Self-boring barrel spigots

This article is about a little-known and hard-to-- find category of wood boring tools which I call self-boring barrel spigots. Also known as boring faucets, these tools consist basically of a liquid-dispensing valve (spigot) and a wood cutting edge (bit) combined in a single tool, along with a means for rotating the cutting edge (usually a brace or bit stock, wrench, or by hand using handles) through the head of a wooden barrel or, in a couple of designs, through an already-in-- place bung or stopper. In most of the designs, the tool is rotated to cut the hole and insert the spigot into the barrel in a single operation. Once attached, the boring spigot usually stayed in place until the barrel was no longer in use. Although the spigot might then be removed and reused in another full barrel, it appears that by always being immersed in liquid the metal bit might oxidize and become useless. Perhaps that is why so few of these early tools have survived.

This article is limited to boring spigots that are for use with wooden barrels or casks. There are similar inventions for use with "thin-walled" metal containers, but I have not included them because they are not woodworking tools. I did a fairly extensive search of likely United States patents issued before 1925, and the latest patent I found is 1917. There may have been such spigots in use before the start of the United States patent system (1790), especially in England and Europe, but I have not found reference to any Readers with additional information on these tools (or knowing where one might be located) are encouraged to contact the author.

The Fundamental Problem

How do you tap a full barrel that is laying on its side? A common method was to bore a hole in the barrel using any of a variety of bung borers, boring taps, augers, tapered reamers, and the like. Then install the spigot or pump in the hole, either by friction or threaded fit. Sometimes a special permanent collar would be installed to receive the spigot, so that repeated installations would not destroy the wood around the opening. Another approach was to bore the hole almost through, then place the spigot (or bung ) in the hole and drive it the rest of the way through, breaking out the remainder of the hole but reducing the amount of liquid spilled. If a bung or stopper was already installed, there were two common ways to install the spigot -first remove the bung with a bung puller or bung tickler, or drive the bung into the barrel using the spigot as the drive. Most of these approaches resulted in some spillage of the barrel's contents. If the contents were under pressure the spillage could be significant. If it were molasses or syrup, it could be very messy.

Solutions to the Problem

Perhaps the initial attempt at a partial solution to this problem was the Cock Plug Bit. Salaman,1 under "Bit, Cock Plug," illustrates a short center bit with a tapering plug behind it, so that when the bit penetrates the barrel the plug keeps the liquid inside until the bit is removed and a spigot driven into its place (spilling some liquid in the process). Salaman also references "Smith's Key" (published in Sheffield, England, 1816), which illustrates a cock plug bit having a different style of cutter.

Under "Auger, Cooper's Bung Borer," Salaman shows a continental-style tap hole auger (Item F) with a disc at the back of the cutter. He suggests that the disc may be intended to act as a stopper, like the cock plug bit. However, in studying my examples of this type, I noticed that the taper is long and expands all the way to the disc (unlike the cock plug), which would allow significant spillage before the disc ever got to the hole to plug it. Therefore, I do not believe the disc was meant to serve as a plug, but was there only for structural stability.

There was another way, one which reduced or eliminated spillage during the process. That method was to use a self-boring barrel spigot. This article discusses twenty-four inventions for self-boring barrel spigots that I found in the U.S. Patent and Trade Office patent database. My descriptions focus on the wood boring aspects of these tools rather than the valve designs.

Overall, it appears that:

* most of the designs incorporate some style of center or twist bit, two use twist drill bits, and four use a form of plug cutter;

* only two patentees (Ladd and Weed) addressed the problem of bit oxidation (because of being kept in liquid for a long period of time). It was not a problem with Sexton's patent because his boring bit is extracted as soon as the hole is bored;

* only a few patentees addressed the issue of chip displacement;

* less than half of the designs are single self-contained units. The others had extra parts which could get misplaced or required the use of a separate tool (brace, wrench, screwdriver, turning rod) to bore the hole and install the spigot;

* many of the patents require turning by hand, a process I found difficult when using mine to bore a soft pine board.

Here are a few thoughts to ponder while reading about the patents. Barrels are still used today, so why aren't these tools still in use? Was such a tool not really needed-if it wasn't, why were there at least twenty-- four patents? Were all of these designs ineffective? Knowing that at least one of these designs was manufactured, why are they so hard to find in real life and in references? Was oxidation really a big problem, causing them to be discarded after use?

