Starrett #56 Surface Gauge Type Study Pics

In another thread it was suggested that I post pictures of the first several Types of Starrett's #56 surface gauge.

Since the author of the seminal antique tool Type Study was standing there looking at my drawers full of tools, I asked him to look at three of the early #56's I have. He confirmed he had the same Type-1, mint, in the original picture box.

So, below is the first time ever (as far as I know) presentation of what is the first model (Type-1) thru the fourth model (Type-4) #56. I am doing this first presentation in picture only form, with no descriptive text.

For those who question, all parts are correct and most likely original.

There is a mystery! Clearly stamped on two of my #56's (at the same time, by the factory!) is the information "Pat March 17 1897".

But, that is wrong! March 17th 1897 was a Wednesday and patents are only issued on Tuesdays. In fact, I don't know if the #56 was patented at all. However, patent #556703 was issued March 17, 1896 to Laroy S. Starrett and Charles P. Fay for a surface gage that looks exactly like the Starrett #55.

Here are the pictures:

TYPE-1:






TYPE-2:




TYPE-3:




TYPE-4: (so far, but arguable)




So, what variations do you have? Please post pictures.

Interesting, I love looking at that case hardened finish. When did the pins in the base replace the clamp?

My question about the scribers in the #52 thread was not intended to slight the authenticity or correctness of the artifacts in question. I appreciate both your sharing of your collection and the lively discussion that accompanies it.

I've got what appears to be a type 4. Original box, but no guide. I'll try and put up a picture tomorrow.

I've got what appears to be another variation. It's marked

THE L.S. STARRETT CO.
ATHOL, MASS. U.S.A
No. 56

The cutout at the end is different than what you show.
It's also narrower at the top than at the bottom - 1.435 at the top, 1.580 at the bottom. I can't tell if yours are different widths at the top and bottom.
I don't have the scribe, it came as you see it in a box of "junk" with just a dial gage attached.

I can try for a better picture tomorrow if you like.

This "type 2" is a recent $12.00 "buy it now" from eBay;

Tom,

Thanks for the picture and post. I am pretty positive about Types-1 thru 3. But, I suspect your #56, marked "No. 56" is later than the Type-4 I postulated. The knurling that is present is certainly the more modern style from Starrett. More interesting, and I have not seen an example like yours, it appears you have the first use of the pins versus the add-on guide. Your #56 may be a type-5???

It takes a ton of evidence from seeing many #56's both in catalogs and in person and pictures to determine the "Type".

Your post is exactly why it is important for someone to risk embarrassment in making the first move postulating a Type Study.

When you post larger pictures of you #56, please label it as Type 5 as a likely candidate. Again thank you.

D Dubeau,

Please put up your pics. The guide is often 'lost' and is sought after by bidders on eBay.

Gordon,

Nice buy! Too bad it is missing the scribe holder. I was hoping some eagle eye would spot a difference in 'types' of scribe holders on the #56 so that they be used as evidence in the type study.

AntiqueMac said:

Tom,

Thanks for the picture and post. I am pretty positive about Types-1 thru 3. But, I suspect your #56, marked "No. 56" is later than the Type-4 I postulated. The knurling that is present is certainly the more modern style from Starrett. More interesting, and I have not seen an example like yours, it appears you have the first use of the pins versus the add-on guide. Your #56 may be a type-5???

Click to expand...

I feel a bit silly posting these pictures, as this appears to be the #56 listed since at least 1965 - it's shown in catalog #27 (1965) and #125 (2004), the only two Starrett catalogs I have. Someone must have a complete one in better condition...

So, here's a Starrett #56 type 5?

Tom,

I have one that looks to be allmost a twin of yours, EXCEPT that it is marked Lufkin Rule Co. No. 62. Key features include the narrow vertical grove under the spindle, the top slightly narrower than the base, and the guide pins. One difference is an additional adjustment (pivot) screw on the side opposite the screw shown on all of the Starretts.

The narrow vertical groove on yours would seem to set it apart from the rest of the Starretts. Did Starrett make Lufkin surface gages at one time?

Tom,
An 1895 Starrett catalog is available on pdf here:

http://www.roseantiquetools.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/1895starrett4.53mb.pdf

* That site has other Starrett catalogs, e.g. 1948, here:

Rose Antique Tools old tools and history

And catalogs from other manufacturers. I hope you find this useful with your research.

ihth

AntiqueMac said:

D Dubeau,

Please put up your pics. The guide is often 'lost' and is sought after by bidders on eBay.

Click to expand...

It looks identical to your 56A type 4. But the box says 56B. Would that mean a 56A was with guide, and 56B without? or does it mean something different altogether? Can't see that explanation when it says "without guide" written on the box, but then again, I know nothing about this stuff, and I just bought this one because I wanted a small surface gage. Dan

Stu,

In looking at Starrett and Lufkin history for the last 30 years, I have never seen any suggestion that these two fierce competitors shared any parts, let alone manufacturing. But, I bet as soon as the patent ran out, Lufkin made copies of whatever sold and Starrett vice versa. And I have not said before, but I personally don't think the #56 ever received a patent - despite the "Pat Apl'd For" and "Pat. March 17, 1897" date on examples. The 1897 patent was actually a 1896 patent # 556703 for the mechanism on Starrett's #55 surface gage. Meaning the #56 was likely fair copy material the minute it was made.

