I'd have to agree with you Bill, the 973 is the ideal size (3" if memory serves) especially for general "indoor" use such as gun work.
Other than what I've learned by observation, I have yet to figure out the numbering system the company used, partly due to the fact that they changed it so often. The 97X series seems to be based on the jaw size, 973 being 3", 974, a 3 1/2", and presumably the 975 would have been 4", except I've neither seen one marked with the pattern number 975.
I have a 4" marked '89', which has a very different, early style, lettering. Interestingly it says "The Parker Company" in a curving block letter pattern, and has a round headstock opening, below tool steel jaws. All my others say 'Charles...' or even 'Chas'.
The one I get the most amount of use is not marked with any numerical model, but simply an X on the left side of the movable jaw stock, and a 1930 patent date. Casting defects, such as burned in (or burned on) sand, often meant that area was ground, and sand surface defects are common around lettering in the old 'green sand' molding process. As this vise is nearly identical, just larger than my 973, It might have been a 974 (except it's jaws are 3 1/2")
I have another vintage 4", unmarked in anyway, an likely not a Parker, as a rotatable rear jaw, so one could get maximum bearing on a part that didn't have parallel surfaces. This one has a lift 'plunger' to allow rotating the base.
A result of the internet, there are so many 'groups' devoted to the most esoteric subjects, and bench vises are just one of them. I chuckle when I run across one with painted up, pinstriped, and gilded examples. Somehow, I never thought of these as 'show pieces'.
|
Threaded Mode