James Chapman Braces.

[Boringgeoff]

Hi all, I've a few James Chapman made in Sheffield braces in my collection four of which have, after the BRITISH JAC MADE branding, the number 566 in a circle. Two examples in the photo are a No 77 wagon builders brace and a No 43 10in carpenters brace.
Does anyone know the significance of the number 566?
Cheers,
Geoff.

 

[AndyT]

I've had a look everywhere I can think of but can't come up with anything for 566.

There's a whole page on them in Geoffrey Tweedale's Directory of Sheffield Tool Manufacturers but no link that I can see. It's not part of the address, (Industry Tool Works, Woodside Lane) or the phone number, 1392.

James Chapman was born in 1827, started his company in 1863 and was granted the JAC logo as a trademark in 1886, but it's nothing to do with any of those dates. The 1919 edition of the Sheffield register of trademarks only lists the one JAC mark for Chapman's, so 566 probably wasn't a trademark, not that it would have been a very good one. (That list doesn't have any trademarks consisting of numbers. )

I've also looked at my 1937 Churchill's catalogue - https://archive.org/details/churchill-c ... e-51-1937/ - which has several pages of Chapman braces and drills, alongside alternatives from Millers Falls, Goodell-Pratt, Record and their own Comet brand - but no reference to 566 as far as I can see.

I reckon it's a mystery

 

[Boringgeoff]

Thanks for your time Andy.
Of the four, apart from No 77, they are all C or D grade braces according to the catalogue, so non of their A & B grade braces, that I've seen, have been branded 566.
I agree, it's a mystery.
Cheers,
Geoff.

 

[Argus]

Is there a vestige of a war Office arrow, surrounded by a 'C' in the middle ?
Perhaps an owner's inventory number.

 

[Alf]

Is there a vestige of a war Office arrow, surrounded by a 'C' in the middle ?

Maker's "JAC" trademark, methinks.

I had two thoughts for whatever they might be worth; firstly, could it be a reference to the grade of material used. But I may have been hobnobbing with fountain pens too long with that one. The other is that Chapman made a shed load of braces for, well, nearly everyone, and could it be a mistaken imprint of someone else's model number.

But more importantly, I'm most envious of that big ol' 77. Nice.

 

[Boringgeoff]

Thanks Argus and Alf, yes that's the intertwined JAC trade mark first registered by James Chapman in 1894.
Alf, sadly the thumbscrew on the No 77 is not original, much to my annoyance.
One of my examples with the 566 is a 10in very similar to the No 43 although it doesn't have that number on it. As well as BRITISH JAC MADE (566) these are it's marks. The 1945 is very loaded towards indicating a date but could be something else.
What reawakened my interest was a post on another site of a socket set to be used in a brace which I've stolen a very poor quality screen shot of.
The owner of this set say's that one of the sockets has the number 566 cast into it, what a coincidence! This set is located in America, but what if it was made in the UK?
I had thought the number could be a production line number but chucked that idea because of the differing styles from No77 to the No's 42 & 43. Perhaps it was an owner ID for a company or Gov't department, which may have had a substantial order with Chapmans?
Cheers,
Geoff.

 

[Argus]

My eyesight's not what it was, combined with 80-odd years of wear, the makers initials is very likely - so, well spotted.

Also the arrow in the photo probably is a War Office mark, denoting a bulk Government supply..... which went on went on everything owned by the British Government and I think persisted on supplies up to about the 1950s.
You are probably right about the date year date, too.

The other numbers? Who knows!

 

[AndyT]

If we're looking at examples from the war years, the old firm of Chapman's had been absorbed into Stanley as their UK manufacturing base since the late 1930s.

Presumably they kept the Chapman/Acorn brands alive for some years? And possibly the extra numbers are something that made sense to the Stanley management as existing lines were brought into the Stanley inventory.

If these tools were made for the military, I know that in later decades goods were specified as having to have NATO stock codes on - could these numbers be something like that? (Perhaps not if the same number is on different types.)

 

[Boringgeoff]

I have seen two variations of branding on the chuck shells of Chapman's lower grade braces before they became Stanley. Earlier models read: Manufactured by J.A. Chapman Sheffield England.
Later, transitional (my term): J. A. CHAPMAN. MADE IN ENGLAND. BY STANLEY WORKS, (GB) LTD.
As I was checking these I realised that although I thought that all the 566 were the earlier Chapman branded I found two of the later Stanley transitional branded chuck shells a No 43 and a No 66 also showing the 566.
This raises more questions than answers and one thing to be remembered is that chuck shells could easily be swapped from brace to brace, making it even harder, over time to be 100% accurate.
Cheers,
Geoff.

 

[AndyT]

I wonder what the method was for marking all that lettering around the body of the chuck? It surely can't have been by hammering individual letter or word stamps, such as were used to mark small tools like chisels.

 

[MY63]

Is it possible that 566 is the hardness grade of steel used to make the product?

 

[Vann]

I know this has come up before. I've tried a search at 'the other place" but came up with nothing. Maybe it was in personal correspondence with boringeoff many years ago, or maybe on Alf's wonderful site (defunct since 2014).

I recall a 566, and possibly a 565, on a couple of braces.

I will continue to scratch the grey matter.

Cheers, Vann.

 

[Boringgeoff]

Andy, I assume the stamp would have been pressed in with some sort of roller mechanism, fairly complex to ensure not to squash the chuck shell out of shape.
I had wondered, also, if the 566 could be a steel grading, but others, the same model, don't carry the number.
Vann, I tried to find previous conversations on this subject, but couldn't find anything, though I'm sure we have talked about it.
Cheers,
Geoff.