E-Type toolkit quality

Jerry,

It’s not my place to comment on JCNA rules and policy – it’s an extremely tough call within the context and environment of the USA Concours scene, and I am well aware of the difficulties and issues with my major involvement since the 1970s in the equivalent Australian ACJC Concours environment. But am also VERY aware of the difficulties and thanklessness for those involved setting rules and policy, and indeed also the Judges of the day. Never hear of a Judge being praised for his efforts and time, but you certainly hear the criticisms and complaints.

My agenda and intent is not for the purposes of just satisfying Concours Rules (different in USA, Australia and UK), but more to provide the detail of what is 100% correct (or as close as I can) with E-type tool-kits for the benefit, and dare I say education, of those interested in such things. And indeed, as I said before, to educate aspiring correct tool-kit owners, on how to spend their money wisely, including from the many offerings on Ebay, most claiming or carefully deceptively presenting as being correct/original when they in fact range from not-too-bad, to total rubbish. There are a few serial offenders on Ebay offering total rubbish, preying on uneducated cashed-up buyers.

Actually, in Australia, and with the many inquiries I get regularly worldwide (including USA, Europe and UK and lesser-profile countries), I find more interest in this level of originality detail and accuracy to be from owners, or aspiring restorers of top cars that they just want to get as-right-as-possible, regardless of whether they are interested in Concours or not, albeit I am also aware that some people present/show cars simply to whatever standard is necessary to get 100.0 points in a show. Each to their own, there are no rules.

But any tool-kit put together as per my detailed paper, will easily satisfy JCNA and ACJC and UK Concours Rules without debit, it’s just I go into things a lot deeper re detail and accuracy, than is required or expected in any Concours.

And “Original to a particular car” – I agree, how do you guarantee that 40-50 years later?

But after 40 years research into this level of detail, it’s very easy to identify non-original tool-kits (to a particular car) and non-original tools within an otherwise sound tool-kit, albeit again I should say ‘authentic’ as if it is the exact correct tool sourced from elsewhere, you cannot differentiate it from ‘original’.

I have no commercial agenda – it’s purely a hobby for me, as with all the various original research topics I tackle – not just Tool-Kits.

Email: mailto:rogerpayne@bigblue.net.au rogerpayne@bigblue.net.au

Roger, straying from the XJ40 forum, I admire your dedication ‘to the cause’ and hope that you can throw some light on the tools in the attached pictures which, because she knew I was a Jaguar owner, were passed to me by the widow of a guy who I’m told was also a Jaguar owner but she didn’t know the model and year of the car from which they came.

Do they look genuine to you - and any idea from which model/year?

Bryan,

First up, all the tools you picture are genuine/original tools from a Jaguar tool-kit from the mid/late 1960s and could be from either a 4.2 Series 1 E-type, or similar age Jaguar Saloon - Mark 2, 420, Mark 10, 420G, 240/340.

Your Grease-Gun is a Tecalemit GC.3020 as was used in Jaguar Tool-Kits over the 1957 to 1968 (and to 1970 in a 420G tool-kit) period, but assuming it came to you with the pictured Spanners, then presumably from the same mid/late 1960s tool-kit. Tecalemit also supplied these Grease Guns to many other British companies, other than Jaguar of course, but in USA, ex a Jaguar tool-kit is most probable.

The four open-ended spanners were however made specifically for Jaguar, thus the JAGUAR brand on the front, and by Sheffield Steel Products in the UK, thus you will find their brand SSP on the reverse side. Having these four SSP spanners dates the tool-kit as being from 1966 to about 1970 period, and I am talking about date-of-manufacture, not date-of-sale or Model-Year of car.

The 4 inch Adjustable Spanner is also specifically made for Jaguar, in this case Made-in-Germany by GEDORE, with their branding on the reverse side. JAGUAR/ GEDORE Adjustables were found in tool-kits mainly in the 1965-1966 period, and into 1967.

So reasonably assuming all six tools are ex the same tool-kit originally, I would say most likely they are all ex a 1966/7 4.2 E-type tool-kit, or Mark 2, 4.2 Mark 10, or 420 compact saloon of a similar age, but as above will suit slightly earlier or later tool-kits if someone is putting together a tool-kit from scratch.

