Black Frog Posted September 20, 2013 Share Posted September 20, 2013 I know it doesn't make sense in that the middle numbers are in 1/4ths of the 112, but I noticed a seller who is adamant that has seen those middle numbers higher than 3. Ever see an anvil stoneweight marking with the middle number higher than a 3? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nobody Special Posted September 20, 2013 Share Posted September 20, 2013 Maybe he saw an American anvil marked with weight and doesn't know the difference? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Frog Posted September 20, 2013 Author Share Posted September 20, 2013 Nope, this is a Peter Wright anvil he's selling. And says he has seen others in the past with numbers higher than a 3 for middle number.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinobi Posted September 20, 2013 Share Posted September 20, 2013 I think a picture is is order here... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Frog Posted September 20, 2013 Author Share Posted September 20, 2013 I asked for a pic, and got a slightly out of focus one, could be a 5, could be a 3... He says the anvil has been weighed and it IS a 5. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThomasPowers Posted September 20, 2013 Share Posted September 20, 2013 mistake on the floor when made? I have heard of a couple examples before Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Direwolf Posted September 20, 2013 Share Posted September 20, 2013 As Thomas pointed out could be a mistake. We all have a bad day once in a while. Some time in the past I saw one with the name upside down. I own quite a few Peter Wrights and have looked at many, none miss marked. The script style used to stamp them can be confusing as to a 5 or a 3 particularly when the numbers are worn from use and age. As a general rule Peter Wright anvils are meticulusly finished, they took great pride in their anvils and the quality of their products. As said a picture would be helpful. Good Luck! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the iron dwarf Posted September 20, 2013 Share Posted September 20, 2013 here a stone is 14 pounds so 4 stones is not a hundredweight a pound is 16 ounces these days most people here have gone to kilo's though here when weighing people pounds and stones were normally used rather than just pounds like you lot over there use Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThomasPowers Posted September 20, 2013 Share Posted September 20, 2013 The center number is not in stones it's in quarter hundredweights which is 2 stones, the final number is then the remainder of the quarter hundredweight so [0-9] [0-3] [0-27] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Frog Posted September 20, 2013 Author Share Posted September 20, 2013 Reason I'm questioning the middle number being a 5 is the seller says it is a Peter Wright 0-5-19 marking, and says it weighs 159 pounds. I questioned the middle number being a 3 instead of 5. He says he was weighed it, it is indeed a 5, and that he has seen other middle numbers above a 3 in the past. When I asked what length the anvil was, he said it was 21". To me, a 21" PW anvil would be about 100#, and would make sense if the marking was 0-3-19 (103#). I just don't see a 159# PW anvil only being 21" long..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farmall Posted September 20, 2013 Share Posted September 20, 2013 Like Thomas says, it's simple math, so it cannot be higher than a "3" IF AN ENGLISH ANVIL MARKING. The first number is the amount of "hundredweights" or 112 pounds. The second number, if a "4" or higher would be 4 X 28, or 112, so that number would be moved over to the first. On the other hand, if the anvil is not marked per Hundredweight, instead actual weight, he could have seen 158 or 166 or whatever. Without knowing the anvil's maker,we cannot discuss the marking accurately. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
petere76 Posted September 20, 2013 Share Posted September 20, 2013 I have a question. Are the English made anvils the only ones that use the stoneweight system? We have, a Hay Buden and an American in the shop. They appear to have their weight in lbs stamped at the waist. The PWs both use the stone weight system. Just curious . Peter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timgunn1962 Posted September 20, 2013 Share Posted September 20, 2013 The center number is not in stones it's in quarter hundredweights which is 2 stones, the final number is then the remainder of the quarter hundredweight so [0-9] [0-3] [0-27] It's unlikely you'd find one heavy enough to find out, but I'd imagine the first number (Hundredweights) could go up to 19, as a ton in this system is the long ton, of 2240 lb or 20 cwt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Frog Posted September 21, 2013 Author Share Posted September 21, 2013 I have a question. Are the English made anvils the only ones that use the stoneweight system? Peter The stone weight system was developed in England, so that's who mainly used it. There may be a few odd ball others who did also, but most any other country of origin used either pounds or kgs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farmall Posted September 21, 2013 Share Posted September 21, 2013 Here's the English Avoirdupois weights. Thought it would clear up a few things. Wish I had an anvil that weighed a sack or more. Just google Avoirdupois weight system and you can learn all you ever wanted to know. Weight system starts with the grain (which used to be a barley grain) and there are 7000 grains to a pound. avoirdupois weights 16 drams = 1 ounce 16 ounces = 1 pound 7 pounds = 1 clove 14 pounds = 1 stone 28 pounds = 1 tod 112 pounds = 1 hundredweight 364 pounds = 1 sack 2240 pounds = 1 ton 2 stones = 1 quarter 4 quarters = 1 hundredweight 20 hundredweight = 1 ton Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John McPherson Posted September 21, 2013 Share Posted September 21, 2013 Methinks someone was hitting the juice of the barleycorn when they came up with this system. As well as the whole pence/farthing/shilling/crown/quid thing. Don't get me started on the rules of cricket. :blink: I mean, 1 sack = 26 stones! Why not 25, that would have been an even 350 pounds? or 24 stones, that would have been 3 hundredweights, or 336 pounds? No, we get a bakers-dozen-tod measurement that equals 3 hundredweights plus one one quarter hundredweight, not divisible into anything remotely useful. Sigh. Signed, your obedient servant, one very confused, very large (12 tod/24 stone) anvil smacker. B) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThomasPowers Posted September 21, 2013 Share Posted September 21, 2013 All measuring systems are arbitrary when you come down to it At least the 12 inches to the foot made it easy to divide by 1,2,3,4,6,8,9,10 ! In germany Imperial towns were allowed their own weights and measures and you can still visit some of them and see their "yard" as it was inlet in the town hall's wall as an iron bar so it was easy to compare a merchant's yard stick to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
101 H-B Posted September 21, 2013 Share Posted September 21, 2013 This has been a fun and educational read, thanks guys! I've not seen higher than a 3 in the middle on an English anvil, would like to see a picture of a 5 as the middle weight mark. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farmweld Posted September 23, 2013 Share Posted September 23, 2013 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
101 H-B Posted September 23, 2013 Share Posted September 23, 2013 Farmweld, Thanks for the link to your post with pictures of your Attwood 1 5 18 , never seen that before. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farmweld Posted September 23, 2013 Share Posted September 23, 2013 1 3 18 works out at 214lb and the actual weight is 212lb so I figure the 3 punch was missing or worn out and they used a 5 instead Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farmall Posted September 23, 2013 Share Posted September 23, 2013 Actually, to me, it looks like an old English "3" that is leaning a little to the left, missing most of the top stroke, that has a chisel strike (testing the sharpness) at the very top to turn it into a "5"....at least that's what I thought when I first looked at. Here's a link that has the style of the number "3" that I am talking about: http://www.custom-vinyl-lettering.net/decals/hand-lettered-alphabets/bird-old-english-numbers-punctuation/ I could be wrong, have been before, but that's my opinion and worth every cent you paid for! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.