Patent History

The earliest patent I found was 1842. Then nothing until 1861 when there were twelve patents in a nine-year span. Then one in 1876, another in 1883, and seven during the ten years between 1891 and 1901. Finally, there was one in 1911 and the last in 1917. So a total of nineteen of the twenty-four patents were issued during either 1861-1870 or 1891-1901. Why were there two separate ten-year spurts over a seventy-five year span? Following are summaries of the twenty-four patents, in chronological order.

With what I believe to be the first United States patent for a self-boring barrel spigot, Jonathan Ridgway of New York, New York, was granted patent no. 2,563 on 16 April 1842 for a "Stop-Cock" which incorporated a flat cutting edge into the end of a spigot. His cutter was basically a flat piece of metal with a point projecting from the center of its lower edge, which was beveled off on each side to form two cutters (just like the modern flatbit style bits). However, because the bit blade was fastened immediately to the threaded spigot, there was no place for the wood chips to go except into the spigot itself, creating a potential clogging problem. His drawing also shows screw threads on the opposite end of the spigot (past the valve) for attaching a connection and for use in temporarily attaching a "drill brace" for turning the spigot into the barrel (although he doesn't identify how a brace would be attached to the large diameter screw-threaded shank).

On 2 July 1861 A.W.P Ladd of San Francisco, California, was granted patent no. 32,699. He inserted a short Gedge-pattern auger into the end of a common faucet and added a projection to the nozzle end. The projection and the nozzle together formed the handles by which to turn the auger into the barrel. Ladd suggested that the auger be galvanized to prevent rusting. He showed openings in the spigot shaft behind the auger to allow the liquid to enter the spigot, but had no threads on the spigot for fastening the spigot to the barrel. Instead, he called for "driving the faucet in firmly" for a friction fit.

Edwin Parks of Winchendon, Massachusetts, was granted patent no. 32,888 on 93 July 1861 for an "Improved Tapping Faucet" (Figure 3). His patent used an ordinary wooden spigot (he suggests that it could also be made of metal) to which he attached a metal-- cutting device on its barrel end. The device was a mostly hollow tube with some type (unspecified) of cutting bit on the end to cut the hole in the barrel, and external threads along its side to enable screwing it into the barrel to hold the spigot in place and to seal the opening. The opening to the tube (for the liquid to enter the spigot) was partway down the threaded portion, and he included a separate chamber directly behind the cutting bit to catch and hold the chips, so that they wouldn't clog the spigot. This chip-collecting chamber was the object of his patent. He also attached a square piece of metal to the other end of the spigot so that a common brace (bit stock) could be used to turn the self-boring spigot into the barrel (but this appendage was not claimed to be part of his patent).

On 22 November 1864, Daniel Sexton of San Gabriel, California, was granted patent no. 45,183 (Figure 4) for what he considered an improvement. His invention was complicated, consisting of four main parts and several others. The first main part was a spigot with two separate valves (one in-line and one on a ninety-- degree spout) and a coupling to screw the spigot onto the barrel (two screws held the coupling to the barrel, and the spigot screwed into the coupling). The second main part was a long-shafted center bit which was inserted through the hollow spigot body, through the inline valve to the barrel face, and then turned with a brace (not considered one of the four parts) until the barrel was penetrated. The bit was then removed and the valve closed to prevent the liquid from leaking out. If the spigot was to be used right away, the end was capped with yet another part, and the valves were used to control the liquid flow. If the spigot was not to be used right away, the third main part was used. It was a long shaft with a tapered cup on the end. A wood/cork bung was placed in the cup and the device was inserted into the spigot bodythrough the in-line valve to the previously cut hole. The bung was pressed into the hole to seal it, and the shaft removed. To remove the bung at a later time, the fourth main part was used. It was a long shaft with a pointed tapering screw, designed to operate like a common corkscrew. It was inserted into the spigot body, through the in-line valve to the bung, twisted into the bung, and pulled to remove the bung. If the bung was stuck, Sexton provided a threaded ring at the back of the spigot that could be turned to add force for pulling the bung out. This invention was a mechanical delight, but I'm afraid not very practical. It was complicated to make and use, and the various parts were sure to be misplaced over time

