humphreymachine

Two recent acquisitions. 188 LB Mouse Hole and? Not sure who made the top example but thinking it may be another M&H?  

Great information. They don't appear to have incorporated the integral handles in the larger sawer's anvils(although I could see an advantage in having two handles(one at each end) on the larger ones). Any idea what the cutoff weight for integral handles was?

I think you are correct Foundryman. On closer examination the body of the one on the right appears to be wood and probably the example on the left as well. 

Impressive collection. What is the story with the example in the upper left and the one to its right? There appears to be a dovetail connection between a cast block and steel plate? What was the largest weight sawer's anvil commonly stocked by Fisher?

No weight stamp that I can find.

Is this the standard base appearance for all Fisher anvils? 

Thank you njanvilman - an educated approximation was just what I was looking for.  Were these never cast with the weight designation on the base? Were they sold by weight or face size? I would have assumed that were sold in 250 - 300 - 350 - 400 etc etc or similar pound increments and casting patterns made to suit.  Another member suggested that these have harder faces than London style anvils. Can you confirm this? Thank you everyone else for your suggestions. The lack of horn and heal make it rather unwieldy so it may have been a while before I got around to performing the water displacement test. Great idea though   

Thank you everyone for the replies. PaperPatched - thank you for the images. if yours is close to 13" high then our weights should be similar. Njanvilman - I was going to ask whether the black paint might be original. Don't worry - I like to leave my tools in as found 'old surface'. I look forward to hear what you have to say about weights.  

I am guessing/hoping/assuming that someone here will have the answer. I just unloaded it with gravity in my favor. It's not going back in my vehicle any time soon. It does not appear 100 pounds heavier than my 300 hundred pound London style Fisher and it does not appear to have as much mass as 2 200 pound anvils but it can be tough to tell. They are bottom heavy, chunky and hard to move without the natural hand holds on a traditional anvil.

Bought this 1941 Fisher sawer's anvil today. No numerical weight mark like I am accustomed to but there are four vertical lines or '1's. Is it a 400 pounder? I would have guessed closer to 300 pounds but it can be tough to tell with these chunky non London pattern anvils. 13 inches high. 12.5 x 7 inch top face with canted corners. 16 3/4  x 12.5 inch foot print. 

It does not feel solved to me. It is still not clear to me what kind of tradesman would have used this and why he would have wanted this pattern to protrude from his work rather than be stamped into it? Could it be a silversmith's tool which has taken on the patina of a blacksmith's tool? I don't envision using this texture in my work which raises the question - sand out the embossing or preserve it as an artifact/collectible tool?

I wonder whether this might emboss the pattern in the end of silver and silver plate spoons and ladles? 

There is a new twist to this discussion as revealed in the photograph below. What I thought were several hammer marks in the face which I would need to sand out turned out upon cleaning to be two graduated sets of intentionally formed geometric shapes. Both sets of three loosely resemble battle axes or garden edgers. One set of three is nearly semicircular while the other is more pointed. Presumably these are intended to impart a maker's mark or repetitive patterns which protrudes from a piece of work rather than embossed into it.  So what do you think now?

The name does appear to begin with an S so it may well be a SISCO but the logo outline looks more like the sketch below. Do you know whether they changed their logo over the years? Do you know over what span of years anvils were marked SISCO?

It would fit nicely in an anvil with a 2 inch hardy hole. Do larger anvils have holes that large? Could be used in a swage block as well.

Thank you for your input everyone. Jim - this example is forged iron or steel - that is scale on the post. Given the lack of rust I don't think that it is terribly old(or it was stored in a very 'friendly' environment). Frosty - I agree with your "why" query but I do seem to see smaller hardies which are merely a square or rectangular block on a hardie stem.   

I can’t decide whether this is a stump anvil or a hardie for a giant anvil. It may also me a tinsmith’s tool but the post is not tapered enough to fit my stake plates. What do you think?

Any thoughts on who made this cast steel London pattern anvil? I bought it on Friday assuming that it was a Peter Wright or similar make but upon closer examination found that it is a cast steel example with a clear parting line and some gas bubbles seen on the base and underside of the horn. It is almost impossible to see in person and in the photographs but the last photograph shows what I believe to be a small logo with the writing contained in a rectangle with curved ends or a similar geometric shape. I have not weighed it yet but it appears to be stamped 151 which feels about right as a weight in pounds.

Recently picked up this large bolt heading vice manufactured by B B Noyes of Greenfield Mass. Their 1904 catalog refers to it as a, “No 8 bolt header” and states that the dies are made of steel and that it was designed to head bolts between ½ diameter and 1 ½ inches in diameter and up to 26 inches long. It cost $50 as compared to their 62” cone mandrel which was priced at $16. Note the die storage shelves integrally cast into the main column. The foot peddle clamps the two dies together 

Thanks again everyone. I will be away for several days but will take a closer look at the anvil when I return. The paint is quite thin and I am fairly confident that there is not a serial number under it but I’ll take another look. I’m leaning toward a Trenton as several of you have suggested.

I have had two Hay Buddens both of which had much cruder hourglass impressions in the base. Is this common for this manufacturer or did I end up with two oddballs?

Thank you for your responses everyone.

NoName - I will look for photos of other "American" anvils.

Arkie - I need to find a copy of Anvils in America 

Fatfudd - I will search for some images of Trenton anvils. The hourglass base impression is neater than that on the Hay Buddens I have seen. 

Scrambler82 – I have not tested the anvil but assume there would be some spring to the frame when striking heavy blows to hot iron. I think the base is underbuilt for all but the lightest projects. The axels are about ½ inch in diameter so would also have some flex although the bearing point is flush with the wheels which helps a little. Cast iron can be brittle however so it’s probably best that the wheels not suffer the full shock of hammering.

I had a small Hay Budden which I discussed in a post titled ‘sloppy Budden’ and others responded that they had or had seen imperfectly forged examples as well. These ‘leans’ etc appear to be a byproduct of the manufacturing process rather than abuse in smith’s shops.

I picked up this smaller anvil on quirky stand the other day and am wondering whether it may be a Hay Budden? There are no name, weight or serial number stampings but it does have the concave base impression although it is neater than the Buddens I have seen. Any other possible makers?

The anvil’s face is only 26 inches off the ground and the base is under-built for any serious forging but I kind of like it’s look and have another user or two so this one may remain ‘as is’ for a while.

112.5 pounds including the stand which probably weighs 10-15 pounds.

Notice the sideways lean to it’s body.

Here is an example which appears to have good age. While not good for heavy work it may have served someones

lighter needs. Note the forged horn and lean of he beam's web toward the horn. 

Sorry - Meant to submit these to the general discussion section and can't figure out how to edit them over there.

Thank you. The face measures the same as my 300 pound Fisher and it is two inches longer but the Fisher has 

a proportionally larger base. 

I thought that I’d shares some images of these simple yet superbly executed

antique wrought iron candlesticks. 25 ½ inches high. Age and country of origin

unknown. The shafts of triangular cross section taper from 1 ¼ to 1 1/8 inches

and are slightly convex across their faces. About two inches above the collars one can

make out seems suggesting that the two ends were worked separately and then

joined. The detailing of the feet and heart shaped terminals of the candle cup

supports are particularly nice. Extensive file work is visible beneath the

shaft’s patina. Simple yet majestic.