The other day I saw a picture of a vintage bit brace in near new condition. That made me think about the two that I have. They were both found in the garbage and are well worn. Not worn out mind you, just not as young as they used to be.
The above brace was made by the great Peck, Stow & Wilcox Company of Southington Connecticut . I don’t know when it was made. The only legible marking on it is “Pat Feb 11, 1879” so it was made sometime after that.
The specimen below is from the same maker and is stamped “Pat Dec 30 1884”.
Both tools could be over 100 years old and though they still don’t mind working they could use some help too so I decided to get another bit brace.
1st stop was a certain undesirable flea market thats so undesirable I wont even mention its name. As I suspected it yielded almost nothing, just a socket wrench and some other odds n ends. Later on I went to my favorite antique store and for the price of a cup of coffee…
There were many many to choose from but this was the heaviest and despite being quite rusty was structurally very sound. Another thing I like about it is that it will accept old style bits and round shank drill bits. Below is a comparison of two chucks. The new brace on the left and the chuck of the first Pexto brace on the right.
Some old style bit stock augers, screwdriver bit, drill bit and a reamer.
Round shank drill bits.
After removing some of the rust I could see the Craftsman logo quite clearly.
I also disassembled the chuck , cleaned it and put fresh grease in the sleeve. The grease helped reassembly by keeping the little balls from rolling all over the place.
March 1st, 2009 - 5:17 pm
Hi there, I am the tool fixer for Habitat Restore in Corvallis, OR. We received a Peck, Stow & Wilcox bit brace that came to me for clean up. It appears to be a combination of the two pictured. It is dated “Pat Dec 30 1884” on one side on the opposite it is stamped No 22. It has the parts of the 1879 version. It is in great mechanical shape, the wood is a bit under excellent and the chuck and ratchet shows no wear. Not sure if it is chrome or nickle plated. I used a super fine wire wheel to brighten the finish. The difference is the date must of been a transition time for the company. Nice Blog. Griff
March 1st, 2009 - 7:10 pm
Hi Griff.
Sounds like you have an interesting piece and in great shape too. I wish I had some catalogs to look it up but I have none. The only Pexto catalog I’ve seen is posted at Rose Antique tools ( http://www.roseantiquetools.com/id192.html ) and its from 1923 .
A good read anyway though.
Take care
Glenn
August 27th, 2011 - 2:43 pm
I have a Peck Stowe & Wilcox brace dates 1881. Good workable condition. Some corrosion. I have not tried to clean it up. Looks pretty much like your 1884. I have another that has chuck jaws like your 1879, but with a different (more modern) ratchet device. It is the style that has the twist ring to change directions. It is marked John S…….unreadable….. and No 106. Same condition, very servicable,
February 15th, 2016 - 4:44 pm
Delighted to find this page (via George’s Basement). It has confirmed the make of the old brace that has been in my family since before I was born. The brace originally belonged to my mother’s father, who worked in boatyards north of Boston between the wars. As he was born in the 1880s, he didn’t buy it new — but despite some external wear (especially on the chuck shell’s milled grip), it still works perfectly.
From the images, it’s the 1879+ model with the little toggles for the ratchet mechanism. I’m working to remove the rust and ancient grease from the chuck. I’d love to find out how to take the down to its parts. The jaw insert comes out easily enough, but the chuck shell and ratchet mechanism show no means of entry — maybe just as well.
The wood parts are in good shape, but the three screws holding on the round head handle are impossible to remove without damaging them, so they’ll stay where they are.
Finding the make has been a real search because there are no apparent markings on the brace itself. Perhaps once the rust is off it…
Thanks!