On 6 November 1866, John Marchbank and William H. Humphrey of Lansingburg, New York, received patent no. 59,426 for improvements to the boring spigot (Figure 5). As Parks (Figure 3) did, they also had a square appendage on the end of the spigot for engaging a brace or bit stock, and they claimed this in their patent. Their drawing shows flat surfaces (hexagonal) surrounding the spigot body for engaging a wrench for additional turning leverage, but they failed to discuss this feature in the patent description. Their patent also included an adjustable bit to prevent clogging of the spigot opening. The bit had longitudinal movement via an internal rack and pinion, with a knob on the engaging gear protruding through the spigot wall outside the barrel. The center-style bit could then be moved back and forth from the end of the spigot. Once the spigot was installed, the bit was extended further into the barrel via the rack and pinion, thereby opening the end of the spigot for the liquid to enter. The bit was left extended and the flow control was by means of a traditional gate or valve on the spigot itself Again, it is not clear how the wood chips were expelled because the spigot body immediately follows the bit and closed the opening as boring was taking place. Chips that were forced to the inside of the barrel probably floated to the surface and were not a clogging threat until the barrel was nearly empty.

On 12 March 1867 Thomas Marsh of Central Falls, Rhode Island, received patent no. 62,864 for his improved beer faucet (Figure 6). The invention consisted of two separate parts-a collar to be fastened to the barrel head, and a spigot which screwed into the collar. The spigot end contained a boring bit (center bit pattern). Apparently the bit shaft was long enough to allow space for the chips until they could be expelled into the barrel upon breaking through because with the collar there was no other place for them to go.

Alfred Weed of Boston, Massachusetts, provided a much simpler device (Figure 7) with his patent no. 74,961 (25 February 1868). He eliminated the traditional valve on the spigot and instead used a sliding bit as the gate. He had two parallel tubes longitudinally through the spigot-one to carry the liquid to the spout and one to house a rod that ran from the bit through the spigot, beyond the outside of the barrel-then turned ninety degrees and projected out the top of the spigot (which was slotted at that point). By grasping this projection, the cellarman could slide the bit back and forth, opening and closing the spigot. He also had a square extension on the end of the spigot for engaging a wrench or brace to bore the hole and set the spigot. His bit appears to be a flatbit-style bit with a nicker on one side, and long enough to provide sufficient space in front of the spigot body for most of the chips to drop outside the barrel.

Just one week later (3 March 1868) Samuel McGee of Madison, New Jersey, was granted patent no. 75,177 for another "improvement in boring-faucets" (Figure 8). Among McGee's improvements were arms or handles on the spigot, thereby claiming that this was the first truly self-- boring spigot (it did not require a separate device such as a brace or wrench to turn it). He also had a chamber behind the bit to collect chips and claimed this in his patent, as did Parks (Figure 3). The other improvement in the patent was an expanding bit (held in place with a set-screw), allowing the bit to be attached to and used on spigots of varying diameters provided they had the chip-catching chamber and appropriate fastening holes cast into them.

On 2 June 1868, Alfred Weed of Boston, Massachusetts, was granted the second of his four patents (Figure 9) for an "improvement in self-boring stop-cocks" (patent no. 78,499). His spigot was cast metal with a rounded "ball" at the end, designed to fit the palm of your hand. Projecting from this ball were two handles so the spigot could be held and twisted in like a gimlet -what today we would term an ergonomic design. The ball contains the valve, with the bottom of the ball having the spout opening. On the barrel end he had a flatbitstyle bit integral with the spigot, but with the end closed. Again, Weed had a long enough bit for most of the chips to fall outside. The openings for the liquid to enter were farther back along the spigot body.

On 16 June 1868 Alfred Booker of London, England, was granted patent no. 78,897 (Figure 10) for his beer faucet. His invention was designed to cut a hole through an existing bung or stopper rather than through the oak barrel head. The spigot stem had an annular cutting edge to cut a cylindrical plug out of the bung or stopper by twisting the spigot. The plug stayed in the hollow stem, but did not block passage of the liquid because the entry holes to the spigot were farther back on the stem. In another modification, he proposed the cutting edge be saw-toothed or serrated.

Jotham Lawrence and Isaac Johnson of Cutler, Maine, received patent no. 82,851 on 6 October 1868 for their improvement in boring-faucets, although in my opinion most of what they claim was already patented (Figure 11). Like McGee (Figure 8) and Weed (Figure 9), Lawrence and Johnson's design was a single cast spigot/borer that had a center-style bit with single nicker. They incorporated a long, enclosed chip chamber behind the bit with the opening to the spigot placed behind the chip chambers' rear wall. This chamber appears large enough to hold all of the chips. They claimed no mechanism for turning the bit into the barrel, but their drawing incorporated a hexagonal nut as part of the spigot body, probably for applying a wrench. They also claimed an improvement to the valve/gate mechanism.

