Adjustable Centre Bit.

[Boringgeoff]

Hello all,
I got my hands on this adjustable centre bit yesterday. The bit itself is marked SMITH & SONS SHEFFIELD. The adjustable arm has J ANDERSONS PAT' SEACOMBE. ENG'. Any information on the origins of this bit will be much appreciated.
Cheers,
Geoff.

 

[AndyT]

I reckon that's pretty rare.

I've done some searching at espacenet.com using Anderson, Seacombe, adjustable,expansible and a date range of 1820 to 1940 but not found anything to match it. Not all British patents have made it onto that supposedly comprehensive digitised system, but as far as I know there is nothing much else on-line for UK patents.

A search on Grace's Guide for Smith and Sons gave quite a few results, but none in Sheffield - so that's not much help either - sorry.

Well found!

 

[AndyT]

I've now found one reference to it, in Paul Hasluck's "Woodworking".

This book was very thorough on illustrating and describing a wide range of tools. The author says that the advantages of an expanding centre bit are apparent, and goes on:

with this illustration:

My copy is dated 1912 and I also have a reprint of (I think) the 1903 edition - it's in both - so at least you know it was made before then.

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news but you now need to find the other two sizes! :wink:

Edited to add:

It's before 1891 as it also gets a mention (but no illustration) by David Denning here - who says it's cheaper than the better known Clark's patent but equally serviceable.

And here's the proof, from an 1898 catalogue from Henry Osborn of Newcastle and Southampton. The well-known Clarke's and Steer's bits are a massive 5s 9d up to an exorbitant 8s 6d:

(For comparison, a best quality firmer chisel, box handle, 1/2" was 7 1/2d. A 2" smoothing plane was 3s 2d. )

But the Anderson bit was only 1s to 2s 3d

 

[Boringgeoff]

Andy, thank you. You're an absolute marvel. I was shown this bit by my friend about 4 or five years ago and had kept an eye out ever since for another with no joy. He is down sizing his collection and offered it to me on Saturday and I couldn't grab it fast enough.
The bit is marked 1 IN which would make it the largest size, 1 - 2 inch. What would 1898's 2s 3d equate to today?

My friend and fellow member of the Hand Tool Preservation Society of WA is a world traveller and may have well bought the bit in the UK on one of his trips.

The brand which I interpreted as SMITH etc, is fairly worn with the first letter missing so I was tossing up between SMITH or WHITE but I'm pretty certain that the last letter is an H which led me to Smith.

Sorry about the quality of the photo. I've got quite a few centre bits so will need to look through them for a clue.

James Price's book, A Sourcebook of US Patents For Bitstock Tools, (an absolute "must have" for brace and brace tool collectors) lists two 1858 US patents for Clark's expansive bits. He says "William A Clark's Expansive bit, based on Pat. Nos. 20,192 (May 5, 1858) and 21597 (September 28, 1858) was the most widely copied expansive bit and accounts for the bulk of such bits which survived to this day. After the patent expired it was manufactured by dozens of companies and was still available in stores until the recent past."
The author does list quite a few British tools that were also patented in the US but Anderson's may not have been patented there or may not have been picked up by Mr Price.

So thank you again Andy, next time you're in WA drop in for a cup of tea.
Cheers,
Geoff.

 

[Vann]

What would 1898's 2s 3d equate to today?

22.5c Aus or 11.25 new pence (UK)... :mrgreen:

Cheers, Vann.

 

[Boringgeoff]

Hmmm, thanks Vann, what I really meant was............
The other expansive bit mentioned in Andy's Osborn catalogue , Steers, is William Steers Pat No 296242, April 1st 1884.
Cheers,
Geoff.

 

[AndyT]

There are various inflation calculators online, but surely the one that matters the most is the price of tools...

So looking in the same 1898 Osborn catalogue, here are a few other tools you could get for your 2s 3d:

- A best quality joiner's axe, 1 3/4 lb, with handle
- A best English made "American Pattern" brace 8" sweep, (without ratchet)
- three carving gouges (8 1/2d each, so you'd have three ha'pence change)
- a ten-inch drawknife (with a penny change)

So much choice!

