stanley no73-101N Brazilian Rosewood?

[thetyreman]

Could the Handles on this old Stanley brace and bit be Brazilian Rosewood? I am wondering because it's probably from the 50s or 60s, got it on ebay for an absolute bargain and when I sanded it the smell was amazing, very sweet smell unlike anything else I have smelt before, it also looks like a deeper red than rosewood I have seen before, I have put 5 layers of pure tung oil on it.

attached are some photos,

regards,

Ben.

 

[Vann]

Is it Stanley USA or UK? (I think the No.73 is British - maybe?). If it's American, chances are high it's rosewood (in my experience). Much less so if it's British - but still possible. WW2 halted the use of rosewood on most British tools, and manufacturers like Record and Stanley didn't go back to it after the war - at least not for the majority of their products (and Stanley only started production in the UK at the end of 1936).

Experts will be along in due course.

Cheers, Vann.

 

[thetyreman]

Is it Stanley USA or UK? (I think the No.73 is British - maybe?). If it's American, chances are high it's rosewood (in my experience). Much less so if it's British - but still possible. WW2 halted the use of rosewood on most British tools, and manufacturers like Record and Stanley didn't go back to it after the war - at least not for the majority of their products (and Stanley only started production in the UK at the end of 1936).

Experts will be along in due course.

Cheers, Vann.

it does say on it 'made in england' so yeah not a USA made one, thanks though for your contribution.

 

[D_W]

It's probably Brazilian.

 

[ED65]

Well the sweep handle certainly looks like rosewood.

Lovely looking drill, you got a right bargain there. Did you have to do much work to it or was it basically clean when you bought it?

 

[thetyreman]

Well the sweep handle certainly looks like rosewood.

Lovely looking drill, you got a right bargain there. Did you have to do much work to it or was it basically clean when you bought it?

it was in a terrible state, full of rust, but only thin suface rust luckily, no pitting, I cleaned the metal with a brass wheel on my bench grinder, amazingly that handle was covered in tape which was holding it together, the handle was cracked but very cleanly in half, so it glued together extremely well, I left it 24 hours with titebond clamped up.

I then removed some paint marks with turps, sanded the handles down up to 250 grit then 0000 steel wool, so far there's 5 layers of tung oil, I think it needs another couple of layers then I will leave it to dry for a few days before putting de-waxed shellac and finally wax so it will be another 4-5 days.

so yes quite a lot of work, but it didn't take more than an hour to clean the metal, will post a final photo when it's all finished, it cost me £16 with 13 bits included including some unusual auger bits and center bits in a wrap, with postage it was around £20 I think.

 

[thetyreman]

here's how the drill looked before

 

[ED65]

Nicely done, it's a credit to you =D>

 

[Boringgeoff]

Hi Ben,
That's a pretty early British Stanley, possibly pre WW2 and modelled on something like the James A Chapman No 16. It appears to have the nonagonal chuck shell which was usual on Chapman's "A quality" braces that carried the Registered Design No 239718.
Stanley (USA) took a part interest in J A Chapman of Sheffield in 1936 as Vann has mentioned. You get three similar braces, Branded:
(1) Manufactured by James Chapman. Sheffield England.
(2) J A Chapman. Made In England. By Stanley Works (GB) Ltd.
(3) Made In [STANLEY] England.
I don't know the time lines of the various models as they transitioned from Chapman to Stanley but I would imagine there would be quite a big overlap. I would agree with Vann's and Ed65 opinions on the type of wood used.
Congratulations on a well done tidy up and I hope I've been of some help.
Cheers,
Geoff.

 

[thetyreman]

Hi Ben,
That's a pretty early British Stanley, possibly pre WW2 and modelled on something like the James A Chapman No 16. It appears to have the nonagonal chuck shell which was usual on Chapman's "A quality" braces that carried the Registered Design No 239718.
Stanley (USA) took a part interest in J A Chapman of Sheffield in 1936 as Vann has mentioned. You get three similar braces, Branded:
(1) Manufactured by James Chapman. Sheffield England.
(2) J A Chapman. Made In England. By Stanley Works (GB) Ltd.
(3) Made In [STANLEY] England.
I don't know the time lines of the various models as they transitioned from Chapman to Stanley but I would imagine there would be quite a big overlap. I would agree with Vann's and Ed65 opinions on the type of wood used.
Congratulations on a well done tidy up and I hope I've been of some help.
Cheers,
Geoff.

thanks Geoff,

yes it's definitely a (3) Made in [STANLEY] England type, so whenever they were made that would pinpoint the time period, it's a great tool, feels very well engineered and very smooth when you are using it, I enjoyed restoring it knowing that I'm going to use it a lot, they were built to last.

 

[Boringgeoff]

Hello again Ben, now that my visitors have gone I was able to dig out my Stanley No 73 - 10IN for a comparison of the wood used on it to that on yours. The metal parts have been been painted with a silver paint, but concentrating on the wood, I scrubbed the grime off it with fairly coarse steel wool then used 0000 and finally buffed it on the buffing wheel. The wood still has a few small dings in it but has come up quite nicely. Both the head and handle have strong contrasting colours which look very attractive. I'm hoping ED65 and others will give us their opinion of the wood species. That's my biggest failing not being very good at identifying different woods.
Cheers,
Geoff.

 

[ED65]

I'm no expert on Dalbergia but those are consistent with samples I've seen of one or more types of rosewood.

