What's new
What's new

FAKE, COPY, KNOCK-OFF - Show Me Your's

AntiqueMac

Hot Rolled
Joined
Jun 17, 2003
Location
Florida Mountains!
I often see shop made tools that are close copies of manufactured ones. Occasionally I buy the shop made version. But, I haven't found a web site that provides a reference to such tools. So, I'll start a catalog of fakes, copies and knock-offs here and hope PM'er will join in.

To borrow (actually, I'm stealing it :smoking: ) Rivett608's line he uses about such items - "Is it real or is it Memorex". And who knows, if several of us turn out to have the same item, then maybe it an actual manufactured knock-off versus a craftsman's one-of copy.

Here is a copy (ON THE LEFT IN ALL PICS), that is not an original version, of the Starrett #52 surface gauge (Original on the right in all pics):

Starrett-52-Fake002.jpg



Starrett-52-Fake008.jpg


Starrett-52-Fake006.jpg


Starrett-52-Fake003.jpg


Starrett-52-Fake005.jpg


Starrett-52-Fake007.jpg


For a better look at three different types of the real Starrett made #52 look here:
http://www.practicalmachinist.com/v...ory/starrett-52-surface-gages-3-types-219200/

It is somewhat curious to me why a person would go to the time and effort to copy a tool they could buy. In the 1894 catalog, the price for a Starrett made #52 was $2.00. According to an 'inflation calculator, "What cost $2.00 in 1894 would cost $48.96 in 2009." One chart I found said the median hourly wage rate in 1894 was $1.00. If "time is money", weren't these certainly expensive to make??????????? Any thoughts?

OK, come on! Show us some fakes, copies or knock-offs.

:cheers:
 
Some of the copies are probably class projects.

As I went through HS and tech school alot of the projects where close or resembled trade tools.
 
Yep...

Building, when you can afford to buy... means that either 1) you're not satisfied with what's offered, at the price offered... or...

2) it's not about the money.

We could buy eggs for less than the cost of having 24 hens... but we still have hens. ;-)
 
It is somewhat curious to me why a person would go to the time and effort to copy a tool they could buy. In the 1894 catalog, the price for a Starrett made #52 was $2.00. According to an 'inflation calculator, "What cost $2.00 in 1894 would cost $48.96 in 2009." One chart I found said the median hourly wage rate in 1894 was $1.00. If "time is money", weren't these certainly expensive to make??????????? Any thoughts?

An alternate thought to Dave's answer, I have several tools I've made (admittedly not the same level of cosmetics shown) rather than buy, simply because when I entered the trade, I needed all the relevant tools, and couldn't afford all of them at once, so I bought what couldn't be made economically (by me) like my 0-6 mics; and made the things that were economical to make, like my 1-2-3 blocks.
I was also fortunate enough to have worked at shops that allowed me to stay after hours and make tools on my own time using company tools.
 
The cost of $2.00, still means giving up two hours wages for a tool of somewhat simple construction. I think that it would be hard to justify that expense in a family's budget, if you could make one at the job, using their facilities and possibly using their materials as well.

If you reverse the scriber on the genuine #52, will the bent end nestle safely in the notch on the base and the straight point fit under the ball at the top, thus alleviating any handling hazard?
 
Last edited:
My initial thought is just like the chinese vise grips on sale at harbor freight, this was not meant to be a forgery but a copy that could be sold by a cheaper company. You can always rip off an original design, change it enough so your lawyer thinks you most likely won't get sued, then sell it for a few bucks cheaper and someone will buy it.
 
making one's own tools is a long established practice for apprentices. They develop their skills while doing something useful. If they screw it up, oh well.
 
My initial thought is just like the chinese vise grips on sale at harbor freight, this was not meant to be a forgery but a copy that could be sold by a cheaper company. You can always rip off an original design, change it enough so your lawyer thinks you most likely won't get sued, then sell it for a few bucks cheaper and someone will buy it.

+1........
 
I'm thinking High School Project. Most likely they had a real Starrett to use to make a casting pattern, then had students make their own.

Even with a patented idea, you can make a copy for personal use. Starrett wasn't worried about one off clones back then, but probably supported future machinist learning the trades.

