njanvilman

Definately has the lugs of a Fisher. Overall impression of the first photo is that the anvil is in phenomenal shape. It looks like a Fisher.... If it is affordable, don't wait. I would be all over that one if it was near me.

That shaft is from a "line shaft". Originally mounted on large hanger bearings, and had several more pulleys on it. It was used to get power to various machines mounted below it. I would think it is mild steel. Value as a line shaft is more if it had the bearings and more than the one pulley that is left. I would think it is worth scrap plus a little. If it is mild steel, then it is not the best hammer head material.

I think you are giving Crossley too much credit for advance engineering. If it is a bit softer, so be it. Not much hammering happens on that end. Be careful when hammering on the edges. They are HARD. That is probably the only flaw in the Fisher anvil design. The edges can be super hard. They did no tempering after the hardening process. The edges can chip. Do not let unfamiliar people hammer on the anvil. That is the easiest way to disfigure it. With care, your anvil will last several lifetimes of hammering. However, someone bent on destruction or ignorance can easily damage your pristeen anvil.

Your anvil was made around 1875. It has the letters FN under the horn. That is the first markings that Fisher used that were cast in. The Eagle style and straight horn also define its origin. Some of the pitting is from the casting process. Some is from oxidation. I would leave the anvil as is and just use it. If you want to see the whole Fisher history and learn more about Fisher anvils, contact me for a visit. I am about 2 1/2 hours east of Harrisburg. No one who has ever visited has left disappointed.

Hi Matei Sweet Fisher/Crossley anvil. It looks almost new. The horn does have a high carbon steel plate. This was cast into the anvil when it was poured. However, when Fisher/Crossley hardened the face, they did not heat the horn steel. It only got some heat, but not enough to harden it. The horns on all Fishers are "soft". I would not worry about the end of the anvil being a bit softer than the sweet spot over the main mass. Fisher anvils were made in a low tech fashion. In this era, 1976, Crossley was making the anvils. Their heat treating hardening process was to heat the anvil upside down in a large coal forge until the face plate was a critical temperature. The anvil was then hoisted out with a gantry and swung into a large old iron bathtub with a hose running into it. The quench hardened the anvil. The anvil was then cleaned, painted and tested for hardness. If your anvil is a bit softer on one end, that end might have not cooled as fast as the rest, or cooled differently. Controlled hammering on that part of the anvil will eventually work harden it anyway. Take care of your anvil, use it wisely, and it will last for many generations.

"Secondly, big Fishers are fairly hard to come by. The biggest Fisher that I've ever personally seen is now residing in my "smithy" and I'm very happy to have gotten her for less than $3 per pound. The edges are heavily chipped, but she was more than worth the price I paid and I wouldn't trade her for anything." Trying not to hijack this thread, but just wondering how big your Fisher anvils is VaughnT? If anyone ever wants to see the BIG ones, come to NJ for a visit. I have all the sizes on display from 1/2 lb to 800.

The paper lable was on Fisher anvils in the 1950's. When Crossley made the Fisher anvils in the 1960's and 1970's, they rarely had any markings. By the end of production in 1979, there were no markings on any of their anvils. That is a Fisher anvil. As I stated above, I have one of these exact anvils in my museum. I have seen one other at some time in the past on EBAY(I think). Fisher production in the companies history was over 500,000 units. They made several major changes over the years. I have examples of most of them. However, there are still new example turning up now and then. Fisher also made custom units. Some of these seem to be "one off" models. I have a few, and am still chasing a few others out in the wild. I again repeat my invite to the blacksmithing community and to IFI to contact me for a visit if near NJ, USA sometime. No one has ever visited and not gone away impressed and more knowledgeable about Fisher.

I have a pristine FISHER exactly like yours. This model had the mounting lugs moved to the outsides, not under the main part of the anvil. I believe it was during the Crossley era that this was done. Yours is only the third one of this design that I have seen. I think that anvil is the real thing. Interesting that it was thought of so highly as to move it over 5000 miles. You will probably not find any markings on the anvil. Just check that it has the steel faces. I would grab it if it was in the USA. Remember, there have been no Fisher anvils made in 34 years, and there will probably never will be again.

That extra bit of iron would not affect performance and was probably sold as a #1. However, for a while in the 1880's, Fisher did sell #2 anvils. I have one that had the Eagle chiseled off. The face has a sway in it, and the iron underneath has a bit of "settling". I do not think that they did this for long. Their anvils had a reputation for quality and they had to protect the brand. Most of the "defective" anvils went back into the furnace. This included any that did not survive the face hardening process, or had a soft face or other defect. I have several FISHER anvils with major casting defects. There are a suprising number of them out there. I am amazed at the defects, and that they ever left the foundry.

Nice! Beautiful shop and asphalt too. Be sure to post the interior when done. Thanks.

