DailyFrame Posted February 25, 2021 Share Posted February 25, 2021 (edited) Hi all - I found an old Wooldridge and Sons Anvil here in East TN that just looks odd to me. The sides of this anvil appear normal with the maker mark and weight and date marks, but the top looks like it may have been re-done at some point. No hardy or anything on top, but hole through the front. The maker mark is different than I have seen in other pics. This does not have "and Sons" on it that I can tell. There is another name under "Wooldridge" but it is hard to make out. It weighs about 130+ so the weight mark appears correct (I think) but I am no expert on these. My question is: Was this a regular anvil that has had a new steel plate put on top? If so, how would it have been attached? Was it forge welded just on top? Also: This is dated 1847 w "WW" under the date. Any background on that would be appreciated. I will try to attach some pics here of details. Edited February 25, 2021 by DailyFrame spelling fix Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Latticino Posted February 25, 2021 Share Posted February 25, 2021 Looks real suspect to me. If I had to guess I'd say the new top plate had been perimeter welded to the top of the anvil and that weird support under the heel as well. Alternatively a casting facility might have cast the extra sections right onto the existing older anvil. I'm sure you can still get some work out of it, but I'd avoid any heavy sledging... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThomasPowers Posted February 25, 2021 Share Posted February 25, 2021 Any sigs of that support being arc welded vs forge welded? That's a Weird anvil; but the "core" looks legit. So did the extras get added 100+ years ago or "recently"? BTW 0 3 2 CWT equals 0x112 + 3x28 + 2 == 86 pounds looks a bit different from 130# to me! Any chance of a ring test or ball bearing test on it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Irondragon Forge ClayWorks Posted February 25, 2021 Share Posted February 25, 2021 I would say the thick added on top plate & heel section may make the 44 pound difference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThomasPowers Posted February 25, 2021 Share Posted February 25, 2021 Yes and the weight stamping shows it wasn't a factory mod. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DailyFrame Posted February 25, 2021 Author Share Posted February 25, 2021 Thanks all for the extra info - very much appreciated. The odd thing is I see no evidence on outside faces of a weld mark or grinding, but I see small cavities and evidence of something being done. I handle a lot of antiques, and nothing about this suggests it was done very recently. It was very well rusted when I got it, so what you see is result after I took a wire cup wheel to it to clean it up. The sides have very consistent texture from top to bottom which does not seem to make sense if the upper portion was perimeter welded on later, but again, I will defer to more expert opinion on that. That is why I thought maybe it was re-forged somehow. Is it possible that it was just made this way? Last: I took a large 1.5 inch ball bearing and the result was less than spectacular ;0) I have owned several other anvils and the ball bearing test was poor at best! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chelonian Posted February 25, 2021 Share Posted February 25, 2021 Poor rebound certainly could point towards a perimeter weld. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThomasPowers Posted February 25, 2021 Share Posted February 25, 2021 No it is not possible it was made that way; as they made it and weight stamped it 86 pounds and you now say it's 130 pounds. I have an anvil base I know was once a complete anvil as it's weight stamped for about 3 times the current weight. Small cavities are generally a sign of casting porosity---which that does not look like to me; or arc welding. As for rust; it could have been done 70 years ago and left to rust since then. I'd say arc welded and ground to get what we are seeing. What does the ring test indicate about the face and body being monolithically joined? (And what % of the bounce was it?) Notice the difference in the surface in the first two pictures; looks like they left the stamped area alone when it was ground on. This would count as a severely damaged anvil in my book! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DailyFrame Posted February 25, 2021 Author Share Posted February 25, 2021 I'm afraid I am not a good judge of a ring test, but as others have mentioned, it certainly does not sound like my other anvils and the ringing sound is not really there like I have heard on other anvils that are all original. Bounce test I have one on other better quality anvils has been 75% or better but this one is more like 50-60% I think. So I think everything points to metal being added here but just not sure how it was done. If you zoom on the pics you can see the detail of the sides. Thanks again for all of the input. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThomasPowers Posted February 25, 2021 Share Posted February 25, 2021 I bet there is equipment in that region that could X-ray that weld...Have you taken it to a professional welder and asked their opinion? Can we get a good picture of the join between the vertical insert and the body of the anvil? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DailyFrame Posted February 26, 2021 Author Share Posted February 26, 2021 X-ray is not really an option, and no other experts have really looked this over. I will take a couple more pics today to see if I can show those edges better. One other detail to make clear: The top plate is not perfectly parallel to the bottom. Most anvils (I think) tend to have a flat surface on top that is perfectly level / parallel to the bottom of the base, but this one has the top plate at a noticeable grade that you may be able to see in the photos. A ball bearing would roll from back to front on this surface, which also indicates it has been (maybe poorly) altered. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThomasPowers Posted February 26, 2021 Share Posted February 26, 2021 No; a lot of old anvils were "freehanded" under large steam hammers and some have a noticeable slant to them as they came from the factory. I've seen a couple where the idiot owning them milled the face parallel to the base and actually milled through the face at one end of the slope leaving only soft wrought iron. (If you must do it; mill the base parallel to the face; as a bit of wrought iron off the base doesn't hurt. Whereas removing the face cuts the using value of an anvil by 90% or so.) 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.