 

[DonMc]

Geoff et al,

I believe the manufacturer of your bit was the Samuel Smith & Sons firm. Based on information from Ken Roberts and several directories, the working dates I've been able to determine are from 1891 to (at least) 1925. Addresses associated with the firm are the back of 121 Fitzwilliam Street and 42 Bowden Street. Samuel may have been in business on Bowden Street as early as 1887 (per Ken Williams), and was in business with John James Schofield (Smith & Schofield) prior to that (at least 1881 to 1884). The firm is listed as a maker of joiners' tools as well as a wide variety of bits, braces, &c. Hope this helps.

Don McConnell
Eureka Springs, AR

 

[DonMc]

Geoff et al (again),

I know it's bad form to follow up on my own post, but have found a little additional information and wanted to pass it along. This small article about Anderson's expanding centre-bits appeared in the English Mechanic and World of Science, April 3, 1891. Still no specifics about the patent, but the text does provide Anderson's full name, occupation and address.

Don McConnell
Eureka Springs, AR

 

[Boringgeoff]

Thanks Don,
I don't think it's bad form to follow up your own post, in fact it should be encouraged when you've got more information at hand.
The instruction of use of the bit is very interesting as I had thought you would lock the slot head screws after setting the cutter to the required diameter.
Andy, those price comparisons show that the bit was actually quite expensive, but a set of three could do the work of "three dozen" so would work out good value in the long run.
Thanks for your help gents, that gives me plenty of info' to go with the bit.
Cheers,
Geoff.

 

[AndyT]

Geoff, I have a question remaining - is it any good? Have you tried using it?

 

[Eric The Viking]

Second question, too, Geoff: The spurs on your actual bit don't look to be as pronounced as those in the drawings. It looks as though one drawing is a close copy of the other, so is it possible the original draughtsman had it wrong, or are the spurs more subtle than usual?

 

[Boringgeoff]

I think the original drawing would be accurate, my example is quite worn/damaged. It would appear that the spur on the main bit is possibly broken off although, of course, repeated sharpening diminishes them until they are uselessly shorter than the blade.
The same applies to the spur on the adjustable arm which has gone completely.
I have included a photo of a 1" centre bit in good condition for the benefit of interested viewers who may not be familiar with this type.
Because of it's condition I have not given it a try out.
Cheers,
Geoff.

 

[AndyT]

Well, I am pleased to report that, thanks to world-wide encouragement and by buying a mixed assortment of old tools, I too am now the owner of one of these bits.

Clearly marked with the patentee

the maker - Sam Smith, just like Don said

and the size - 5/16" - the smallest

But there's a problem - just like Geoff's, the spur has snapped off

so it doesn't work.

Really, I've a good mind to send it back to the maker for a refund! Old tools - Pah!! I tried using it and I might have got better results chewing my way through the wood.

I guess I'll have to look out for another one... :wink:

 

[Eric The Viking]

Common problem: a spur-free tool!

Nowadays they let them grow for another three months or so, so that the spur has time to fully develop. This one was picked far too early.

But I may be wrong, as it was different in pre-global warming days.

 

[DrPhill]

Is this related? Probably newer though.... What is with the odd tapered-square fitting?

 

[AndyT]

Phill, that looks like an example of the Clark's patent design - much more common and more robust.

The (perfectly ordinary looking to me) square taper shank is what fits into a brace.
Do you mean to imply that you don't have one?

 

[DrPhill]

Phill, that looks like an example of the Clark's patent design - much more common and more robust.

The (perfectly ordinary looking to me) square taper shank is what fits into a brace.
Do you mean to imply that you don't have one?

Thanks. I was given this and a collection of drill/auger bits but no brace, by a friend clearing a workshop. No drilling machine of mine would accept the tapered shank so I sort of forgot about them until this thread. (There were a lot of chisels, gouges and very useful stuff so do not think for a moment that I am complaining).

Some of the auger bits are quite large - surely they would not have been used in a hand driven tool?

Sorry to OP if I have hijacked the thread.....

 

[AndyT]

The secret virtue of even the most ordinary brace is the amount of torque achievable.
This thread may help

using-expansive-bits-t98078.html

 

[DrPhill]

Thanks, a good read.