What Mitre Box - maker ???

[Clinton1]

I have no idea what Mitre Box this is (ignore the saw).

Any ideas, as I've bounced around google until I got a headache, gave up and come here!

Not the one marked "Pat'd 3-15-04"... this has no identifying marks that I can see in its current corroded state.
Its not the Stanley 50 1/2 (and like versions) - the main difference is that the guide posts are solid rods, with a slit for the saw to fit into.

Any ideas? (before I make an ignorant decision as to how I'll proceed in its restoration)

((man, add time to its purchase price.... it will work out cheaper to buy a good scms :B )

270971270972

[pmcgee]

Sorry if you've already been here ...

The Langdon Mitre Box Company (http://oldtoolheaven.com/miter-boxes/miter-boxes.htm)
Langdon Mitre Box Company (1875-1907) and the Rogers Family: tools and history (http://oldtoolheaven.com/miter-boxes/langdon-millers-falls.html)
https://sites.google.com/site/langdonmitreboxes/home/gallery/craftsman-commercial

I don't know mitre boxes ... I'm sure someone will.

There's a Craftsman in the '68 catalogue looks a bit in your direction, but I don't know all the little differences.

No marks on yours at all?

Could it be the New Langdon from the 2nd link?

Cheers,
Paul

[derekcohen]

Hi Clinton

It is one based on the Miller Fallers Langdon. The Stanley uses a quite different method for guiding the saw.

Stanley 346 ...

https://s3.amazonaws.com/ljimg/m21jsx3.jpg

There are several versions of the MF available. Mine (below) is Millers Falls Langdon Acme #74C (circa 1920), which is a big bugger.

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a262/Derek50/saws/Millers%20Falls%20Mitre%20box%20and%20saw/6.jpg

.. and it uses a big saw (28" long and 5" deep) ...

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a262/Derek50/saws/Millers%20Falls%20Mitre%20box%20and%20saw/9.jpg

The saw back rides on bearings, and the action is s-m-o-o-t-h. :)

Another difference is the lock for moving the angle settings, and the saw bed, which is mild steel rather than wood or ply.

Later versions by Millers Falls moved the adjuster below the saw support, as with yours, but your is not one of these (from the 50's).

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTT8arnF9Hn885ba7Q_Ma9o2KYvh0_rKk-zFuZr_qpXzeKfko3U

I suspect yours could be a Goodell-Pratt (circa 1920) ...

http://www.blujay.com/1/61/1596339_s1_i2.jpg

http://www.blujay.com/1/61/1596339_s1_i1.jpg

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Clinton1]

Derek,

Thanks.... mine is different to the Goodall-Pratt one - close but different.
I have one of the Stanleys - When I saw this one I thought the design would make it a better tool, an if I can get this up and working then the Stanley will be sold.

Paul, no marks at all.

The adjustable arms are leading me to think "New Langdon Improved Mitre Box" from 1883? Patent here. (http://www.google.com/patents/US272903?printsec=drawing&dq=272903#v=onepage&q=272903&f=false)
That would put it in Millers Falls catalogues from 1883 - 1923-ish. ???

Do these help anyone?

271241271242

[pmcgee]

Restoring a depression-era Miterbox for a 21st-century workshop: Part 1-Acquisition | Hand Tool Journey-A woodworking show of hands (http://handtooljourney.wordpress.com/2013/02/27/restoring-a-depression-era-miterbox-for-a-21st-century-workshop-part-1-acquisition/)

[Clinton1]

Thanks for the input blokes, but I think I'll put this one down as a Langdon pattern but 'unknown manufacturer'.

The reason I do this is that the saw guides do not have bearings or the 'bedding' for bearing adjustment screws to be fitted.
Also the 'bed' is a milled platform on which the ply has been fixed with what seem to be the original (or, at least, age appropriate) machine screws.
The bed makes me think that the ply is a latter addition, and that originally there may have been a steel bed.
This makes sense to me, but I'm pretty ignorant as to mitre boxes... so who knows. :?

I think that I'll put my energy to getting this up and running instead of this thus far fruitless search to identify the maker. At least I know that it is an American design, so I'll put an appropriate saw to it and (hopefully) get it humming.

What I do know is that the design is both uncomplicated and offers great potential to be a real worker... much better than other designs.

Again, thanks for the input, your assistance is greatly appreciated.

[Clinton1]

Found the patent. (http://www.google.com/patents?id=LQ0_AAAAEBAJ&pg=PA1&dq=272903&source=gbs_selected_pages&cad=1#v=onepage&q=272903&f=false)
:)
David C Rogers, US patent 272,903 of 27 Feb 1883.

Who made it and how it ended up in Esk, Qld... wish old tools could speak.