No, Fisher did not produce the small anvils with holes. However, Fisher always advertised and prided themselves on offering whatever size, shape or custom style of anvil that the customer wanted. So, it is possible that the anvil was ordered specially with the holes done by the factory. This is only conjecture on my part. More than likely the holes were done by a competent machinist with a good solid vise and drill. As the the markings on Fisher anvils, there is no pattern of marking the anvils. I have many anvils that have an Eagle, Fisher, weight, date, and founders marks and patent dates. And many that have some of the above, and some that have none of the above. I will do an inventory of my Fisher anvils as I do my book on the company. There are definate styles of the Eagles by era, and style of the "FISHER" name. As soon as a think I have seen all of the variations, another one turns up.

Look on the sloping base under the hardy hole for a date. If there is no date, take a better picture of the Eagle on the side, the style will indicate the era of manufacture. All FISHERS were made in Trenton, NJ, between 1853 and 1979.

Nice find.

I would think that as long as the rails are in place, it is still considered an active line. And taking rail without permission is probably considered Grand Theft. Homeland Security also does not think too highly of anyone trespassing on rail property. I would not go near any rail line in this day and age. Find out who owns it first, then ask. They might even have pieces they would give away or sell for scrap prices.

I am finally back at work on my Fisher & Norris book. I would like to survey the IFI community as to what size FISHER anvils you presently own, and their vintage(date on the base, if present). I am trying to get an idea of what sizes are there, and to graph the results. Please also include any special anvils and their sizes(sawmakers, farriers, chainmaker). Thanks in advance. I will add in my museum holdings to the count.

Why would you make a mold with a wax pattern? The lost wax process is usually for intricate patterns, usually art sculpture pieces. Look it up, there is lots of information out there. When you make a mold using a clay such as Petrobond, you pack the clay around the pattern, then remove the pattern, cut the gating system, close the mold, and pour. If you are using wax for a pattern, it must be a hard wax, or perhaps freezing the wax, solid enough to pack the clay around. You do NOT burn out wax from a petrobond mold! I hate to sound like a teacher, although I am one, but you have got to do a lot more research before you kill yourself. Molten metal of any type is nothing to experiment with. MANY people have been killed and maimed by hot metal and explosions doing foundry work. Do your homework. Read about it. And keep asking questions BEFORE you experiment.

Gundog48 You are heading to a disaster if you do what you want with the method you describe. I am a 36 year veteran of teaching Metal Shop, which includes a foundry unit. What you need to do is go back and create a two part split pattern. These parts are alligned with pins in the split. Then do a petrobond mold, with each half in the cope and drag. A very large sprue and riser is needed to handle the shrinkage of the aluminum, and slow cooling of the molten metal. I usually applied heat with an O/A torch to the riser as it cools, then covered the mold with more clay. Do not ever pour molten metal into a mold with wax. I cannot figure out how your instructor thinks this will work. You will have an explosion and fire! The only direct casting techniques is to pour into a mold that has a foam pattern packed into a petrobond clay flask. I do not know what type of foam material is used, but I know that as it burns away, it gives off TOXIC fumes. Proper PPE equipment is needed. The finish is the texture of the foam. You need to do more research on patternmaking and foundry practices. Molten metal is nothing to mess with. It can lead to a disaster very quickly.

Interesting piece. If only it could talk, and tell you its history.

Wow. It is terrible that a museum like that is closing. What is to become of its collections? I did not know that this museum even existed. I have been through that area dozens of times in the last 10 years. I would have made it a point to visit. That vise with the face is a work of art. Absolutely amazing. And that anvil and the others in the collection are wonderful too.

They could be used for any type of sheet forming. Definately have a "cool" factor. I like that they can interchange on the post. And that one can work standing up.

Pulse...I am not sure I am following your statement, but the anvil in the Ebay link was not a Fisher. In my thinking, probably worth about $40 or less.

Just to add a bit to the Curmudgeon....Fisher also used a much higher quality steel on the hammer surface. I also suspect that their casting process was far superior to what Vulcan did. They used a less brittle cast iron, and had better cooling and subsequent heat treating. They also made many more anvils than Vulcan. Experience definately paid off. I have an early (1875+ era) Vulcan that is a far superior anvil than their later ones. Their quality definately deteriorated over time.

That Fisher is not a late model, it is an 1860's era Fisher with the small round Eagle holding wheat straw. The A I think indicates 100 lbs. The hole looks like it is a shrinkage hole left from when they did the gating system in the pour. Nothing to worry about. Fisher changed their logo many times. It will all be in my book.

And it looks like it was made in England. Almost looks like a Mousehole brand, although there were many manufacturers of anvils around then. If you clean the side with the horn to the right, you might find some markings of the maker.

If you want more information on FISHER anvils, look up my past posts. Can't find the info you seek, contact me directly or on this forum and I will get you the answer. BTW, Fisher made anvils from the early 1850's to 1979. They were the sole supplier of American made anvils to the North during the Civil War.