 

[D_W]

I would guess that it's Brazilian, as I said above, not for any reason other than that it doesn't look like indian rosewood (anything's possible, though) and at the time that this brace was made, brazilian rosewood was probably common and inexpensive and more easily found than others.

 

[thetyreman]

your drill does looks identical to mine, it's probably the same year and period, same wood, mine looked the same before applying the tung oil, I haven't noticed as many for sale, the rosewood version does seem rare, I am going to analyse the wood with my 10x loupe and compare it to images, there are parts of handle that is endgrain.

 

[custard]

I'd be surprised if either of those braces used Brazilian Rosewood.

1. The real "glamour" rosewoods, Rio or Brazilian Rosewood (Dalbergia Nigra), and Cocobolo (Dalbergia Retusa) were expensive furniture woods rather than tool woods. Whenever I've seen Rosewood in tools it's generally been Indian Rosewood (Dalbergia Latifolia), and even that had largely disappeared by the time these braces were made.

2. Neither sample looks much like Rio or Cocobolo.

3. Rio Rosewood was in short supply and expensive even before WW2, after WW2 the price rocketed and it was pretty much only available as veneers. Why would Stanley elect to use a timber like this on mid/mass market tools?

It's anyone's guess what wood it is (timber identification from a photo is just shooting in the dark), but in a sporting spirit I'd hazard that they may possibly be Sonokeling Rosewood (cuttings from Indian Rosewood that were taken to Indonesia and plantation grown at lower cost, it's a true Rosewood but less dark, less heavy, less oily, less lustrous, and generally less desirable than the original), or some anonymous African Hardwood that vaguely resembles a Rosewood (i.e. Bubinga).

If you sand the wood and get a sickly sweet, slightly floral aroma then I'd say Sonokeling, if you don't then I'd say African wannabe.

Good luck!

 

[custard]

From left to right these are,

Old Growth Indian Rosewood
Rio Rosewood
Sonokeling Rosewood

Good luck

 

[Boringgeoff]

Good luck indeed. As Vann said above, WW2 would have put an end to the use of Rosewood and I am of the opinion that the No 73 in question is pre WW2. A Chapman catalogue which I think is pre WW2 lists three types of wood used for their four grades of brace, descending from A to D as Hardwood, Teakwood and Beechwood. Many of the American makers list Cocobolo as used in their brace head and handles. Stanley Cat#34 of 1927 has Cocobolo on their better quality braces and Hardwood on the less expensive models. Similarly another acquisition of Stanley USA, John Fray, in 1911 has Cocobolo, Ebonised Hard wood or Mahogany Stain finish. Millers Falls in 1915 don't go out on a limb (sorry) with their descriptions descending from Rare tropical wood, Maple stained and polished, Tumbled stained, and ebony finish. Any wonder that a retired truck driver can become quite confused.
Not having a background in wood I find the opinions of contributors above most interesting and informative and thank you Ben for starting this thread.
Cheers,
Geoff.

 

[custard]

Many of the American makers list Cocobolo as used in their brace head and handles. Stanley Cat#34 of 1927 has Cocobolo on their better quality braces and Hardwood on the less expensive models. Similarly another acquisition of Stanley USA, John Fray, in 1911 has Cocobolo, Ebonised Hard wood or Mahogany Stain finish.
Geoff.

That's interesting, even today you find the best Cocobolo in US timber yards, no surprise really as it's often Mexican grown so they get "first dibs". in Europe you occasionally get the odd few bits of Cocobolo, but it's not common and tends not to be the very best quality. I know a few UK furniture makers who are quite disparaging about Cocobolo, I suspect that's because they're comparing second rate Cocobolo with the very best Rio.

Rio however was pretty much fully hoovered up by Europeans when they had all the money and I've never seen much of the really good stuff in the US. Now that you can't ship Rio internationally because of CITES, the Rio that exists is likely to stay in Europe. I have heard of a few enterprising Brazilian foresters returning to the taller stumps of old, felled Rio Rosewood trees, digging them out of the ground, gaining CITES exemption and processing the timber for astronomical sums of money. In the UK we call the timber taken from down by the roots "butty wood", I've never seen Rio butty wood but I have seen plenty of Walnut butty, it's what you'll often get in the stock of the very finest shotguns and it's breathtaking. Individual blanks of Walnut butty can sell for over £2000, I guess Rio butty will be similarly priced.

CITES has resulted in an interesting shift in furniture fashion, at least here in the UK. If you're a top flight UK furniture maker you've always got one eye on a Guild Mark award, but the Guild Mark rules now expressly forbid CITES timbers. Before that rule change plenty of the premiere UK furniture was being made in timbers like Macassar Ebony or Rio Rosewood; today it's all Rippled Sycamore, Walnut, or some other politically correct timber. And as furniture makers operating at the next level down, like myself, take our cue from the big names we also start using those same timbers. Sheep like I know but there we are.

I've got many cubic feet of big, sublime Rosewood boards in my wood store, bought over many years from retiring antique restorers and diligent scouring of timber yards. I'm currently trying to find out if the UK leaving the European Union means these boards won't then be saleable to German luthiers (which is who I've had the biggest cash offers from in the past), if that's the case then it'll be decision time...do I take a very big cheque or turn those boards into some special furniture?

 

[Boringgeoff]

Thanks Custard that's an interesting read.
I believe they are doing similar here, digging up the stumps of old Jarrah trees.
Geoff.