page 2 of the patent it seems to say it is the first that the movable part goes on both sides of the fixed part.