#4 questions

5/13/05, 10:50 PM #1

Bob Hackett
Member
Offline
2,804 posts

Registered: 12/28/03

#4 questions

Bob Hackett

>I just picked up a #4 that is definately a Stanley but the casting is noticably thinner than the other ones I have.It has only NO 4 cast on the toe and an S cast behind the frog(no patent dates)and an S cast under the lever cap.The frog is not split but otherwise looks just like the frogs on the other Stanleys.Small adjusting wheel and no frog adjustment screw.

What sort of animal have I caught here?

Mainely,Bob

BTW-$7.50 with a Stanley aluminum tote.Beep-beep.

The tote was what made me take a second look.

Re: #4 questions

5/14/05, 1:49 AM #2

Jim Crammond in Monroe, Mi
Guest

Re: #4 questions

Jim Crammond in Monroe, Mi

>Bob,

According to Walter, it sounds like a Type 7, circa 1893 to 1899.

Jim

Re: #4 questions

5/14/05, 2:58 AM #3

Dale Stansbery
Member
Offline
714 posts

Registered: 2/7/03

Re: #4 questions

Dale Stansbery

>Early Stanley 4's were lighter, about the weight of a later 3. I only know because I was surprised when I weighed one to ship. I don't recall the type # now but it was about a 7 or earlier as I recall. I'm not sure when the castings were made heavier, but it was apparently after the type 7's.

Re: #4 questions

5/15/05, 12:41 PM #4

Bob Hackett
Member
Offline
2,804 posts

Registered: 12/28/03

Thanks for the responses

Bob Hackett

>I guess I`ll have to get an in depth reference if I`m going to keep this up.Any suggestions as to reasonable books for bottom feeders?

Mainely,Bob

#4 questions

Posts