What possible reason would a tool have to be slightly to one side? I think that's a clue that
supports a modified standard claw hammer IMO. Thanks for the riddle! It's interesting. It doesn't
make sense. Not because it doesn't have a claw, but because the balance would be off significantly.
Looks like something a shoemaker might be able to deal with or handle as well.
Last edited by SR69; 09-16-2012 at 07:12 PM.
That poll looks like and old Hart. I actually have two hammers like that. One is a Hart and the other is a lightweight cheapo that i put a short haandle on. I cut the claws off of both. I use them for formwork like nailing on chamfer strips on anything inside the forms after the forms are buttoned up or there is rebar in the way. They are both at work so sorry no pics.
I won't pretend to know the science behind it, but speaking from the experience
of actually using it for years, I can sink a 16D nail with less swings than a steel
hammer. It really is an amazing evolution of the hammer. It's lighter so one
develops more speed within the same swing, it's easier to control, easier to
focus the hit on the nail and again, the overwhelming majority of the blunt
force goes into the nail instead of back into the user's arm.
The drawbacks are that it's a softer metal so the milling (if you prefer milled faces)
wears faster, but it's not anything that any intelligent user can't re-mill with a file.
Plus, because of the extensive use of pneumatic nailers, one doesn't use it near as
much as one would if they were just hand-banging. There's a learning curve at first
(just as there is with any new tool), but once you get passed that, it's a dream.
If you use one, you won't know how you ever worked without one. While they average
at $100., you can occasionally find them on promotions. I paid $100. for my 1st one,
but my 2nd Stiletto I got on a promotion where I took my apprentice to a local tool
store (Western Tool) to surprise him with one for his birthday, and the clerk told me
about a promotion where I could get a 2nd hammer free with a trade-in. So, I went
to my truck, picked up a beater hammer (probably $5. brand new) and turned it in.
BOOM! I got both Stilettos for $100. Gave him one and kept the 14oz for me.
There was just a promotion where they had a package deal worth over $300. for
about $120. or so which included 2 Stilettos, their Stiletto Claw Bar (an 8 ounce
Cat's Paw that is incredible to use), 1 hand-wrap for a handle and a Stiletto branded
Framer's Tool Bag. So, if you come across one of those promotions, it's worth a look.
Or, even if you buy one at full price (I've seen them as low as $80.), you can easily
sell it if you don't like it and get back at least 2/3's of your money on it. Vaughn and
Dalluge also make really beautiful examples.
Of course I still love and use my Estwings, but The Stiletto is my go to tool now.
The Estwing is when I want something indestructible. Besides, any real craftsman
knows you can't have "too many" tools!
From what I remember of high school physics:
Kinetic Energy = Mass (Velocity^2)
So if you double mass, and keep the same velocity, you double the Energy you apply to the target.
If you keep the same mass, and double the velocity, you will almost square the Energy you apply to the target.
If you reduce the mass, and triple the velocity, you will be applying more than the square of the original energy to the target.
At least this theory works for regular objects like driving nails into pine and automobile crash tests. It is fairly static with a minimal amount of outside variables.
Not so much when discussing "stopping power" and terminal ballistics do to all the variables involved. (Note: more Kinetic Energy is better if you want a "bang-flop" type of hunting scenario)
This also explains why a car that has a 5 star crash rating at 35 miles per hour (velocity) completely disintegrates at 70 miles per hour. As the velocity has doubled, the Kinetic energy has been squared (Note:minus wind resistance upon deceleration if you want a real world variable).
Looks factory to me. What's the surface finish look like compared to the rest of the tool? Lots of specialist hammers used to exist, and I'm willing to bet it was made for a task or profession that's no longer around, or at least uncommon enough not to support manufacturing such an odd tool. [42B (attempted multiquote)]
The surface is a uniform smooth brown. It looks factory to me too, but it might have been cropped by a perfectionist. At least if the outside of the eye was always a tapered oval like the inside.
Don't let the looks fool you but this hammer became my number 1 hammer and i wouldn't trade it. The long pole can reach into a corner like no other without bashing your fingers. And the claw can really dig out a nail.
Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler.
Member No.1, OCD (Obsessive Cutlery Disorder) support group.
That clawless hammer has to be a one-off or modified hammer.
It's vintage, so the patina being uniform doesn't prove it's not
necessarily. It could've been modified when it was new.
Who would need/use a hammer that they wouldn't
have to pull nails/staples/fasters with?
Who would need/use such a light hammer.
We can immediately know tradesworkers out of consideration.
Carpenters, Roofers, Masons, Plumers...gone.
This has to be a hammer that was used for some type of crafting.
I'm thinking leather worker, shoemaker, maybe a tinknocker or a
coppersmith. Something light.
The top looks "lopped-off". I don't see a curve that would led to a claw.
Last edited by SR69; 09-18-2012 at 04:11 AM.
Tinsmith is a good guess. I just used it for the first time to drive a picture hook way up close to a cabinet-bottom, and it was good for that too.
Here are a couple more pictures, but then maybe we should each assume we're right until proven wrong to our own satisfaction. I don't think we're going to change each others' minds.
I think a rectangular eye like the Vaughan could not be ground into this shape, but a teardrop eye like the the big Chinese hammer could.
Last edited by scrteened porch; 09-18-2012 at 03:49 PM.
Joints and tendons question:
For those of you who use a hammer enough to hurt yourself with the all-steel, do you have an opinion whether the problem is weight, or balance, or vibration, or shock, or something else?
That's a pre-1840 clawless hammer piece of museum you got yourself here.
According to "A Natural History of the Screwdriver and the Screw" by Witold Rybczynski:
"Pulling nails exerts heavy pressure on the handle, which risks being pulled out of its socket, or eye. Medieval English claw hammers sometimes had two metal straps that reinforced the connection to the handle. An American was responsible for the modern form of the claw hammer. In 1840, a Connecticut blacksmith, inspired by the adze, added a tapered neck that extended down the hammer handle, resulting in the so-called adze-eye hammer, which survives to this day. "
I found this very interesting and hope other do, too.
Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/When_was_t...#ixzz26rU4sztB
Isn't that more evidence of it actually being modified, then?
I'm a carpenter and built my own forge. I have a lot of different hammers.
I have a two 22oz Estwing as my main hammers for work. A 32 OZ Craftsman Ball Pein hammer, 3lb hand drilling hammer and a home made oak mallet for chiesle work.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)