Thread: Extreme Wadkinitus

DJ 361 test 1322



interesting what he says about Wadkin's records. The ad date 1933

Originally Posted by jgforsberg

DJ 361 test 1322

Thanks Jack - added to list.

Originally Posted by jgforsberg

interesting what he says about Wadkin's records.

I guess that ties in with Mark's (wallace) dating data - no info before 1937.

Cheers, Vann.

Nice old bandsaw, very heavily made. It had the same Wadkin bandsaw fence that the DR uses with all the holes in the table, I wonder if he has it, though he uses a nice long fence for ripping.
The interviewer was annoying.

So that MN has a test no of 27 more than that bandsaw so if his guess is right then it's probably pre WWI as well.

I still haven't seen any proof for the idea that the numbers start at 100.
If you are supposedly making all these variations and then starting with your standard model at 100 where is the evidence that this was the case. I think it's just fantasy but maybe someone will come up with something to prove it. If there were new models made after 1937 when the records start then there should be some proof that they started at 100.
There was several years of very serious promotion of the "other" dating system and that proved to be fantasy so I think this will probably be the same.
I remain very sceptical of this idea.

Have fun,
Alli

Originally Posted by Allison74

...I still haven't seen any proof for the idea that the numbers start at 100.
If you are supposedly making all these variations and then starting with your standard model at 100 where is the evidence that this was the case. I think it's just fantasy but maybe someone will come up with something to prove it. If there were new models made after 1937 when the records start then there should be some proof that they started at 100.
There was several years of very serious promotion of the "other" dating system and that proved to be fantasy so I think this will probably be the same.
I remain very sceptical of this idea.

I wondered, if we could find what year a model was launched (as suggested by Alli) and then check what machine numbers are allocated in the first year. Then inter and extrapolation might give us an indication of whether there's anything to this "start at 100" theory - but...

1) I don't think Wadkin were very good at dating their cattledogs/flyers (so we'd never know exactly which year a model was launched); and
2) the serial and test numbers seem a bit random anyway (particularly in the early years).

For example, looking at the MA mortiser.

Pre-1937
4501 - MA 263 - UK;

1938
9510 - MA 137 - UK;

1942
18929 - MA 482 - UK;

1945
24965 - MA 490 - UK;
27390 - MA 563 – UK;

1947
27918 - MA 580 - UK;

1949
34218 - MA 853 - UK;

1951
39932 - MA 1119 - UK;

1952
41563 - MA 1195 - UK;

1956
54000 - MA 1503 - Australia;

Most of the numbers are sequential, but the first two are way out.

Another long running model is the RS lathe.

Pre-1937
3197 - RS 133 – New Zealand (RIP);
7671 - RS 115 – UK;

1944
22749 - RS 712 - South Africa;

1949
34664 - RS 1047 - UK;

1950
37564 - RS 1126 - UK;

1951
41072 - RS 1233 (RS 10) - Canada;
41075 - RS 1236 (RS 6) - Canada;

1952
42578 - RS 1291 - Canada;

1953
45723 - RS 1404 - UK;
45839 - RS 1409 - Australia;
46020 - RS 1415 - Canada;

1957
56040 - RS 3777 (RS8) - Canada.

Again most are sequential, but the first two make no sense.

That last lathe - RS 3777 - has got to be a typo on my part. There's no way 2352 of the previous 10,020 machines were all RS lathes (surely?)

Cheers, Vann.

Originally Posted by Allison74

Nice old bandsaw, very heavily made. It had the same Wadkin bandsaw fence that the DR uses with all the holes in the table, I wonder if he has it, though he uses a nice long fence for ripping.
The interviewer was annoying.
Alli

I noticed the guards are a little different, missing are the wadkin hubcaps on the doors ?!
The early catalogs show the 24 inch as a DH, 30 inch as DN and 36 inch as DO
I like how he takes the tension of and sets a reminder, I think people who don't are like people who don't drink, and not to be trusted.

Melbourne Matty.

Originally Posted by Allison74

Nice old bandsaw, very heavily made. It had the same Wadkin bandsaw fence that the DR uses with all the holes in the table, I wonder if he has it, though he uses a nice long fence for ripping.
The interviewer was annoying.


Alli

The craftsman is the son of this man (harry Lawton) the interviewer is a guitar maker that works mostly with hand tools so his machine knowledge is limited to consumer grade .

Originally Posted by L.S.Barker1970

I noticed the guards are a little different, missing are the wadkin hubcaps on the doors ?!
The early catalogs show the 24 inch as a DH, 30 inch as DN and 36 inch as DO
I like how he takes the tension of and sets a reminder, I think people who don't are like people who don't drink, and not to be trusted.

Melbourne Matty.

here is another cut of the DJ and after looking again its from 1915. don't see guards Matty less the wood one



interesting to note that both plain and ball bearings are offered. Both cuts show the plain bearing with oilers

I once asked my guy in the know if he could explain the dating/test thing, this is his response.

Yes they did batch production and that could have been on the basis of 1 Previous year sales figures for any particular model,+ a few more just in case.
2 The landing of a large contract for a number of one machine, on top of the average year figures.
3 Forward orders especially from abroad.


As to the year numbering, that would be O K if they sold all they made in that year, and assuming the batch was done on firm orders anyway. They would not want large quantities of unsold 'stock' especially complete machines.Saying that,because often delivery /production dates could be several months,If you have one or two unsold into the next year and someone wants one pronto, they could deliver it within days and gain a happy bunny customer. !! There is a possibility that machines unsold into the next year may well have been given the new year number but that gets complicated if there is a new model of the same machine introduced in that year as well.
Unsold stock is not good for sales figures either' regardless whether they are numbered or not.Is giving all machines a number straight away good for 'production figures' ?.
In the end the numbering of machines was for internal record only and would indicate a record of all the component parts that make up the machine.
If by some misfortune they were inadvertently left with a quantity of unsold /un-numbered machines I suspect they would shift them out to their agents and so land them with the problem of shifting them fast

Originally Posted by Vann

...Another long running model is the RS lathe.

Pre-1937
3197 - RS 133 – New Zealand (RIP);
7671 - RS 115 – UK;

1944
22749 - RS 712 - South Africa;

1949
34664 - RS 1047 - UK;

1950
37564 - RS 1126 - UK;

1951
41072 - RS 1233 (RS 10) - Canada;
41075 - RS 1236 (RS 6) - Canada;

1952
42578 - RS 1291 - Canada;

1953
45723 - RS 1404 - UK;
45839 - RS 1409 - Australia;
46020 - RS 1415 - Canada;

1957
56040 - RS 3777 (RS8) - Canada.

Again most are sequential, but the first two make no sense.

That last lathe - RS 3777 - has got to be a typo on my part. There's no way 2352 of the previous 10,020 machines were all RS lathes

Venturing into the Bursgreen era we get:

1962
66521 - RS 2108 - UK;
67096 - RS 2118;

1964
71077 - RS 2223.

So going back to Test 56040, the serial number is almost certainly RS 1777. And a closer perusal of the tag suggests it is RS 1777.

RS1777a.jpg

Cheers, Vann.

Originally Posted by wallace1973

I once asked my guy in the know if he could explain the dating/test thing, this is his response.

Yes they did batch production and that could have been on the basis of
1 Previous year sales figures for any particular model,+ a few more just in case.
2 The landing of a large contract for a number of one machine, on top of the average year figures.
3 Forward orders especially from abroad.

Interest - thanks for that.

Originally Posted by wallace1973

...Unsold stock is not good for sales figures either' regardless whether they are numbered or not.Is giving all machines a number straight away good for 'production figures' ?.
In the end the numbering of machines was for internal record only and would indicate a record of all the component parts that make up the machine...

It looks like some of the early RS and MA (and no doubt others) sat in stock for many years in the pre-1937 era.

If Test 1322 (DJ 361) dates to ~1915, and Test No. 8081 dates to 1937, that indicates approximately 6760 machines over 22 years - or an average of 310 machines were tested each year.

That would suggest RS 133 was tested (3197) and shipped to New Zealand about 1922, while earlier numbered RS 115 sat in the store until tested (7671) and sold to an English buyer about 1935 = 13+ years later .

