continuing enigma of self-boaring barrel spigots, The

In the September 2001 issue of The Chronicle, I presented twenty-four patents for self-boring barrel spigots and photographs of the only spigot I knew of in existence. I added an update to the article in the December 2001 issue of The Chronicle, discussing two additional but different spigots, which were located as a result of the original article.1

I have since acquired two more spigots and found four additional patents for boring spigots. This update presents the four additional patents (for a total of twenty-eight found) and pictures of all five of the known spigots with a discussion of their differences.

As I mentioned in my original article, a self-boring barrel spigot, also known as a boring faucet, is basically a combination of a liquid-dispensing valve (the spigot) and a wood cutting edge (the bit). The tool also includes a means for rotating the cutting edge, usually using a brace or bit stock, a wrench, or a handle. Boring spigots, once attached, usually stayed in place until the barrel was empty. The fact that the metal remained submerged in the liquid may have caused it to oxidize, rendering it useless. As I mentioned in my first article, that may be why so few remain.

Additions to Patent History

Figure 1 illustrates patent no. 55,286 that was awarded 5 June 1866 to Samuel N. Haight of Bedford, New York. Haight's invention was a cutting bit inserted into a common molasses gate. His bit was similar to Cook's patent auger, patent no. 8,162 of 17 June 1851. (This patent was for an auger bit, not a boring spigot, with a curved cutting edge; Haight refers to Cook's patent in his patent description.) The wood chips and liquid flowed directly through the hollow bit into and through the spigot gate.

Job F Peacock of Reno, Nevada, received patent no. 131,408 for his "gimlet-ventiduct" on 17 September 1872. Peacock stated in his description that his invention may be used as a barrel vent or as a sampling faucet. Although it was clearly not intended for high volume use because of the small diameter of the flow duct, it would have performed the functions of a self-- boring barrel spigot. This spigot was a form of gimlet with a hollow tube from near the tip of the cutting threads to the base of a shoulder formed at the top of the cutting threads. After insertion to the shoulder, the gimlet would be unscrewed a few turns to allow the liquid to flow out, then screwed back into the barrel to stop the flow. Peacock suggested that "any suitable style of screw-thread and penetrating point" may be used.

On 5 August 1873 patent no. 141,465 was awarded to Hiram S. Rummer of Binghamton, N. Y (Figure 3). As with Peacock's patent, Rummer was focused on venting barrels but his "vent-gimlet" could also be used as a spigot. It consists of a hollow tube with a stop-cock for a valve, handles with which to turn the gimlet into the barrel, tapered threads to engage and hold fast to the barrel, a gimlet point for boring the hole (no particular style of cutting edge mentioned), and small openings in the tube behind the gimlet point for the liquid to enter the tube.

James Talley Jr., of Kansas City, Missouri received patent no. 174,028 on 22 February 1876 (Figure 4). His invention serves a variety of uses, one of which is as a self-boring barrel spigot. He uses a standard (unspecified type) gimlet cutting point fastened to a hollow stem containing a plunger shut-off valve.

Discussion of Known Spigots

I currently know of only five existing boring spigots, and they are all in private collections. (There are probably more, and I ask that anyone locating another please notify me of the specifics.) What I find incredible is that all five have the same style cutting bit, and four are based on the same patent, yet all are different. Figure 5 shows four of the spigots (A, B, C, D) and Figure 6 shows the different entrance openings of those spigots. Figure 7 shows the fifth spigot (E).

It is clear from Weed's patent descriptions that A, B, C, and E are definitely his third patent (no. 86,956 granted on 16 February 1869) (Figure 8), yet all are different in several aspects. For example, the two largest spigots (A and C) are almost the same size, yet have blades marked differently, different threading on both lead screw and shaft, different shaped openings behind the blade, different metal in the valve handle loop (A is steel and C is brass), and at least two other differences on the inside of the castings. Table I below shows some of the comparative dimensions and markings (I do not have access to E to obtain precise measurements) and indicates the different markings. The castings have several dissimilarities between them as well, so it is clear there was no intent to make them the same.

Spigot D is commonly referred to as a molasses gate. Its cutting blade, although unmarked, is unquestionably the same blade as either Weed's first patent (Figure 8), no. 74,961, a patent blade or his third patent (Figure 9); the only difference between the two is the metal composition.2 The spigot, sans blade, appears identical to the molasses gate shown in the Montgomery Ward Catalog of 1894-1895.3 In the catalog it is labeled as "Stebbin's Patent" molasses gate, but I have been unable to locate that patent.

The Montgomery Ward catalog lists five gates, numbered 1 to 5 with the following bores (diameter of hole bored) in inches: 1 1/8, 1 1 3/4, 1 5/8, and 1 13/16. The no. 3 gate in the catalog listing, 1 3/4 inches, is out of sequence and may be a misprint. A diameter of 1 3/8 inches would seem to be more appropriate, but neither 1 3/4 nor 1 3/8 inches would match the 1 35/64 inches of spigot A, which is marked .3. Spigot B, which is marked 1, has a diameter only 1/64 inch difference from the catalog's no. 1 gate, and that difference could be explained as the allowable manufacturing tolerance of 130 years ago. So, although it is tempting to form a connection, the numbers on Weed's patent spigots A and B do not appear to correspond with the molasses gate numbering in the Montgomery Ward catalog.

Haight's patent spigot (Figure 1) illustrates a gate with almost the exact characteristics of the Stebbin's gates and of spigot D. Haight only mentions that his cutting blade is shown "attached to a molasses gate," so I conclude that Stebbin's patent gate was prior to 1866.

Webb's patent of 1892(4)4 with the exception of the gate handle, which was the sole object of his patent, is identical to spigot D (Figure 10). In referring to his illustration, Webb stated in the description, 'A designates the body of the faucet, B the boring-bit, and C the swinging gate, all of which, with the exception of the handle for the gate, are of ordinary form and construction, and therefore need not be specifically described." So spigot D is of ordinary form and construction. Does this mean it was not patented?

My conclusion at this point is that spigot D was not patented per se, but that it is a combination of Stebbin's patented molasses gate (pre-1866?) and Weed's patented cutting blade (1868/1869), perhaps produced upon expiration of those patents but before Webb's 1892 patent.

The enigma continues. Are there other self-boring spigots out there?

Notes

1. Bob Roger, "Self-Boring Barrel Spigots" The Chronicle (Vol. 54, No 3): 91-101, 127 and Bob Roger "Update on `Self-Boring Spigots'" The Chronicle (Vol. 54, No. 4): 143.

2. "Self-Boring Spigots," Figure 7, 94 and Figure 12b, 95.

3. Montgomery Ward Catalog, 1894-1895, 389.

4. "Self-Boring Spigots," Figure 18, 99.

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 sixteen years. He is working on an article on corn shredders for an upcoming issue of The Chronicle.

Copyright Early American Industries Association Dec 2002
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved