Small Putnam Lathe

Hit Miss Engine · Jan 18, 2019

I wanted to share a nice Putnam Lathe I picked up at Auction today... The lathe has what looks to be a lot of original paint and came with a face plate, steady rest, counter shaft and some tools but no change gears. The lathe is around 5 foot long. I will have to measure the swing once I get home and unloaded.

chipkid · Jan 18, 2019

Hit Miss Engine said:
I wanted to share a nice Putnam Lathe I picked up at Auction today... The lathe has what looks to be a lot of original paint and came with a face plate, steady rest, counter shaft and some tools but no change gears. The lathe is around 5 foot long. I will have to measure the swing once I get home and unloaded.

Wow! Nice lathe. Great find. Looking forward to more pics once its home and unloaded.

firefighterbill · Jan 18, 2019

Very nice,good luck with it

Joe in NH · Jan 18, 2019

Check out my identical Putnam seen at https://www.practicalmachinist.com/...ed-putnam-club-355353/?highlight=Putnam+lathe

Yours is in better shape. But I expect I paid less than you paid for yours.

Still, mine had been "improved" in the 150years since it was made. Some of the improvements are reversible, others are not. We're working on that as we speak.

Yours I see is of the "rise & fall tool rest" vintage. Does yours have a hanging weight (between the ways of the lathe bed) and the cross slide moves on three short slides (3 point suspension) or is yours of the "captive raising handle type" with a full length cross slide and dovetail? It would appear to be the latter. The pix are kinda small and I'm not really seeing it.

Mine is serial No. 35. Look at the spindle "register" (the hub just behind the threads where the chuck screws on) and you should see a number stamped. The number may be repeated elsewhere on the lathe.

Anyway looks like fun. I have had similar vintage Lathe & Morse lathe (a competitor) and while their lathes were also "high art" - IMHO they're not as nicely designed or executed.

The chrome handles on my Putnam are still flawless.

Joe in NH

Hit Miss Engine · Jan 18, 2019

Hi Joe,
Yes the pictures are terrible... I believe it must be due to the way they get compressed to fit on the site? When I view the pictures in my photo album they are super clean and crisp... I will have to work on that and take some better close ups tomorrow. I didn’t have time to unload it this evening so I pulled the truck in the building on account that we are expecting more snow tomorrow. The lathe does seem to be in very good shape with the exception of a few teeth on a couple of gears that had been repaired at one point...a few drilled holes with studs threaded in,then ground to the profile of a gear tooth. It’s a stout little guy....the swing is around 12 inches... I am very pleased with it... more pics to come.

Robert Lang · Jan 18, 2019

Joe in NH said:
Mine is serial No. 35.
The chrome handles on my Putnam are still flawless.

I rather doubt that is a serial number, especially since your lathe has the newer legs.
I hate it when someone chromes the handles of these old machine tools.

Rob

Quade · Jan 18, 2019

Yes the pictures are terrible... I believe it must be due to the way they get compressed to fit on the site? When I view the pictures in my photo album they are super clean and crisp... I

If, when you go to post images, you use "from url" and uncheck "retrieve". It'll reference the images in your photoalbum and not download and shrink them.

Joe in NH · Jan 19, 2019

Robert Lang said:
I rather doubt that is a serial number, especially since your lathe has the newer legs.
I hate it when someone chromes the handles of these old machine tools.

Rob

You may be correct. Still it is a number and the new legs/bed establish this as a product of the "new factory." (1866 as described at Putnam Machine Co. - History | VintageMachinery.org) And with post war expansion and a unification of production under a new roof, Putnam may have begun serial numbering. They were progressive - then.

At least I have always took it as such.

And I always took chrome when seen on a Putnam as original - they were considered a Cadillac of brands in this time period. And chrome (or is it Nickel?) does stand out and makes for a nice "feel."

Still, my lathe is surprisingly "non-original." One marvels at how nicely a Seneca Falls lead screw (with key slot) replaced the usual feed rod on the front of the lathe. It even passed through the apron, caught the bevel gear (lateral feed) and was totally functional - albeit without any apparent function to the screw threads. It even includes its Seneca Falls banjo - the only lathe I've ever seen with TWO banjos.

...We're working to revert this one. ALWAYS looking for guidance/correction. They were only original once and its hell to pay to bring it back there.

Joe in NH

enginebill · Jan 19, 2019

Joe, if the plating looks to be original it would have been nickel, not chrome. Nickel has a softer color with a little goldish tint to it.