All six tools look to be in excellent original condition, probably unused.

Thanks Roger.

The tools are definitely ‘unused’ from the same kit and in excellent condition. There was also a screwdriver but since my XJ40 toolkit was missing one of those I foolishly put it in to that kit before I sold the car! When I got the spanners and grease gun they were smothered in oil and the lady apologized because she said that they had previously been in a ‘bag’ but she couldn’t find that. I believe they must be from a Mk 2 rather than an E-Type - I guess she would have remembered the latter! :slight_smile:

The open-ended spanners do indeed have ‘SSP’ on the reverse and the 4" adjustable wrench is ‘GEDORE’

Roger,

FWIW, my tool kit has 2 GARRINGTON spanners, one SSP, and one TW. The adjustable wrench is a modern XKs reproduction. The car is a 1964 FHC, built January 1964, 889791.

The Metallifacture jack has the attached handle and no date code.

Jerry

G’day Jerry,
889791 is very early, first-week, of January 1964, so a most useful demarcation point E-type (don’t have exact date).
Do you believe your Jack and Tool-Kit are original to your car, and if so, are you able to provide photos of both, or at least answer some specific detailed questions I have re detail variations.
I note your advice regarding brand-of-spanners, but they are only a small part of the research.

Your Jack for instance, will be folding-integral-handle variety, so no date-stamping is expected, but there is an earlier/later handle variants that differ in the casting that holds the spring-loaded pawl mechanism that was a minor design improvement to try and address potential failures in service. I suspect yours will be the earlier version, as at this stage I have narrowed down demarcation to be in 1964, but not a month.

Probably best/easiest to send-photos and dialogue direct to me at rogerpayne@bigblue.net.au if you prefer, as it can all get a bit long-winded on forum, but I am happy either way.

Thanks,

Roger

Roger, I find your analyses of the various jack and tool kit offerings to be interesting, long winded or not. Please continue to post your findings on the forum for the benefit of us all.

Roger,

Built January 17th, 1964 (noted in xkedata.com)

The jack is the earlier type with the flat landing for the pawl. I use it at least once a month!

Both jack and toolkit (what’s left of it) are original to the car as far as I can tell. I got the car 10 years old, in 1974, (for less than the current value of the tool roll!) and the previous owners likely never touched it given their nature. OTOH, several pieces were missing or I lost them later.

Grease gun, screwdriver set (two shafts), brake bleeding hose, tube spanners, flat spanners, and tommy bars are all original. Tool roll and jack bag were both worn out and have been replaced 2-3 times (I do still have the originals I think).

Yes, keep these posts going on the forum. This is the kind of information that we all need to have.

Jerry

You had me worried, although my Data is not daily exact I was pretty sure ‘first-week’ in January 1964 - but as you say, all is shown on XKEData, and it says Dispatch Date is 17th Jan, and Build Date is 6th January, so as I had hoped as close as I could hope for the very start of 1964. Car looks as though it goes as well as it looks, but ouch re punch-in-nose!

So that improves my still wide period of uncertainty re change in first-type to modified-type integral-folding-handle Jack, that I still think happened some time during 1964 or maybe 1965, so still looking for any original Jack owners from 1964 or 1965. Be careful over-using Jack - very high percentage of these integral-handle Jacks seem to be breaking, thus the improved later separate-handle-design.

Your other tools, I will add to my growing spread sheet, and if anything within period of uncertainty, I will get back to you re further detail - many thanks, it all helps.
One immediate question, is your small Tommy Bar, tapered or parallel, bright-steel or Black-Oxided?

Tapered and black. It’s about the most useful tool in the kit, for me.

My jack still seems very good. What is the failure mode? I’ll watch out.

Jerry

I can’t do this in all cases. In Roger’s case he had used 4 different email addresses on the old forum. When we migrated these appear as 4 separate users on the new platform. To reunite these 4 accounts without losing the historical posts which each had created would mean transferring ownership to the account which Roger is now using. It takes me about 60 seconds per post to change ownership to a different account. Rodger’s other 3 accounts don’t have all that many posts, but it would still take me about 5 hours to change the ownership.

Once the ownership has been transferred then I can delete the old accounts, thus freeing up the original username which is “in the way” of renaming the account that Roger is using, then I can change his username to Roger_Payne.

The problem isn’t just housekeeping, or peoples preference for a username. I just had a look at Rodger’s 4 accounts. It would appear that people have searched for something or other and found one of his historical posts. If they then reply or PM to that historical Roger Payne then the message will bounce and Roger will never see it.

It sounds complicated, but it isn’t really. We’re still working on a solution to automate the ownership change.

See this guide for further detail:

Roger, I think I have an easy question for you. My Dad bought 2 E-types new: First a 1965 & then traded the '65 in on a '69. I found this tool kit in the '69, but did it come with the '65? Thanks, Tom

Tom interesting tool kit. The tire valve extractor is later so possibly 65 but I see the parking brake tool for a much earlier E so not for 65. If the 69 was a US purchase it came with out this type of tool kit which was eliminated in 1968 (US market). That said it looks almost complete and is valuable.

G’day Tom,

The simple answer is the Tool-Kit in your photo is defiantly from a 1965 E-type and definitely not from a 1969 E-type.
USA market Series 2 E-types did not get any tool-kit/roll (just wheel-changing equipment), and the tool-kit that came with UK and Rest-of-World markets Series 2 were totally different tool-roll and contents (much less than Series 1)

Its hard to be more accurate than 1965 without seeing the individual tools included, but in what I can see is totally consistent with any 4.2 E-type tool-kit from first 4.2 in October 1964 (build date) through to early 1966 (build date), so 1965 is pretty definite, but need more detail of tools to be more accurate. Per chance, do you know Chassis No/VIN of the E-type, as that allows an accurate dating of both E-type and this tool-kit. A simple ‘1965’ (in American terminology) may mean 1965 Model Year or 1965 date-of-sale, rather than the more accurate date-of-manufacture.

One thing I do notice, is the very-left side Allen-Key, which was a tool introduced for the very first March 1961 E-types, that required manual adjustment of their handbrake calipers. When the Handbrake was modified to be self-adjusting from August 1961, this Allen-Key was no longer required, but regardless was still listed and in fact still supplied within all 3.8 E-type tool-kits. Indeed as with yours, although now deleted from the 4.2 E-type Spare-Parts-Catalogue, it was still supplied with all 4.2 E-type tool-kits, 1965, 1966 and 1967, with the latest Series 1 tool-kits being confirmed in UK and Australian tool-kits after USA 1968MY (from August 1967) cars ceased getting tool-kits. One of the rare errors in Jaguars technical documentation not matching the practical reality - but there are others!

So its other tools included that allow for the ‘1965’ dating.

Roger

Jerry, thanks for that.
Can you advise if your Feeler Gauge has its three sizes 6, 4 and 8 etched onto blades with double-stroke numerals, or single stroke numerals?

Re the failure mode of the Jack. I have seen countless examples now of these earlier integral-handled Jacks with total handle missing, and the should-be attached ratchet-wheel also missing, leaving just an exposed end-shaft and often the end-bracket bent out. There are reports of a lot of Jack breakages fixed under warranty. I don’t know for sure, but design is very weak relying on a single small spring loaded one-way pawl held within the cast handle boss, driving and resisting the full load of one side of an E-type being Jacked up, by engaging a single tooth of the ratchet wheel. If either pawl or tooth are worn or not fully engaged, its easy to see the jack collapsing under the jacked-up mass, and breaking of either a tooth or teeth of the ratchet-wheel or more likely I think the Pawl, and indeed I have just been sent photos of a cast-handle-boss cracked open along the hole where the spring-loaded pawl sits. This first design cast-boss was revised by building up the platform around the spring-loaded pawl hole, but also adding a groove/location so that the pawl-rod-handle aligned at 90 degrees, thus I presume better aligning or pawl in engagement with the ratchet wheel engaged tooth.
But still insufficient, thus the total new design of having a large direct square drive on the Jacks main screw, and a separate-ratchet-handle with a much stronger and positive internal ratchet pawl-design, and indeed to reduce the mechanical advantage load, the screw thread was larger with a shallower pitch. Hard to describe, but see attached photo of the inside of an integral-ratchet-handle, and the small/minimalist pawl engagement that carries the entire load of half the side of an E-type being lifted, noting this pawl is spring loaded to keep engaged, or allow ratcheting release.

