Jump to content

Marshall Moseley Staking Tool Set Layout


dmmlemur

Recommended Posts

In a recent thread, Tom Colson posted links to updates to his K&D Inverto website - including newly scanned documentation for Marshall/Moseley staking tool sets.  This is exceedingly useful and important information - thanks! 

This leads, though, to a question:  What was the original factory box layout for the punches and stumps in the Moseley Staking Tool set?  I can't quite make it out from any of the photographs in the Marshall documents. K&D layouts have been published, but I cannot seem to find any Marshall/Moseley layouts.

Recently I acquired what was probably originally an 80-punch / 20-stump Moseley staking set in excellent condition, and I've since been able to expand its punch count to something nearer to one of the more complete sets (though as yet I lack the jeweling attachment).  But I can't figure out what the original punch/stump arrangement should have been.  It's made a bit more complicated by the fact that many of the punches, if placed in the lowest row of punch holes, interfere with the full closing of the box lid.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...

Unfortunately, no; I have discovered nothing further.  Neither could I make up an arrangement that both made sense to me and fit in the spaces.  So I found a second already-empty box on ebay and use both together.  Clearly this isn't right, but it has the advantage that it accommodates the occasional duplicate piece well.  If you would post the arrangement you end up adopting, I would be interested in seeing it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank You oldhippy. I have seen that thread and many other, photos, sales flyers and manuals. I'm really looking for a diagram of the original layout with the C & E Marshall stake and stump numbers if someone had one floating around. Something like this one for K & D. If I end up figuring it out on my own I will make one and post it. Hoping someone has already done it and might share. 
Thanks again.

invoice.JPG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 6 years later...

I realise this post is very old but it took me a long while to connect the dots here.

I do believe that the way the punches are laid out in the old C.E Marshall catalog (here) on pages 10 + 11 are the same as seen in the image of the set on page 12. However, instead of being spread over 5 rows (on pages 10 + 11) the punches are over 10 rows in the actual set (on page 12).

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



  • Similar Content

  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Topics

  • Posts

    • I agree with @JohnR725. Oil on an epilamed surface is essentially the same as water on a waxed surface. The same physical properties are at work (surface tension vs. adhesion). 
    • I think we all get a lot out of this group, and it has been pivotal in my development by the sharing of knowledge, experience and learning from more seasoned experts such as @JohnR725 and others (you know who you are!) as well as fellow novices. I think that having a backup communication plan in reserve so that if there is a future problem just makes good sense. I don't think anyone is trying to undermine the forum, but if something unthinkable happens, like the Ranfft website for example, then it would be good if those who are willing can still keep in contact. Speaking personally, and I know I risk a charge of heresy, it would be good if Mark could be a little more visible in this forum, and maybe give any insight from time to time on the future/progress of forum and instructional videos etc. even if its just to confirm the status quo. I appreciate he is a busy man with a full time job, but so are most of the rest of us and to post a few lines every now and then shouldn't be too much to ask to reassure the restless villagers. Best outcome for me would be a message saying something along the lines of: "Hi guys, all good, no planned changes... enjoy the forum, will message again next month!" Just my two cents.
    • A nice looking watch !! Did you try 9010, instead of the 9415, on the pallet jewels / escape wheel? And if you did, did you notice a difference?
    • Knocked out another 404 last night...when you are in the zone! This watch was a non-runner which I picked up as part of a lot of 8 watches, so works out to be $3.12 per watch. Before:   And the finished watch, new crown and stem and the crystal was cracked so was replaced. I also replaced the mainspring as the original was the old steel type spiral and very 'set' - all else is original: The Movement was a AS 1686, but in reading around a little the ACCRO watch company were sued for their use of the five point crown on their Jacques Pere range as it resembled Rolex, see below: ACCRO then reverted to just ACCRO on their watches - I have done some sniffing around the internet and haven't seen another example of ACCRO and the crown together on a dial so maybe I have something unusual, or maybe I was looking in the wrong places 🙂.  
    • This watch was damaged when I got it. I didn't break the escape wheel pivot, and I bodged a fix with epoxy to see if I could get it running. I'm not yet ready to get into lathe work, or shellacking jewels, and may never be. But I'm learning plenty with each watch I tackle. 
×
×
  • Create New...