Alfred Weed's third patent for "improvement in self-- boring faucets" was granted February 16, 1869 (patent no. 86,956). He had the same design as his second patent (Figure 9) except that he used a different metal composition for the bit. He claimed that his earlier patented faucet and all other self-boring faucets with which he was familiar have a steel bit, and when the bit is within the barrel (true for all designs except Sexton's, Figure 4) it quickly oxidizes causing the cutting edges to be ruined. Weed therefore proposed to make the body of the spigot out of cast iron and the bit out of brass, bell-- metal, or some other composition of copper and tin (preferably cast). He also provided a good description of the bit design- "having a centre-gimlet point, a side spur or cutter, and a chip-cutter....the chip-cutter has no spur-- cutter at its end, the spur being on the opposite side of the entering point.....enabling the cutter to be readily sharpened.....(and) .... the chips raised by the chip-cutter do not clog against the spur-cutter."

This patent is the only true-life example of a self-- boring barrel spigot that I have located. While well-- used, the bit on my spigot is still in good shape, so Mr. Weed was probably right about the metal composition. The bit contains both his June 1868 and February 1869 patent dates. When applying my spigot to a pine board, I found the continual "twist/let go, rotate wrist/grasp, and turn again" process to be hard on the hand and hard to keep the spigot aligned-and this is one of the most ergonomic designs! But it did the job and the chips mostly fell outside until the final push.

Following upon the ideas in his third patent (Figure 12), Alfred Weed obtained his fourth (Figure 13) for yet another "improvement in self-closing auger stopcocks," on 8 March 1870 (patent no. 100,697). He changed his title from "self-boring" to "self-closing," used the same spigot and bit design, but changed the valve/gate to one which closes by itself when the cellarman releases it. This patent was an improvement with no additional mechanical complication.

After a run of nine patents in less than nine years, there was a six-year gap until patent no. 175,812 was granted on 4 April 1876 to Hugh Young, George Ellis, and John Strothman of Minneapolis, Minnesota (Figure 14). This design used a "circular" bit to produce a plug instead of chips, thereby eliminating the problem of chips clogging the valve. Their spigot was essentially a hollow tube with the cutting edge at one end, external screw threads for engaging the barrel after the plug was cut, and a sleeve oscillating around an opening near the other end, forming a valve. The outer end had a square head for engaging a wrench, and the head had a center hole through which a rod protrudes. The rod traveled the entire length of the spigot and was used to drive the plug from the end of the tube. The cutting edge was bifurcated, and at each of the diagonal points the edge was slightly struck up and spread, so as to form auger points. This was a simple, novel approach, but I am not sure how practical it was to cut a plug in a hard oak barrel using a wrench on the end.

On 9 January 1883, Rob Roy McGregor received patent no. 270,550 for his improvement to the self-boring spigot (Figure 15). His design showed no mechanism for turning the spigot into the barrel. It was based on a different style of auger, in my opinion a very weak design from both a structural and oxidation aspect (he discussed both problems, but somehow must have felt his approach alleviated them). From the threaded end of the spigot he projected a single steel blade toward the barrel, ending it in a 90 degree curve with a gimlet tip. He also had a cutting blade on the edge behind the tip to cut the hole, and the steel projection parallel with the spigot shaft was sharpened on its edge to smooth the cut hole as it penetrated the wood.

William Lindenmann of New Brunswick, New Jersey, was granted patent no. 454,749 on 23 June 1891 for a "New and Improved Device for Tapping Barrels" (Figure 16). His device included a "holding frame" which clamps to the barrel, a nut that clamped into the frame, and a dispensing spigot with cutter that screwed through the nut to engage the barrel. He did not discuss how the spigot is rotated during cutting, but his drawing showed a square appendage on the end of the spigot which could possibly be for applying a brace. His bit had a center point with two blades sloping to the side, each having a spur at the end. There were openings at the rear of the auger to let the liquid enter the spigot. The design did not allow for chip removal except through the openings into the spigot valve.

Levi Hall of Parkersburg, West Virginia, received provements. His design was simple and structurally sound, although not as ergonomic as Weed's. Hall's spigot had a bar/handle for both turning the cutter and operating the valve. He also included a hexagon-shaped surface on the shank for engaging a wrench when boring hard wood. The bit appears to be a common center bit with a long, necked-down shaft to allow the chips to fall away to the outside of the barrel before the threaded shaft of the spigot reached the barrel (Hall discussed this feature). The openings into the spigot were placed well back from the cutter.