Joe in NH · Jan 19, 2019

enginebill said:
Joe, if the plating looks to be original it would have been nickel, not chrome. Nickel has a softer color with a little goldish tint to it.

As you say it is.

If memory serves correct, chrome plating as we know it is a relatively "new" technology.

The Model A Ford of my affection has nickel plating on the plated parts. Chrome is used by restorers only as a long term solution. Nickel, even as done on top of copper as is done on the gearshift levers and radiator shell, is not quick to rust but less permanent than chrome. So restorers who want to "keep it looking original" will often opt for chrome.

But sacrifice something in "Fine Point Judging" for which chrome is verboten.

Joe in NH

Hit Miss Engine · Jan 19, 2019

I'm trying to get better images.... doing a little testing

Joe in NH · Jan 19, 2019

Let's try one of these with HTML picture designators.

2nd pix in line. URL is https://www.practicalmachinist.com/...athe-a2d8050e-62ab-4367-a4c9-5e565bf8ccec.jpg

247351d1547843051-small-putnam-lathe-a2d8050e-62ab-4367-a4c9-5e565bf8ccec.jpg

We'll see if that increases the size.

Joe in NH

Edit: not much if any.
I can see this has an offset tailstock clamp and is "post flat top tailstock" which I would put after about 1876 or so for Putnam. Others went that way earlier but Putnam held onto the center top T-handle longer than most.

Is there a shelf between the legs of the tailstock box? Charles F. Putnam patented that convenience (Pat. 133,483) in 1872 IIRC. Specifications and Drawings of Patents Issued from the U.S. Patent Office - United States. Patent Office - Google Books

Also I see now it has the captive cross slide raising handle/hinge arrangement - which was available post Civil War but not yet common. You see a lot more of these in the years post 1876.

Is the rear-mounted lead screw full length? Mine is not although the bed is drilled for outboard end lead screw bracket in two places. This one appears to have the "hinge" dogleg to attach the leadscrew nut to the cross slide.

Joe

johnoder · Jan 19, 2019

Whats up with the teeny tiny images?. See what this lowly thumbnail does when you click on it

enginebill · Jan 19, 2019

johnoder said:
Whats up with the teeny tiny images?. See what this lowly thumbnail does when you click on it

Small Putnam = small images.

Hit Miss Engine · Jan 19, 2019

Trying again to get this picture thing straight...

Hit Miss Engine · Jan 19, 2019

Still crappy but this is all I have patience for at the moment.

Hit Miss Engine · Jan 19, 2019

Counter shaft as well

Joe in NH · Jan 20, 2019

The counter shaft hangers are unlike any Putnam hangers of my inspection - but I think in that age hangers tended to get "fixed" in place and the machines moved around underneath them.

I see you have a "half nut addenda" put on the rear mounted lead screw. The hinge dogleg I mentioned earlier utilizes the two bolts on the cross slide and the hinge/nut whatever on the lead screw is simply bolted using the two bolts when use of the lead screw is desired. The handle would be vastly more convenient. Perhaps too convenient? "Lets see what fails first when I engage both lateral feed and the half-nut." The result you see in the pix.

247384d1547956755-small-putnam-lathe-d0bbb385-92c0-486b-b381-2ac00ad143e1.jpg

Send a pix of the backside of the tailstock and we can see if this one before or after Patent 133483.

Joe in NH

enginebill · Jan 20, 2019

Shouldn't the hand wheel be on top for the rise and fall rest?

99Panhard · Jan 20, 2019

Nickel electroplating was introduced around 1870, which is when the Springfield Armory had some of the Model 3 American Revolvers purchased from Smith & Wesson plated. They also had a batch of Trapdoor Springfields done. All this was an experiment to see if the new finish was more durable than traditional blue. The work was done in Boston but the private company that held the patent on the new process. Chrome plating was not introduced until the very late 1920s and I don't think it appeared on cars until about 1930 or later. Its use on earlier cars is now widely discouraged, if not disparaged in the restoration world...

Small Putnam Lathe

Cast Iron

Attachments

Plastic

Plastic

Diamond

Cast Iron

Stainless

Aluminum

Diamond

Stainless

Diamond

Cast Iron

Attachments

Diamond

Diamond

Attachments

Stainless

Cast Iron

Attachments

Cast Iron

Attachments

Cast Iron

Attachments

Diamond

Stainless

Stainless

Similar threads