In college we did have a foundry class. I took it as an elective, gave you good appreciation for pouring aluminum and cast iron. It is one thing to think of pouring cast iron as simple, another thing to do it! 30 years ago at Cal Poly, SLO.
 
making one's own tools is a long established practice for apprentices. They develop their skills while doing something useful. If they screw it up, oh well.

When I was an apprentice, I made all my small tools, V-blocks, etc. This was how we learned, and it was then inspected by the old master. We also had a greater appriciation for the tools that we made ourselves. I still make special tools or a modified copy of a factory tool.
 
I am thinking that if this were an apprentice or student project you would be seeing a much nicer finishing of the cast base. If a student of mine had made that he would have spent an extra 45 minutes with a file and sandpaper on the base. Also, his name would be prominently displayed in nice script somewhere.

Along with the date, but maybe that is just me.
 
The title says "Show me yours".... so I will!

As to why these copies are really made I don't think we'll ever know short of finding one with a history by the maker of it..... a school project, I can do that but better? I'm not going to spend that much money on something I can make? Hey I did it on the bosses time so why not? and the list goes on....... what is neat is they are rarely perfect copies, if they were we would not know it. They almost always add a touch of their own..... here are some of my LSS # 52s along with a type #1..... check out the knurling on the one to the left!

DSCN8003.jpg


DSCN8005.jpg
 
Now here is a Standard Tool # 553 and what I think is a copy...... the signed one is on the right...... notice how course the knurling is and the machining on the base....

DSCN8013.jpg


DSCN8015.jpg


DSCN8016.jpg


DSCN8021.jpg


DSCN8020.jpg


And the catalog page......

DSCN8022.jpg
 
Rivett,

Thank you for posting! Those #56's are just super. Would a school project have a nickle finish? And, would a school project have the expense of that fancy knurling on the left one?


And special thanks for the 553 "Neverslip" example. I didn't realize I owned one, but I just found it. And, I'd been searching high and low for a year now looking to buy what I already had.

FWIW, the knurling on my finial and yours is identical. The small spindle locking nut is the same concave knurl. But, my large scribe locking nut is the same raised diamond pattern as your copy. My 553 is marked on the bottom with the Standard Tool Co logo and the patent date "April 23, 1901".

There is now a mystery. My #553 appears to be the example on the right in your catalog picture, while yours is on the left in the same catalog picture. Are we sure your example is a #553? It is shown on a separate catalog page with a different description and separate pricing from the #553 Neverslip?????

The adjuster nut to raise the base bar is identical to your copy. And the rocker mechanism is different. Plus, my base has handiholds on all, 4 sides and two "V" shaped groves at 90 degrees to each other in the bottom.

Come on other guys??? Can't you show us something that is a copy, fake or knockoff? :toetap: Rivett and I can't be the only ones interested in them.

:cheers:
 
Ah Ha! Enlightenment. You gotta read every word in the catalog, not just look at the pictures like it was a Playboy!

The #553 "Never-Slip" is an entirely different surface gage from the other one on the left side of the catalog picture. The "Never-Slip" has the geared teeth show in "Fig-2" on the right side. And, I'm not sure that the spindle fit is tapered as the one on the left is.

Interesting that they are priced the same??? Would you guys think the "Never-Slip" is any better than the one on the left in the catalog - Rivett's right side original?

Here is the patent:
BELLOWS - Google Patent Search

:cheers:
 
Thank you Reggie-obe!!!

Your example matches very closely a Starrett #257 surface gage. Note the 'humped" top surface in the middle and the pins on the side versus a flat top and end pins on a #56. It appears to be an excellently made #257 copy.

It is interesting that it was made by J. Barlow. Can you get a closeup of the stamp?
 
owner's mark

Photos are terrible. Can't seem to get enough light and contrast for the name to be focused and distinct. Maybe I'll try a more focused light source or a softer source for better wrap around illumination.



 
Interesting...... the knurling looks a little finer than my Starrett like this....... do you have any better close up photos? .... and does the mark say "Made By" or just his name?

Thanks for posting it.....
 








 
Back
Top