Rodolphus Webb of New Britain, Connecticut, received patent no. 469,901 (Figure 18) on 1 March 1892 for an improvement to the handle mechanism of self-- boring faucets that have tilted-down spouts. His cutting device appears similar to Weed's. He attached his handle to the swinging gate at the end of the turned-- down spout in such a manner that the turning motion of the handle (when boring the hole) was concentric around the axis of the cutter. His drawing also showed a hexagonal surface for engaging a wrench if more force is needed.

On 16 April 1895 Hugh Crozier of Morrillton, Arkansas, was granted patent no. 537,755 for improvements in boring faucets (Figure 19). His patent included two versions. His cutting device was a twist drill with point but no spurs. Crozier incorporated a sliding thimble/sleeve over the shaft of the spigot. This sleeve pressed tightly against the barrel to prevent leakage and would seem to trap the chips before they could exit the drill, making the boring operation rather difficult, However, in his second version he addressed this concern by including a chamber on the sleeve (external to the barrel) for collecting the chips. The turning mechanism is a simple hand-operated handle on the end of the spigot. The two versions had different valve mechanisms.

Henry Rice of Nottingham, England, was given patent no. 545,377 (Figure 20) on 27 August 1895 for a cutting spigot and stopper combination. His spigot was designed to cut through his specially prepared stopper (which first had to be inserted in a traditional bung hole). The stem was a thin steel tube with a cutting edge which was pushed or twisted through the cork stopper by hand (no other detail is given concerning the cutting edge).

Charles Henry Newton of London, England, patented his improvement (Figure 21) in England (No. 22,483 on 30 September 1897) and then in the United States (patent no. 626,082 on 30 May 1899). His spigot had a metal loop handle for turning the cutter by hand, and also for opening and closing the valve. The cutter end of the spigot gradually tapered to a point, and it had exterior screw threads extending to the point for engaging the barrel. Spiral twist-drill grooves were cut into the shaft to form the cutting edges, and there was a short segment cut out of the solid shaft between the grooves to accommodate the chips. The liquid entrance to the spigot is placed well back on the shaft.

On 31 December 1901 Benjamin Antill of Smith Ferry, Pennsylvania, obtained patent no. 690,223 (Figure 22) for his "Improvements in Self-Tapping Spigots." His cutter was a Scotch-pattern auger bit with only a half-turn. Apparently any chips left in the auger grooves when the threaded spigot shaft begins entering the barrel were dispelled into the liquid and float to the top. The openings to the spigot were placed behind the bit. A triangular flange was cast integral with and at the end of the spigot where the spout turned downward. This flange had a hole through it where a removable rod (handle) ass inserted to provide sufficient hand leverage to bore the hole.

On 17 October 1911 Stephen Ross of Harrisburg, Arkansas, was awarded patent no. 1,006,008 (Figures 23a and 23b) for his faucet auger. It consisted of four parts:

1. a footed collar having internal threads, to be screwed to the barrel head to support the spigot;

2. a threaded spigot containing a cutter on its end;

3. & 4. two removable handles to screw into the spigot body for turning the auger into the barrel.

His auger consisted of a metal plate fastened to the end of the hollow spigot and having a plurality of long spikes attached to it. The rotating spikes apparently cut a cylindrical plug out of the barrel head and the plate kept it away from the opening to the spigot.

The latest patent I found (Figure 24) was no. 1,248,251, which was awarded to Benjamin Breaux of Lafourche Crossing, Louisiana, on 27 November 1917. His design included what appears to be a Jennings-pattern twist bit attached to the end of the spigot. Nothing was said about how leverage is obtained for twisting the bit into the barrel. The remainder of his patent relates to his valve mechanism.

Additional detail on these inventions may be found by accessing the actual patents in the U. S. Patent and Trade Office patent database, which is now available via the Internet.

Notes

1. R. A. Salaman, Dictionary of Woodworking Tools(Taunton Press, Inc., March 1990.)

Author

Bob Roger is a member of E.A.I.A., PATINA, and the Canadian Corkscrew Collectors Club, and has been actively collecting tools and corkscrews for the past fifteen years. His Internet address is toolman@rica.net.

Copyright Early American Industries Association Sep 2001
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved