Hoe Series 151

These are more photos. Sorry having trouble.

image: image.jpg

image.jpg

Log in to reply   10 replies so far

Picture

image: image.jpg

image.jpg

Just so you know, the 151 isn’t a series or press model, it is a serial number!

DGM

Do you have a photo of the legs? With that I can compare it to the very similar press at Sturbridge Village Museum, but I don’t know the serial number of that press, I’m sorry to say. It should be pretty close to this one, though.

Bob

Yes here is a picture. Will see how it loads.

image: image.jpg

image.jpg

Another one. Still not loading correctly. Thanks Bob for all
Your help on this
. I will email better photos when it is cleaned up.

image: image.jpg

image.jpg

Here is another press of the same style, though notice the wreath surrounding the ID is different. This one is at Old Strubridge Village. I need to try to get the serial number.

Bob

image: OSV Early Hoe.jpg

OSV Early Hoe.jpg

The press at Old Sturbridge Village has the oval medallion that Bob described on Rust presses, and doesn’t seem to have a serial number. If the medallion is original it would seem that it is a transitional press, possibly already cast by Rust or from his patterns, but sold by Hoe. The decoration is similar, but has been changed in the case of the Hoe Serial #151. I believe that the press on eBay being sold as a Rust press is actually an early Hoe of a similar vintage to yours (not that it is worth anywhere close to $40,000), as the set-up for the missing medallion is the same.

I have a photo of a rounded acorn framed Samuel Rust press with figure-4 toggle, and the oval medallion reads”Washington Press / Patented By / Saml Rust / Manufactured By / Rust & Turney N.Y.” It is probably the earliest version of the Washington Press. There is no serial number on the medallion, and according to a Hoe employee Rust was only selling about 40 presses a year, so he was not manufacturing them in a big way. I am not aware of any Rust presses with serial numbers.

The dating of Hoe presses is very problematic. Partially because of no surviving early records, but also because of a list that was published in 1965 which averaged the company output at 125 presses per year dating back to 1827, rather than to 1835 when Hoe acquired the patents for the Washington Press. Discovering and documenting presses of this early vintage is very helpful for press historians to create a better picture of the transition and development of the Washington Press.

I want to thank Devils Tail Press for his information. Yet I still confused. Same to The Arm / serial no. Serial no.
serial no. Thanks

The serial number would have identified the press at the time it was made. The company would be able to keep track of the presses made and sold, and if the purchaser needed a part for the press, the company would have been able to tell which press it was. The early files of the R. Hoe Company were lost in a fire, so the age of almost all presses made before 1870 can only be estimated within a couple of years. The Hoe Company built just over 6500 Washington Presses between 1835 and 1914. By keeping track of the serial numbers and the make and model of press, Bob is doing quite a service for future researchers. He and I disagree somewhat as to the dates that correspond to the serial numbers, but we are not that far apart, and discoveries such as this press help to clarify and expand our collective knowledge.

Hopefully as more information is available, on-line receipts and other paperwork that identify the dates certain presses were made will surface. Today we must rely on anecdotal evidence of presses that were used for newspaper work, and were later heralded as pioneer artifacts. Often for this reason, they were preserved in local historical museums. Many other presses are in private hands, and not surprisingly change hands fairly often. I have owned five Washington Presses of various makes, although I only have one today. It is a [make] R. Hoe & Company Washington Press; [model] Foolscap (all early presses were identified by the largest sheet of paper that could be printed on it); Serial Number 4109. When I purchased the press I was told is was made in 1862, but according to the published list from 1965 it would have been dated 1859. In reality it could have been made five years on either side of that date - we just don’t know at this time. It is easier to assume that your press was made in the first few years that R. Hoe started making Washington Presses. If you call into account the fact that Hoe acquired the patents in 1835, and probably also acquired some presses in the process of being made (the Old Sturbridge Village press might be one of those), then you could also postulate that it took a bit of time for the factory to change patterns and make improvements, and then manufacture the 150 presses before they made yours. So you could safely say your press was made circa 1837, which would allow for a bit of time either way.

I must acknowledge a grave mistake I made in restoring my press. The impression bar (handle), and toggle mechanism should not have been clean until shiny. The exposed metal would have actually be more like it was when I purchased the press. It looked rusted (and in reality it was), but it was originally treated with a process called Browning, which was a plating process that protected the surface of the metal. It looked rusty, but that was how it was supposed to be. The original plating would have been done with heat, but there are chemical processes available today. I used a similar process on the handles of an old galley proofing press called Blueing which turns the surface of the exposed metal a bluish-black color. Both of these processes are still used today to protect the barrels of old guns.

image: RHoeFoolscap1859_A.jpg

RHoeFoolscap1859_A.jpg

I am beginning to think that when Hoe acquired the Rust patents and materials they initially continued the numbering sequence they had started with the Smith press in 1821. Then they decided to begin a new numbering sequence for the Washington hand press, and #151 is a part of that series. I believe that shortly afterwards they realized that a single number series was easier to keep track of and reverted to the original series.

I keep hoping that some evidence will turn up that will tell us what ornaments Hoe already had and what ornaments they acquired from Rust. That’s why I believe collecting information about as many of these early presses as possible in one repository will help solve this problem of the transition from Rust to Colby to Hoe.

Bob