What's new
What's new

Starrett"s 1st square.... 1879

rivett608

Diamond
Joined
Oct 25, 2002
Location
Kansas City, Mo.
Everybody has to start somewhere and Mr L. S. Starrett made his first combination square in 1879 the year before he started his tool company......... he had Stanley Rule and Level (yes that is the Stanley that made woodworking tools) make up a batch of rules for him...... then he machined his castings in the back of Richardson's shop in Athol, Mass...... Richardson made mainly levels and Starrett sold them later before Goodell-Pratt bought him out.

What makes these squares different is the RASIED letters cast into the stock which say L.S.S. Athol Mass and Pat. Ap'd For No9L...... 9L might have stood for 9" with level. These are very rare...... of the millions of combination squares made maybe only 200 or so of these were made and I think only about 6 are known to survive....... anybody got one?
LSS9L.jpg

LSS9Ldetail1.jpg
LSS9Ldetail2.jpg
 
Yes, the holes are part of the original patent...... as I recall they were for using it as a marking or mortice gauge to layout lines a 1/4" apart..... Starrett kept that feature for a few years....
 
Thanks so much rivett.
The square that I inquired about on the other thread may then be an early production run.
It has diagonal 'rope' knurls on the nut and it does not have the patent date(s) stamped in the usual places. I have a couple of other examples but they all are similar with straight concave knurls and both patent dates.
Thanks again. That 'first model' is remarkable.
I have just discovered this site and I am enjoying the various threads and especially your willingness to share so much.
Tom H.
 
Rivett wrote, "....I think only about 6 are known to survive....... anybody got one?"

Yep! Here is mine:

LSS-Square-5-1.jpg


LSS-Square-3.jpg


LSS-Square-4-1.jpg


LSS-Square-2.jpg


And here you can read the #215024 patent for it:
IMPROVEMENT IN TRY-SQUARES - Google Patent Search

If you actually read the patent search heading you'll note the really bad spelling of Laroy S Starrett? (LAEOY S. STAEEETT) - making it tough to find by a normal search!! :angry:

Here is the drawing:

LSS-Square-6.jpg



Leg17, Check the nut to see it is nickel over brass or steel. The earliest were nickel/brass and rule was a square groove versus a "U" groove.

So, are we going to have to start a type study? :D

And, somewhere I read a question about the originality and purpose of the holes near the end of the rule. Here is what the patent paper says:

"One or more holes, p, near the end of the bar may be countersunk to admit of the point of a lead-pencil being introduced through either, and used instead of the scratch-pin for making gage-marks."


:cheers:
 
Joe,

Mine is not quite as long, but I think I see evidence of it being sharpened. My scribe comes almost to the nut. But, I have a second or slightly later version where the scribe in almost dueling sword length!

:cheers:
 
Looking at the pictures, note that the locking nut on Rivett608's example is the "acorn" style and the locking nut on AntiqueMac's example is a flat-topped style which closely resembles the patent drawing.

The acorn-shaped locking nuts appear on newer examples that don't have the raised lettering. In fact, the current Starret catalog shows acorn-shaped locking nuts on current-production squares. They show as black in color in the .pdf catalog. Blackened brass?

The acorn shape is an improvement - it retains the length of thread engagement while moving the knurled gripping surface closer to the rule (blade) where it is easier to grasp.

From this, I surmise that AntiqueMac's example is a slightly older variant than Rivett608's example. What say?

John Ruth
 
AntiqueMac - your comment about the mis-spelling:
If you actually read the patent search heading you'll note the really bad spelling of Laroy S Starrett? (LAEOY S. STAEEETT) - making it tough to find by a normal search!!
points out one of the few shortcomings of Google Patents. I believe they used Optical Character Recognition software when these documents were scanned in, and the quality of the original had a direct impact on how it was interpreted.

Other than this little "oops", I think it's a tremendous research tool. It teaches you how to think out of the box when searching! :)

BTW - thanks again to you and rivett for the incredible amount of knowledge you freely share with the the rest of us.
 
Last edited:
Reggie_Obie:

You've pointed out something very interesting.

Somewhere, probably right here on PM/AM&H, I read that the center-finding head was a later addition to L.S. Starrett's "product line", i.e. the center head was not available with the first squares.

Going out on a limb here - has ANYBODY ever seen an example of the center-finding head with the flat-topped (rather than acorn shaped) locking nut?

Clearly stating that I'm speculating here - but I think this will date the change to the acorn nut as being about the time the center-finding head accessory was introduced.

JRR
 
Eric:

Bullseye. You just proved that the acorn nut was designed, if not actually made, at least as early as 1880. And your evidence strongly implies, but does not actually prove, that the acorn nut was on the earliest center-finders.

I now believe that a significant number of examples of the center-finding head with the flat-topped (rather than acorn shaped) locking nut will not be found, although since period factories have been known to "use up the parts on hand", anything's possible


AntiqueMac:

You can rest easy. Your square with centerfinder apparently has the correct locking nuts on both pieces.

And a tip of the hat to Reggie_Obe for noticing the difference between the two locking nuts.

Now, here's an ancillary question: At least one of my center finders has a Starrett maker's mark stamped on the edge, but not all of them have this mark. When was this the norm?

JRR
 
Hey, Eric, Reggie and John,

Thank you for the interest and research support!!!!

I'm not sure I can answer John's last question about the edge mark on the square heads. I have seen it in later examples and think I might have a very worn head with L. S. Starrett on the edge. Or, it is just scribble lines.

I do have at least one head with "Pat. May 6, 1879" on one side edge and "RE Oct 19, 1880", which would be the reissue of Chaplin's patent (O. R. Chaplin patented the first ever 'combo square', shown in another PM thread). You can see that here:
http://www.practicalmachinist.com/v...y/whats-holy-grail-machinists-squares-171747/

:cheers:
 
Last edited:
I would feel so much more comfortable about the squared off nut being the original if there was another example out there....... it is also interesting the use of a washer? Either way I think I need to drive down south and play some golf...... hummmm ball goes through a window, I go to pick up the mess, ......... damn DOGS!!!! (ya right like I could ever even hit the thing in the direction I wanted too!)

I'll have to look at my early Starrett catalog...... can't remember the year but it is only 12 pages..... and I have one earlier square with a really long scribe..... also the earliest ones had a different knurl on the scribe........ I saw a nice clean fairly early square and was hoping I had a extra scribe to send the owner since his was missing...... but sadly I couldn't find it.
 
"...the earliest ones had a different knurl on the scribe...."

Actually, on my example there is no knurling on the ball of the scribe.The knurl is in a really stupid place at the lip where the pointer comes out of the ball. Note the patent drawing shows knurls on the nut, but not on the scribe.

However, never trust a patent drawing to be entirely accurate!

Early Starrett knurls seem to be a mix of many. I have several examples of the early 1880 heads that have scribes with some different patterns on the ball itself. Which surely does make it hard to find the "correct" missing scribe if needed.

I think one could do a Type Study of Starrett knurls alone! Certainly for the first 5 years. And, then if may be specific tool dependent.

The washer under the locking nut on my example is curious, indeed. But, it is clearly of the same period and nickel. It does not appear necessary, as the spring works and system locks without it. But, the casting is 1/2 again as wide as the nut, so maybe it is to compensate for the dimension difference - to keep an overly ambitious tightener from cracking the casting? You guys would know best.

:cheers:
 
Starrett’s square 1879 24 February 2011

This is what I can add to this thread.

I have one nine inch example that includes a scale about .072 thick with the single line “STARRETT’S PAT. MAY. 6. 1879”, and six holes at 1/4“ spacing, with the first hole countersunk to accommodate a pencil, per the patent information. This is the square head that has no patent dates marked and has a nickel plated brass lock screw with two different diagonal ‘rope’ knurls. The scriber has a 3/8 diameter ball, a fine diagonal knurl, and is about 2.0” long under the shoulder, (the point looks un-altered.) I have a center head mounted with a nickel plated brass locknut that has straight concave knurling and no patent info marked. I honestly don’t recall if I myself added that center head or if it came with the square. Obviously, over 120 years, the center head addition cannot be proven to be originally included.

I have a twelve inch example that has a brass locknut with straight concave knurls that I honestly believe was never nickel plated. The brass is bright even in all the crevices. The scale is similar to the other one, about .072 thick and with eight holes at 1/4” spacing and the first hole opened up for a pencil. The marking on the scale is identical to the nine inch one. I can not see the 1879 patent date on the square but the 1880 one is clearly marked. That marking is about 23/32” long. No scriber.

I have another twelve inch head with a steel locknut and both patent dates marked. However these markings are only about 9/16” long. No scriber.

And I have another nine inch model that is similar to the twelve inch one just above. The locknut is steel and both patent dates are marked with the same 9/16” stamp as above. Again, no scriber. This one does include a scale about .083 thick and has the two line marking:
L.S. STARRETT,
ATHOL, MASS.

All three of the above mentioned scales are the thinner style, (looks to be about 1/16” or so), and all three have square grooves.

If I were to hazard a guess, I would say that they were produced in the order that I have listed them. I don’t know whether this would make them differing ‘models’ but they could at least be called ‘variations’.

None of these are ‘museum’ or ‘exhibition’ condition. My resources limit me to ‘heritage’ condition unless I get lucky over at FleaBay. (I have scored a couple of show pieces though, so you never know.)

Thanks again to all of you for being so generous with your information. As I mentioned before, I just discovered this site and am really enjoying it. I have been a tool-maker of one kind or another since part-time in high school in 1962. When I started, I knew some of old-timers that could have been “Bull of the Woods” models. Now, as near retirement, our shop is into high-speed hard milling, making even much of our EDM equipment obsolete. Anybody else notice how time is flying??

Tom H.
 
Tom,

Excellent work, very descriptive! I think I understand what you have described....... But, I should definitely doubt my mental image!

So, clear, sharp pictures please. They add 10,000 words. Some of use would like to see your examples for ourselves, as if we were holding them.

Where your stuff fits in the timeline is still of interest to many and pictures would make all clearer - I hope???????????

:cheers:
 








 
Back
Top