McKaig Hatch 11" adjustable

[lt.luke]

I have a few Crescent Tool Company crescent wrenches myself....on the tool bench for daily use and in the tool stash. Perhaps they will be vetted as a government supplier and thus correct for a "motorpool tool kit" application. On the other hand, with the government handing out tool contracts, even a company like Crescent might have been granted contracts for something besides crescent wrenches....we just don't know.

Finding a couple of them...with a plated finish and with a bare steel or parkerized finish would be good candidates.

FWIW, I have a 10" Crescent brand wrench which is the phosphate finish AND has remnants of OD on the handle. I KNOW it's not a Jeep correct size, but I think it lends fair cresence that the Army bought some. I keep it in the toolbox and use it. It's nice. I really like the older tools!

[lucakiki]

FWIW, I have a 10" Crescent brand wrench which is the phosphate finish AND has remnants of OD on the handle. I KNOW it's not a Jeep correct size, but I think it lends fair cresence that the Army bought some. I keep it in the toolbox and use it. It's nice. I really like the older tools!

Dear member of the dogpack, for a change I did not go to my beloved Alloy artifacts,and rather made a quick check in the 1951 ORD 7 SNL G-503.
Here is what I knew I would find:
41-W-487 Wrench, adj. sgle open end,jaw opng 1 1/8 in.,lgh 10in.

I am sure you would have liked to read this. Call it tidbits of information...

In other words, the toolkit post war was thinned out, and some tools changed. No more 11" adjustable, replaced by a 10" crescent, and the pliers were 8" , not 6".
No set of open end wrenches.
Take care!

[lt.luke]

Thanks, I thought so! I have nothing for evidence that my wrench is a vetran other than the paint, but that's been enough in the past. I'm OK with it's probabe post war lineage. I wonder how we can use that to determine wartime supplier provenance for the brand?

[Alasdair Brass]

Hi guys,
Frank has a 41W Crescent 8" so it would seem Crescent supplied tools to the Govt. I've uploaded a shot from Jon's file (hope that's OK Jon).

Al

[Chuck Lutz]

Gather the clues and rate each one of those clues: check the date of mfger, the markings, all the manuals, the catalogs, factory records, drawings, dated photos, etc.

From this we can sometimes give a thumbs up or down or perhaps we just don't have enough info to decide for sure either way....there just are not many "time capsules" we can check out for confirmation...

[lucakiki]

Here is some news that might be welcome by those experts who dismiss Crescent Tools as not plausible not even for a motorpool toolkit.
Maybe they will be more careful in their statements, in the future.
Luke, as a proud member of the dogpack , will love this!


by Robin » Thu Jun 19, 2008 8:19 pm

This is what I've found so far looking through the War Supply Contracts from WW2:
1) Barcalo located in Buffalo had three contracts for "tools" 2-for ORD and 1-for the Bureau of Aeronautics. And another contract for "wrenches" that is BuAer.
2) Williams had a lot of contracts for "tools" they include, Navy, AAF,ORD.,Signal Corps.
And under Wrenches they include 3 contracts for Navy and 2 for QM.
3) Fairmount had contracts for "tools" QM and ORD. And Navy Bureau of Ships.
4) Crescent Tool Co. had a bunch of "tools" contracts. 4-Air Corps, 2-Navy, 1- ORD "pliers wrenches". QM and Air Corps "wrenches", 4 Navy "pliers", 4- Navy, 1-Air Corps.

Etc. etc.

[lt.luke]

Well, well!

[Alasdair Brass]

Luca,
It is no surprise to me that they were a supplier. Their quality was good and they would have been sold in sufficent numbers to be available at a competitive price to the military. Good work reviving that!!

Al

[lucakiki]

Al, do you think that the guy will take back his statement? I doubt it !

I think trying to say that a Crescent Tool Company 11" Adj. is correct for even a motorpool tool kit by saying that "Cee Tee pliers are usually accepted" is baloney.

[Chuck Lutz]

Are you suggesting I take back what I wrote in the post above this where I detailed that the MFGER is only a PART of the puzzle? I don't think so.

1) Markings? Are they from 1933 or 1943 or 1953?
2) Wartime finish? Chrome plated, cad plated, plain or parkerized? Which is correct for the tool in question for the years the contract covers?
3) Using the fact that one mfger supplied "tools" or "wrenches" to the gov't somehow automatically means some other "tool" or "wrench" is CORRECT is what I mean by 'guilt by association'...it doesn't work that way anywhere else so in the end I think you have to end up with CTC tools in a POSSIBLE category until you know if they even MADE the one you have during WWII....

I have several Crescent 8" Adj and pliers....am I will keep them in the catagory of "POSSIBLY: maybe for motorpool, pending the above considerations"...sure, why NOT? I would be happy to have the Crescent Tool Company as a war-time TOOL supplier added to the POSSIBLE list as I mentioned previously. Any attempt to bump them up to an Instant Motorpool Acceptable level (be they for 6" pliers or 8" pliers or 10" pliers or 6"/8"/11" Adj. would probably need something that actually identified THOSE tools as being what was purchased during the war. Maybe they supplied some other kind of tools and did not even produce one of those during 1941-1945....the point is conjecture is not evidence...so CTC is certainly POSSIBLE at least as a supplier of these tools, but perhaps something a little more DEFINITIVE that would identify these specific tools as the ones bought by the Gov't and...then the finish, markings, etc. would be a part of that acceptance.

The head long rush to accept ANY mfger has been resisted here many times and additional evidence asked for many times on more than ONE mfger of tools....read Gilmore where he says ONE piece of info is not really always enough (especially when it might be as vague as 'CTC sold tools to the Gov't' and nothing more is known about what kind, etc.)

They seem to be a POSSIBLE at least for a motorpool kit, so if those who are ready to accept them as CORRECT for motorpool can crosscheck to find out the markings, finishes, etc. for the dates of the contracts, that would be helpful to know WHICH of the CTC items are even worth considering. If they ARE correct for a Motorpool kit...great, one more option for collecting, but let's collect EVICENCE along with the tools themselves that confirms they are the real deal....otherwise they just end up on the workbench with the other near-misses....

[lucakiki]

Al, your nice thread turned into a gallery of plausible adjustables.
Hope you do not mind it!
Here are two, in a brand that has been mentioned elsewhere as somehow plausible.


It does fit with the famous Willys drawing, but I ignore it the time frame is correct, and if it passes the traditional hub test.

Or we can observe this one, which was made for the Navy.Picture by Robin.



Those with an eye for details can observe how these Diamond Calk are very similar to two different kinds of Fairmounts.

[lt.luke]

Lets bubble this one up. Anyone else remember the Cresent 8" with the "41W" marking? Scroll up a bit!

[Wingnutt]

Thanks for bubbling this up, luke. That black phosphate Crescent 8 is a nice tool, and even if the FSN markings are post-war, if not late war, I think it would look good with the japanned finish on the Vlchek 11 IN AUTO and hammer in a Dodge kit I am trying to assemble. It's funny how much aesthetics come into to play for me, I am not afraid to say. Take Luca's kit upthread, which I scrolled over following your instrcutions to find the Crescent 8. I don't usually like OD green painted tools, but the oiler in that kit looks great to me, encouraged somehow by just the hint of OD green friction tape on the SPW.

[lucakiki]

Maybe Cee Tee did sell to the gov't but most would prefer the documentation....I think trying to say that a Crescent Tool Company 11" Adj. is correct for even a motorpool tool kit by saying that "Cee Tee pliers are usually accepted" is baloney. One theory used as documentation to support another theory? Uh, no....not really.....

Well,even forgetting what Robin had posted years ago, what has been posted recently does show how my idea of Crescent made tools being correct for motorpool kits is not baloney.
What do you guys think?

[lt.luke]

No Baloney