Dan,

Thanks for the pics!! Yep! The #56B is the #56A sold without the aux. guide.

Disaster Area,

I have Starrett catalogs back to 1892 (cat. 11) showing the #56. But, I do not know the first catalog it was shown in since I'd need earlier catalogs.

Anyone got earlier catalogs?

AntiqueMac,

A possible clue to help unravel the potential Type 5 issue.

The No. 56 description in Catalog 26 has the following statement in the description:
"A V-shaped groove in the end and the base adapts it for use on cylindrical work."

The description in Catalog 28 states:
"A groove in the base adapts it for cylindrical as well as flat surfaces. The front end of the base is also grooved so that the spindle which passes through the rotating head or lower sleeve can be set above or below the base."

The catalog 26 description fits Types 1 thru 4. The Catalog 28 description implys the vertical groove is no longer adapted for cylindrical work, but instead is intended only for clearance. This would match with the configuration of Tom's example.

This cracks me up. I've got a little tiny 56, maybe 5 or 6 inches tall. And the little fence for the bottom of it has been kicking around the tool box for as long as I've had it. About the only reason I never threw it away (the fence) is that it's stamped Starret I think. Never had a clue what the thing was.

Paul

Does anyone know what the finish is on these tools? I had always assumed it was a bluing, but someone here mentioned case hardening.

The only bluing I've tried is cold bluing, with a wipe-on selenous acid solution, and I've never wound up with a finish that's spotty enough to look good.

The original finish was a color case-hardening that, when done properly, looks like a rainbow sheen of oil on water. The original process uses cyanide. As they say, "don't try this at home!"

The color layer was very thin, and wears off over the years.

If a substitute exists, I'd wager that the antique gun crowd would know of it.

Tom,

I had 'understood' for years from fellow tool collectors that the mottled blue look on steel was produced by "oil hardening". Doesn't case hardening use carbon against the how metal? Oil hardening uses hot oil, I believe, but someone will correct me.

About the Type Study, no one really noticed that I stopped at Type-4. I suspect that there are at least 5 more types (maybe even 10 more) as one moves from the 1920's to today.

The seminal Type Study was produced by Roger K. Smith about Stanley bench planes and can be seen reproduced here:

Stanley Plane type study

Note that a complete type study incorporates features including the logo changes, the size and shape of the parts, the finish (e.g., if the early #56's were oil hardened, it isn't as mottled as later versions), design features, the boxes, etc.

I have seen at least three different configurations for the handihold on the sides of the #56. The first handihold was champhored, the second went thru to the ends with 1/4 inch flat sides above and below, but the latest version I have seen has very little flat on the sides.

With the use of pins versus the axillary guide I know there are at least two more 'types' in the time period I'm interested in. And, I suspect in between type-2 and 4 there might be a variation in the logo such as it being on one or two lines or the use of U.S.A versus just Ma. On other Starrett items I have seen logo variations on the same tool that had Massachusetts as either "Ma", "Ma." and even "Mass".

I'll pass on more as I find it. I believe Rivett has a couple of post Type-2's that are variations and maybe change the number of Types 3 and 4.

AntiqueMac,

Guy Lautard, in the Machinist's Bedside Companion, describes the color case hardening effect as being generated by bubbling air throught the water being used to quench the tools after removal from the case hardening pack. I can see that air bubbling through the water would tend to produce the oxidation colors that are sometimes used for tempering and that the stirring and bubbling would result in random color patterns.

Here are a couple of #1s and notice the different position of the stamp... also I see the screw at the bottom of the post looks like a replacement, I'll have to see if that is a odd ball thread, maybe that is the early type 1? What type is the other? it looks between a 3 and 4 or is it earlier than the 3? I like the larger stamped name.....

I just noticed the difference in the length of the sleeve..... the one in the middle is the short and maybe earliest.... then they get a little longer.....

Rivett,

Great pics and a super addition to the study. My type-1 and two type-2's all have the logo stamp in the same location and in the same style.

One of the problems with a type study is that the authors have to be so very anal. One must look at every detail so that it is possible distinguish which change in detail is a design or feature (type) changes and which is only a manufacturing or quality slip.

I note that one of your type-1's (middle in your first pic) does not have a hole for the scribe to be held if the spindle is removed. While it also has the questionable screw, the part that holds the spindle appears shorter than any other of yours and that shortness comports with all three of mine Type-1 and 2.

So, if I seeing them correct, bent metal adjuster without the scribe hole would be the first (type-1). The addition of the scribe hole feature would be type-2. And the lack of the bent metal adjuster would be Type-3.

But................ Where do I put the Non-bent metal, no scribe version I have - what I originally called Type-2???

So, Rivett, I want to really really really thank you for your post!!!!! And, for now, I'm dismissing the size variances in some of the parts (like the bent metal adjuster). Damn, I had Roger K. Smith here for two days. I should have had him do the study! He is very knowledgeable about machinist tools and is the producer of the best tool type study ever.

So, do we agree on Type-1 and Type-2? And remember, when you answer that, I know where you live.

So, what is type-3? Where does my former (original post) type-2 fit? And, what is with the bogus patent date? For that matter, what is with the "Pat. Apl'd For" when there never was a patent???