Be careful - there are a lot of these Jacks out there with missing/broken handles, and you have earlier design without the reinforced/locating boss.

Jerry I feel your pain but your statements are a bit shallow. Let’s use the S1 E type guide as a basis here. For years originality was a very subjective call with strong wills and observation ruling the day too often. Bob Stevenson set out to write a guide and gave of his time and efforts freely. I did not know Bob then but contacted him shortly after I had seen the draft (pre internet). We discussed his draft and I listened to his frustration about documentation. As I had been hoarding documents I offered him copies of all technical and spare parts bulletins. We had a running bet at the time that the top 100 issues could be documented! Last I remember we had done so for 95% or so.

Second protest drive research. No entrant has to simply accept a non auth. score–they can --and do–protest. The protest not only drives the protest comm. to do research but the entrant also. When I judge I encourage valid protest and carry a form in my pocket and even help fill it out if needed.

Third if you read the guides they all state clearly that if you have information to please contact the author–what could be more open. The authors have done a pretty good job of updating when presented with facts. They do not do well with “my car” observations. They also seek original cars but at this date those are usually molested.

Fourth in this case it is tools–JCNA does have a guide which is the basis I think for Roger’s soon to be work. I think some of the same folks are working on it. The correct type of tool is what is judged and not the make. If that is correct the standard has been met. We all know of original tool kits with mixed tool brands.

Fifth if you look at the Judges guides you will find “observational” notes in them. These simply are there to help the judge and at this point there is no document.

So as I said I feel your “pain” but there is a solution, or at least a method of easing it. I remember the radiator exchange and a few others. The author of the S2 and 1968 (or 1.5 ) guide found almost all of his answers in the IPLs and fiche that continued well into the late 70s but was never put in hard print.

While I fully admit there are some things that documents will never be discovered for I can say that the hunting is normally very rewarding. As evidence and using the tool example I provided Roger a Hornburg sales bulletin (not found in Jaguar (factory) literature that the 1968 E types came with a very shorted tool kit. It only stands to reason that previous customers wondered where their tool kit was and Hornburg staff asked the factory and was informed. While the trail of letters seems to not exist the evidence --in the form of a bulletin to all dealers (the very largest organization) seems to be proof enough.

So love it or hate it the competitions (flawed as they may be) are largely responsible for the expansion of knowledge re: Jaguar cars. Competition breeds (or should) excellence. These are not dog shows where subjective rulings control the day. Not that AKC does not have standards–they do–but they are often ignored for reasons of “personalities”.

So go get involved and if you are sure the judges are wrong explain it to them and show the proof. If they do not agree protest–protest is not looked upon as anything other that a search for evidence–unless the entrant acts like a jack wagon!

Would that be an integral-handle jack wagon?

In some cases yes—with a reverse switch!

Soon after I got my '68 FHC in 2000 my ratchet handle type jack bowed out the plate where the jackscrew goes thru and broke the weld on one side at that plate. I have forgotten all of the circumstances now but was using it on a nice flat concrete surface at the jack pad point on the car when it broke. Scared me to death but I should have been paying closer attention .

David
68 E-type FHC.

George,

I think you misunderstand my post. I have no issue with JCNA judging or rules. I appreciate Concours competition (though I have not participated for some years). Even tough picky calls are OK with me, you sometimes need something to distinguish and rank near-perfect cars. No pain here.

I’m just saying that Roger’s research (great research) won’t have much meaning for JCNA authenticity judging. Plenty of us will enjoy knowing more on this subject, I know I will.

Jerry