Four Mann Men and a couple of patents

rjdankert

rjdankert

Joined
Mar 10, 2011
Messages
2,661
I tried to parse out a condensed history from the "Mann Axe Dynasty of Central Pennsylvania"
https://sites.psu.edu/jpn2016/files/2016/11/Mann-Axe-Dynasty-of-Central-Pennsylvania_Rev-2hutwhk.pdf

I've also included two patents that I thought were interesting.


William Mann Sr made edge tools in Johnstown, NY.
Two of his sons William Jr and Harvey start production in 1825 in Bellefonte, PA.

In 1834 William Jr sells out to Harvey who continues the business.
In 1835 William Jr builds a factory
Two of William Jr's sons join his business, one is Robert.
Robert leaves in 1847 and starts his own factory in 1849.

In 1862 Harvey patents the overlay method.

US35480-0.png

https://www.google.com/patents/US35480


"By 1879, three of Robert’s sons had joined the business." One is Joseph.


Robert's business was sold to the "Axe Trust" ca 1889

William Jr's business was sold to the "Axe Trust" in 1890

Harvey's business was sold to the "Axe Trust" in 1892

In 1893 Joseph is president of the new MANN EDGE TOOL CO. at Lewistown.


Patent of Joseph R. Mann No. 561,409 June 2, 1896


http://www.google.sr/patents/US561409


Bob
 
Thanks, Bob. Very informative post. It's interesting that both methods, inlay and overlay, were in use by 1862.

With the inlayed axe even a worn axe could be drawn out by a blacksmith and he would still have high carbon steel at the bit.
 
1/8" more steel? Mann's own patent above shows 1-1/2" more usable steel. We've seen plenty of axes on here where the temper line is near or at the end of the bit. If those are overlaid axes then they're already past the hardenable steel.

And I've never seen an axe where the steel or iron behind the bit abraided away so I see little advantage to the 'larger steel surface'.

I can't speak as to why one type of connection would be stronger than the other. The forge welds appear to have similar surface areas.
 
rjdankert said:
Which Mann (Harvey or Joseph) and where is the 1 1/2" indicated?
Bob
Click to expand...

"The advantage claimed in favor of the inserted bit is 1/8 inch more available steel."

I was being generous. It's probably more like 3" of extra usable hardened steel. Assume a standard full size eye of 2-7/16" wide. The insert gives you much more than 1/8", more like 3 inches. What would you estimate is the dimension indicated by the ?" ? Does it look like more than 1/8"?

Insert%20vs%20Overlay3.jpg
 
Square_peg said:
Does it look like more than 1/8"?
Click to expand...
It most certainly does! But the purpose of the patent is to show the buyer how much steel is in an inserted bit. What he is saying is that fig. 3 is an example of a bit with a small amount of steel. He is not saying that ALL inserted bits are that way. Comparing figs 3 to 4 is apples and oranges when it comes to overlaid vs inserted.



"For example, the body of the ax may be made of low grade steel and the bit of high-grade steel, the latter adapted to receive the requisite temper to hold a sharp cutting edge. The differences in cost between the low and high grade steels is considerable, and therefore, while it is necessary to the production of a thoroughly serviceable tool to employ a certain proportion of the high-grade steel, it is nevertheless practicable for an unscrupulous manufacturer to derive a considerable profit by omitting to use such a proportion of high grade steel as may be necessary to produce a first-class article."

"My invention is designed to facilitate the detection of attempts to practice fraudulent imposition and to afford means for readily discriminating between an inferior and a superior article."


Bob
 
Up until the 1920s or so high carbon steel was still at a premium price. Top quality steel was cast from the crucible. Plumb was one of the first to move beyond crucible steel (1910-ish?). To create an overlaid bit of equal depth to an insert would have come at considerable expense during that early industrial period of crucible steel. The overlay would have had to begin just in front of the eye.

I'm just pointing out that Robert Mann's catalog jargon was clearly a piece of marketing akin to what we're seeing from Hardcore Hammers today. The 1/8" number has no validity that I can see. The high carbon steel depth of an insert is inherently deeper than an overlay. If Mann was making axes with overlay back to the eye then I would love to see an example.
 
rjdankert said:
It most certainly does! But the purpose of the patent is to show the buyer how much steel is in an inserted bit. What he is saying is that fig. 3 is an example of a bit with a small amount of steel. He is not saying that ALL inserted bits are that way. Comparing figs 3 to 4 is apples and oranges when it comes to overlaid vs inserted.



"For example, the body of the ax may be made of low grade steel and the bit of high-grade steel, the latter adapted to receive the requisite temper to hold a sharp cutting edge. The differences in cost between the low and high grade steels is considerable, and therefore, while it is necessary to the production of a thoroughly serviceable tool to employ a certain proportion of the high-grade steel, it is nevertheless practicable for an unscrupulous manufacturer to derive a considerable profit by omitting to use such a proportion of high grade steel as may be necessary to produce a first-class article."

"My invention is designed to facilitate the detection of attempts to practice fraudulent imposition and to afford means for readily discriminating between an inferior and a superior article."


Bob
Click to expand...

Great thread.
I just learned a lot.
Thank you Bob

Square_peg said:
Up until the 1920s or so high carbon steel was still at a premium price. Top quality steel was cast from the crucible. Plumb was one of the first to move beyond crucible steel (1910-ish?). To create an overlaid bit of equal depth to an insert would have come at considerable expense during that early industrial period of crucible steel. The overlay would have had to begin just in front of the eye.

I'm just pointing out that Robert Mann's catalog jargon was clearly a piece of marketing akin to what we're seeing from Hardcore Hammers today. The 1/8" number has no validity that I can see. The high carbon steel depth of an insert is inherently deeper than an overlay. If Mann was making axes with overlay back to the eye then I would love to see an example.
Click to expand...

and thank you Square Peg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top