AI Enters the World of Antique Tool Collecting

 We live in world where AI is playing an ever increasing, potentially problematic role in our lives. It may be no surprise to many tool collectors, but several recent experiences have convinced me that this technology has the potential to significantly enrich our understanding of the historical characteristics and origins of many of our antique tools. This is especially true for “what’s it’s”, but even for tools that we feel we know quite a bit about.

I recently used Google’s Gemini AI tool to investigate the identity of a dozen of my “what’s its”. This involved posting a photo and letting Gemini have a go at it. I believe ultimately it was able to identify most, but not all of them. The program will sometimes offer several reasonable options and leave it to you to choose one. Often Gemini’s first suggestion is clearly wrong. The next step is key. You must come back at Gemini with a reason its description is likely incorrect and add additional characteristics of the tool in question which the program appears not to have paid attention to. Often the program will ask you specific questions regarding some aspects of the tool. This back and forth may continue for several rounds until an identification is provided that makes sense. At the end of each of Gemini’s paragraphs it usually provides a link to a source it has apparently utilized, or which may provide pertinent information. 

Another way that AI can be of use to antique tool collectors is its ability to expand one’s understanding of a known tool. The following is an example using a large pair of early European wing dividers in my collection. 

          

 Gemini was able to focus on a range of the tool’s characteristics. This discussion went on for quite a while and generated 11 pages of dialog when printed out.  The dialog began with a question I raised regarding the ways to distinguish between dividers from the 1600’s and those of the 1700’s. Gemini came up with five differences, summarized the comparison and provided photos and sources. I then brought in the example above to see what Gemini would say. 

        

 Above is the ball joint with a flared base characteristic of a 17^th century tool.        

 

          

 Simple end to the wing as opposed to the 18^th and 19^th century decorated end along with a “lorgnette” thumbscrew (round, flat head with pierced hole). The hole allowed the user to insert an iron rod (“tommy bar”) to firmly tighten the screw. 

           

 The unthreaded “through hole” on the backside of the thumb screw boss (housing) found on some early dividers is apparently a purposeful detail. It provided a way for shavings from early taps or later debris to escape as well as a way to remove a snapped thumbscrew. 

The program suggested an origin of these dividers from the Netherlands, Germany or England. When I questioned why France was left off the list it replied that I had caught a major omission and that, based on several of the detailed characteristics, the dividers were likely French and falling into the Louis XIV era from 1643 – 1715. 

           

 We then shifted to the fixed point of attachment of the wing. Instead of being riveted in place Gemini stated it was secured by a “hot weld”, a more complex 17^th century technique than the later use of a rivet.

 

          

 The top and bottom of the legs for three inches above and below the wing bosses are decorated with ogee/cyma swirls. This decoration and its location is apparently characteristic of the High Baroque period between 1660 and 1690. This further solidifies the dating of the tool.   

Decorations are hot forged not cold file work. This is associated with the late 17^th century.

The 21” length is typical of dividers used in timber framing, shipbuilding and millwrighting.

 

           

The program even explained the occurrence of an apparent forging accident that resulted in a “red-short split delamination” and the correction with a fire-weld repair.

After summarizing the tools characteristics and providing numerous references, Gemini offers to provide comparative examples.

 All of Gemini’s observations are drawn from existing information in on-line sources so, given enough time and motivation, you could probably generate a similar analysis without the use of AI. Google’s AI program simplifies this task significantly. You must maintain a critical eye on Gemini’s analysis since the complex algorithms rely on the validity of data from the sites it draws from and incorrect assumptions are certainly possible. In a later query regarding when wing dividers first appear Gemini claimed it was in the late 1500’s. When I brought up the painting entitled “God the Geometer” from the 1200’s the program claimed the wing on the pair of dividers God is holding was not a wing, but part of the orb being measured. I replied that the painting clearly showed a wing passing through the leg of the dividers and some form of adjustment knob on the other end. Gemini admitted that these were in fact wing dividers and thanked me for the correction.

 If used critically AI offers a powerful research option that can be used in many ways to increase our knowledge of the tools in our collections.

 Note: AI would probably have been more than happy to help write this blog or write it itself (which it didn’t). Also, beware as the program tends to flatter the person asking the questions and will even admit to using flattery when questioned!

 

 

A Common Design of Early Century English Friction Dividers

 In a recent post I outlined two often seen designs of early (18^th and early 19^th century) English wing dividers. One design I designated “Birmingham” the other “Lancashire” or Warrington”. In this post we’ll turn our attention to a common style of friction dividers for the same period. I currently have eight examples of the design below in my collection.

                                                                                       

 The title of this post refers to English tools, but as is the case with many hand tools of that period, several of these were likely made in Germany or other European countries utilizing designs popular in England and exported to that country. 

“Ogee Cone Joints” 

These dividers are typically five to eight inches in length and have the following characteristics: 

-        Filed ogee design on the upper legs with incised lines above and below the ogee

-        Short shoulders (just below main joint)

-        Five leaf, cone shaped main joint 

 

Five leaf joints have the advantage over three leaf joints of increasing the frictional surface area in the joint resulting in a joint that is more likely to keep a setting. I still marvel at the forging skill necessary to create a five leaf joint on a small pair of dividers.

In addition to the ogee design a “half moon (cyme) cone joint” variant is common and may be encountered more often than the ogee version.                                                                                          

 Of my eight examples only two are clearly marked as to a manufacturer. One of the half moon cone joint dividers has a “P.S.” stamped on the edge of an upper leg. These initials in early tools generally refer to Peter Stubs, a well-known Lancashire England toolmaker whose company produced tools from the mid-18^th century into the 19^th century. I would date this example to about 1790. A second example (the ogee cone joint photo above) is stamped T.H.B. & Co. for T. Hessen Bruch Co., a Philadelphia importer of high-quality German razors and tools from approximately 1873 to 1926. This points out that this design of friction divider was used over an extended period.

We'll end with an example different from the above. These are a fine early pair of probably German wing dividers that show fancy file work on the legs with some similarity to the designs discussed above.