Union Hill Antique Tools - My Philosophy on Typing and Rating Tools

Antique tool collecting is rapidly coming of age, and there are already many volumes on information on tools of all kinds, the manufacturers who made the tools, and the rarity and value of the tools. Two very popular ways to describe tools are via type studies and with a quality rating system.

Type Studies

Type studies are attempts by tool affectionados to track the development of a specific tool through the years of its manufacture. For example, the Stanley #45 combination plane has been subjected to numerous type studies. The type study allows a collector to say that his #45, having a flowered fence but no inscription thereon, must be a Type 1 and was therefore manufactered in either 1884 or 1885. Often, in catalogs of old tools for sale, you will see the tool described as (for example) "Stanley #45, type 13."

The problem with type studies, in my opinion, are twofold:

As new information is researched, and as additional tools are uncovered, type studies must be redone to add categories for those tools that don't match the existing types. As an example, see the updated type study of the Miller's patent planes done by the Jacob Brothers in spring 1996. This new type study was published in John Walters' Stanley Tool Collector News. What used to be your prized type 2 plane just became your type 3, because a new type was inserted between the old types 1 and 2. Now, when you describe your new Miller's patent plane as a type 3 to your friends, do you mean the old type 3 or the new type 3?
Tool manufacturers, and subsequent owners, didn't know about or care about the modern type studies done to aid the collector today. Parts are interchanged among tools not only by current owners, but also previous owners (for whom collecting tools was rather ludicrous), and even the original manufacturers themselves. There are numerous documented cases of Stanley Tool, for example, using up the last bit of one plane piece on the next batch. It is these details, in fact, that make typing tools possible in the first place.

I have participated in these type studies myself, and know firsthand these shortcomings. Therefore, I propose (and will use on this web site) that tools should not be described with a arbitrary type number, but instead the date of manufacture should be used as a descriptor. The manufacture date should be estimated as closely as possible, but tool users and collectors should realize that our records of the past centuries when these tools were producd are incomplete, and a absolute date may not be possible.

Furthermore, regarding the swapping of parts on tools, I believe that this practice should be restricted as much as possible. On the tools that I sell, I have tried to ensure (to the best of my knowledge) that all parts are proper -- that is, that the manufacturer of the tool would have offered the tool in that configuration originally. I note any deviation from this policy in the tool description.

Rating Systems

The most popular tool rating system today was established by Vernon Ward and the Fine Tool Journal (FTJ) quite a number of years ago. This system was developed to provide a concise evaluation of the tools original finishes and usability. I reproduce that system here:

This system is almost universally used now, and so suggesting a change may seem like some sort of luddite heresy to some, but the FTJ system does have some drawbacks. For one thing, there is not enough flexibility within each grade for my taste -- which explains why you'll often see G++ used to describe a tool that falls in the FTJ's G+ category, but towards the high end. For another, almost all dealers tend to alter the scale with older tools -- "accounting for their age and rarity". Of course, such grading differentials differ with each dealer, making the tool even tougher to evaluate.

I propose a 1-100 rating system for tools, with grades as follows:

1-10	Junk tools, with the grade in this range roughly approximating the percentage of usable parts. For example, a grade of 8 would mean the tool is unusable, but 80% of its parts are usable/good.
11-20	Tools with one major repair required to make them usable. For example, perhps the joint of a rule needs repair.
21-30	Tools in Poor condition (FTJ scale), with some range for variations.
31-40	Tools in Fair condition (FTJ scale), with some range for variations.
41-50	Tools in Good- condition (FTJ scale), with some range for variations.
51-60	Tools in Good condition (FTJ scale), with some range for variations.
61-70	Tools in Good+ condition (FTJ scale), with some range for variations.
71-80	Tools in Fine condition (FTJ scale), with some range for variations.
81-90	Tools in New condition (FTJ scale), with some range for variations.
91-200	Tools in New condition (FTJ scale), in the box. Variation in this range exists mostly to describe the box condition.

Of course, this 1-100 scale is also susceptible to some of my criticisms above, but I think its advantages make it preferable. Even though I prefer the 1-100 scale of rating tools, I will bow to convention and use the FTJ system on the tools advertised here.