On Jul 7, 2008, at 2:44 AM, paul womack wrote:
> I have a slightly broken Stanley #702, and
> a intact Stanley #7502.
> The #702 appears to be an Al
> version of the #700.
> The #5702 is a little bigger, with an extra guide rail.
> Does anyone have any catalogue (or other)
> photographs or text describing
> the intended customers, and mode
> of use of these things?
> Playing with them on my bench has
> caused far more confusion than enlightenment.

	I speculate from the sub line that these numbers refer to vises made  
of aluminum (aluminium, Jeff), but I'll save Jeff the trouble by  
asking:  Beyond the enticing hint about an "extra guide rail," are we  
all supposed to already know what these various numbers refer to, and  
what the differences among them might be?
		Tom Holloway,
in Vacaville, where it's due to break 100f. today, with maybe 110 by  
Wesnesday

------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have a slightly broken Stanley #702, and
a intact Stanley #7502.

The #702 appears to be an Al
version of the #700.

The #5702 is a little bigger, with an extra guide rail.

Does anyone have any catalogue (or other)
photographs or text describing
the intended customers, and mode
of use of these things?

Playing with them on my bench has
caused far more confusion than enlightenment.

   BugBear

------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------Included Message----------
>Date: 7-jul-2008 02:44:46 -0700
>From: "paul womack" 

I have a slightly broken Stanley #702, and a intact Stanley #7502.

The #702 appears to be an Al version of the #700.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

My pocket guide lists the 700 and 702 as 
"Woodworker's Vise"

The 7502 is not listed.

Not much help, and the pix look just like one I passed on over
the weekend, in favor of a 4 1/2" metal working vise ($5) to be
pad mounted per a recently viewed image on oldtools.

Kirk in HMB, CA

------------------------------------------------------------------------

paul womack wrote:
> I have a slightly broken Stanley #702, and
> a intact Stanley #7502.
> 
> The #702 appears to be an Al
> version of the #700.
> 
> The #5702 is a little bigger, with an extra guide rail.
> 
> Does anyone have any catalogue (or other)
> photographs or text describing
> the intended customers, and mode
> of use of these things?

Yes - I do!

Rumaging through my newly organised bookshelf, I found
a forgotten Stanley catalogue. Far too American
and early to list the 702 and 5702, but it did list
the 700. This appears to be a direct ancestor.

The catalogue speaks highly of the 700 (obviously...)
but it is clearly NOT a bolt on face vise:

http://galootcentral.com/components/cpgalbums/userpics/10152/s700advert.jpg
http://galootcentral.com/components/cpgalbums/userpics/10152/s700usage.jpg

The latter explains the mystery; the vice behaves more
like a clamp that a normal vise, with the bench
or other surface providing much of the support.

With this illustration the use of the #702 becomes clearer:
http://galootcentral.com/components/cpgalbums/userpics/10152/s702.jpg

There are two modes - "inboard", where the workpiece
is supported by the surface the vise is clamped
to, and "outboard", where the workpiece is off
the surface.

Note how the screw is lower than the underside of the jaw.

However, and sadly, it appears that customers who didn't
understand this unusual mode of operation requested
a larger and stronger vise, which was duly supplied
as the 5702.

http://galootcentral.com/components/cpgalbums/userpics/10152/s5702.jpg
(with apologies for not putting my ruler in shot).

This is around 20% bigger, and has an extra guide rail.
However, by placing the screw and rail ABOVE
the lowerside of the jaw, this vise can
no longer secure a workpiece on the bench(table...)
top.

This vise is forced to be the sole means of support,
at least in "inboard" mode.

This is an extraordinary mistake IMHO; either
that, or it works in a way I can't fathom, which I guess
was my first question!

    BugBear
------------------------------------------------------------------------

paul womack wrote:
> Rumaging through my newly organised bookshelf, I found a forgotten
> Stanley catalogue. Far too American and early to list the 702 and
> 5702, but it did list the 700. This appears to be a direct ancestor.
>
> http://galootcentral.com/components/cpgalbums/userpics/10152/s700ad-
> vert.jpg
>
> http://galootcentral.com/components/cpgalbums/userpics/10152/s700u-
> sage.jpg
>
>
> The latter explains the mystery; the vice behaves more like a clamp
> that a normal vise, with the bench or other surface providing much of
> the support.
>
>
So, basically, you have a couple of these, in early prototype form?

http://www.leevalley.com/wood/page.aspx?c=2&p=31144&cat=1,41659,41665&ap
--
Kirk Eppler in Half Moon Bay, CA Process Development Engineering
Eppler.Kirk@g...

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kirk Eppler wrote:
>
> paul womack wrote:
>> Rumaging through my newly organised bookshelf, I found a forgotten
>> Stanley catalogue. Far too American and early to list the 702 and
>> 5702, but it did list the 700. This appears to be a direct ancestor.
>>
>> http://galootcentral.com/components/cpgalbums/userpics/10152/s700adv-
>> ert.jpg
>>
>> http://galootcentral.com/components/cpgalbums/userpics/10152/s700us-
>> age.jpg
>>
>>
>> The latter explains the mystery; the vice behaves more like a clamp
>> that a normal vise, with the bench or other surface providing much of
>> the support.
>>
>>
> So, basically, you have a couple of these, in early prototype form?
>
> http://www.leevalley.com/wood/page.aspx?c=2&p=31144&cat=1,41659,-
> 41665&ap
Good lord - that's the Stanley #702 (apart from the brand name, that
is); I assume any patents have run out.

Great "in-use" photos - thanks for that.

I note that it doesn't repeat the mistakes - sorry "improvements" - of
the #5702.

   BugBear
------------------------------------------------------------------------