Similarly, MA 263 was tested (4501) and sold about 1926, while older sibling MA 137 was tested (9510) and sold in 1938 (both to UK buyers) = 12+ years.

I guess WW2 would have cleared out all machines in stock (my PK was ordered in 1943, but not dispatched until 1945 - suggesting a shortage) and after that they probably had better stock control (although my RTA 380 and Mark's former RTA 405 aren't sequential either - but not by a huge margin, and both were tested in 1951).

Of course, this is all just speculation.

Cheers, Vann.

Vann what your list is actually begin to show are patterns and I believe it's through the speculation that we will derive a most comprehensive understanding. . Even Mr. Roberts AKA Wallace 1973 information received from an ex-Wadkin employ on test numbers is somewhat contrived in the number of years. I don't suspect were ever going to get proof of anything . As to speculation of early sequence numbers my thoughts are related to direct developments of model changes . the numbering start again for instance when the MA or the RS development of motor drives or options ? Obviously this sort of thing caused problems and maybe why it was solved with additional letters in the model in the Inc. years . Additionally the development in the first years is truly boggling with all the special machinery before the classic range and complete shop is offered . Add to this that there were other manufactures involved it's consistency would at best be hard to manage as a newly merged company . As a public company they would have to have their books in order . There's obvious proof that the test department existed prior to a corporation so there must be some sort of correlation . Another problem with model sequence numbers test numbers is we don't know when the machine was given a sequence number . Was the sequence number given at the casting stage and if failed castings Were destroyed then did castings made at a later date receiving unused sequence number? There are clues in the stamping of the test number that they were stamped in the test department as most just are no as even and the others stamped numbers . Does this mean the tags were prepared in the beginning at the casting stage. There is still one last thing in that the same model had some casting differences if it was DC for instance so could be in inventory for many years.

Originally Posted by jgforsberg

Vann what your list is actually begin to show patterns and I believe it's through the speculation but will derive most comprehensive understanding what your list does is actually begin to show patterns and I believe it's through the speculation but will derive most comprehensive understand .

I have to say I enjoy the speculation, and will keep adding to the list as additional numbers come to hand.

Originally Posted by jgforsberg

...ANother problem with model sequence numbers test numbers is we don't know when the machine was given a sequence number . Was the sequence number given at the casting stage and if failed castings Were destroyed them could did castings made at later date receiving Unused sequence number?

Here my thinking is biased by my railway workshops background - each build was allocated a number, and even in the unlikely event that every component was faulty and had to be replaced, the finished wagon/carriage/locomotive would still bear the same number (a bit like grandpa's axe - 2 new heads and 5 new handles, but it's still the same old axe!). But I suppose you're right, we have no way of knowing if there are unused, or re-used, numbers in the sequence.
Looks like I'm speculating again .

Cheers, Vann.

A little more speculation using logical deduction . In looking at the test numbers it's logical that if every machine got a test number then the test number represents total machines built . So let's look at the example of the DJ. If 361 represents the total DJs made then at that test number sequence DJs represents 25% of the machines built . Although this is not proff that machines started at 100 it's certainly points things in that direction as that is simply not possible for the bandsaws to represent 25% of all machines built As the range was well larger than four machines and I wouldn't say bandsaws was the most popular . The RB must simply have the seven added perhaps it was a scratch Vann

Originally Posted by jgforsberg

A little more speculation using logical deduction . In looking at the test numbers it's logical that if every machine got a test number then the test number represents total machines built . So let's look at the example of the DJ. If 361 represents the total DJs made then at that test number sequence DJs represents 25% of the machines built . Although this is not proff that machines started at 100 it's certainly points things in that direction as that is simply not possible for the bandsaws to represent 25% of all machines built As the range was well larger than four machines and I wouldn't say bandsaws was the most popular . The RB must simply have the seven added perhaps it was a scratch Vann

If 361 represents the total DJs made then at that test number sequence DJs represents 25% of the machines built

This is an example of logical deduction and that's valid.

All the rest is purely speculation unless you have some way of knowing what other machines were made and in what proportions you cannot make any logical deductions about the rest of the matters that you raise. Logical deductions require facts to act as the premise to base the conclusions on otherwise the conclusion is not logically valid.

Have fun,
Alli