Thread: Stanley Australia Braces.HELP!

Is there any information on what the differences are between the different Stanley brace models.
What is the difference between the 73 and 78. Did they have a difference focus or is one a premium model with extra ball bearings and/or a better chuck. The UK also made a 75 model. How does it compare.
I can't seem to find anything online.

Hi Hiroller,

They are both good quality user braces and the only difference between the 73 and 78 are the style of jaws they're equipped with.
The 78 uses the "conventional" type that has a wire spring running down the spine of one jaw, does a U turn at the bottom and back up the spine of the other jaw. This serves the purpose of forcing the jaws apart as the chuck shell is unscrewed (opened). The perceived problem with this style is that if you are using a modern cylindrical shank twist drill and exerting a lot of force on the bit you can cause it to slide down and damage the spring where it crosses between the two jaws.
To overcome this problem and also to enable the jaws to open in a more parallel manner when required, No 73 uses a spring that comes down the back of the jaw as usual but instead of turning back up the other jaw it does a right angle turn to the side and goes half way round the shaft and then comes back up the second jaw. You will see by this method, should you force the shank of the bit to the bottom of the jaws the spring is out of harms way. The shaft of the brace between the chuck and the ratchet is substantially thinner to accommodate the spring than on the No 78.
This style of jaw was patented by A Stowell, an employee of Stanley USA on the 13 September 1929 (1,880,521) which was an improvement on the 1918 patent of H E Parker (1,270,754). Used on various models in USA the Stowell jaws were introduced to England in the No 73 and later to Australia as the A73.
Both 73 and 78 have various improvements (?) such as plastic heads and handles denoted by MK 2 and 3 after their sweep sizes, which range from 5 to 14 inches in the British sizes and 10 to 14 in Australia. Stanley Australia also had some metric sweep sizes 250 and 300 and 350 mm.
Concerning No 75, just looking at the two, I can see no difference between it and No 78, so can't help you much there, but as usual I'm hoping that someone who does know more will stick his /her five bob's worth in right here...........
Cheers,
Geoff.

You're waiting for someone who knows *more*. Ummmmm ...

Paul

Originally Posted by stuffy

Not a collector, Geoff, just a horder. I don't actively seek them out they just seem to accumulate.

Yup, same here.

I bought a Record eggbeater last week...

Record 123_3.jpg

...it came with two of the damned things. A Stanley No.81 10" and an un-named 10" marked British Made. Both in good nick, but the No.81 has no jaws .

But they're not Aussie braces, so this is off-topic .

Cheers, Vann.

Vann,

how can a brace be in good nick if it's got no jaws? That's an oxymoron, a bit like a boomerang that won't come back.....a stick.
I used to think an oxymoron was a guy that didn't know how to use a gas axe.
I'll have a look and see if I've got a spare set and get back to you.
Cheers
Geoff.

Originally Posted by Boringgeoff

how can a brace be in good nick if it's got no jaws?

You're right of course Geoff. I was referring to the bits that are still there. So I'll rephrase that: "It's in good nick, apart from having no jaws" or if you prefer "It would be in good nick if it had jaws".

Cheers, Vann

Just checked my two only braces Geoff but can't help. My latest model which I bought new in the seventies is an A78 12in Mk3. My second is an old one of my fathers that I've never looked closely at until now.
So off topic I'm sorry - it is a No 102 from JOHN SIFRAY & CO BRIDGEPORT CONN USA (if I'm reading the very faint text correctly)

Vann,
I was having a look in my "spare parts" braces for a set of jaws for your No 81 and suddenly realised I've got about 7 Stanleys with no jaws, you and I could start the Jaws Are Missing Brace Owners Club (JAMBOC). PmGee has got a jawless Millers Falls No 732, so he could join as well.......hmmmm.
No, that wouldn't work, people would deliberately remove the jaws from their braces to become eligible to join.
Thanks Picko, an A78 12IN Mk3 purchased in the 70's is helpful info in dating these Aussie Stanleys.
Cheers,
Geoff.

Originally Posted by Boringgeoff

Vann,
I was having a look in my "spare parts" braces for a set of jaws for your No 81 and suddenly realised I've got about 7 Stanleys with no jaws...

That's okay Geoff, thanks for looking. I will have to cull my... err... assemblage of braces one day. One of the crank handle collars disintergrated on my 8" Skinner recently, so that's going to get stripped for parts, along with a few other hopeless cases. Maybe the jaws from one of those will fit. And my sole Millers Falls brace (a 12") is also jawless.

Of course, having foreign jaws in various chucks will confuse future tool collectors and archeologists alike...

Cheers, Vann.

Vann,
That's a valid point, most makers offered replacement jaws or alternative jaws ie plain or alligator. When identifying a brace you can't really rely on the jaw style unless you've got a number of examples to look at.
The one in my No 81 is Mitchells 1911 US patent (1011227) assigned to the Stanley Rule and Level Co and widely adopted by them. This is what you're looking for, about 2 5/16 in long and a touch under 7/16 thick.
Mitchell Jaw 001.jpg
Cheers,
Geoff.