Hello Gentlemen, I hope this day finds you well. Despite my best intentions to finish the kit for 511438 before last year’s end, I was unable to do so, hence my posting of this image today. I am seeking the two 3 1/4 " nesting tube spanners that live in the top corner of my image, I was hoping somebody out there in Jaguar land would be willing or able to assist me in locating these , so that I can present the completed kit to the car’s owner and hopefully generate some activity towards restoring the rest of the car. Wish me luck and Thank you for the assistance up to now.
I heard someone in Adelaide had made excellent repro tube spanners… The the tray flocked? it looksa bit shiny in the photo.
Hello Ed, the tray is flocked, but it was done quite a while ago and I don’t think it was the best job. I am an Adelaide resident and heard about the tube spanners from somebody recently, he seemed to think they had all been claimed. If the car actually gets restored, I will have the tray re-flocked. Cheers.
I took the trouble to look up C178 and C305 because I also am missing C305 for my Mark V tool kit.
C178 is Box Spanner for Shock Absorber Bolts and not in the Mark V tool list, so apparently does not apply to Mark V since I have different shocks than a Mark IV.
The Mark V book says C305 is Box Spanner for Rear Axle without further explanation. I always assumed it was for the drain and fill plugs on ENV axles since it would not fit the plugs on my Salisbury axle. But I see in the Mark IV book it says Box Spanner for Rear Axle Bolts, so I guess that means the bolts on the nose piece of ENV and/or the rear cover of Salisbury Hypoid axles. I can understand having drain plug tools in the tool kit, but I can’t imagine anyone doing a rear axle rebuild with just those tube wrenches.
Your jack is incorrectly painted. The red shaft and clamping part are correct, but the side arm and the bolt holding it should be all black.
Sorry Rob, I beg to differ re correct painting of Anthony’s Mark IV Jack, and I have to say I have been Anthony’s adviser, in putting together and restoring the tool-kit for his 1948 Saloon 511438, and apart from his missing C178 and C305, think he is pretty close to having a Tool Kit now a lot more accurate in both actual component, and correct finish, than what is usually seen in top Concours Mark IVs.
The Jack in a Mark IV is a C204/A, and after a lot of effort I strongly believe all had their already blackened (not painted) 7" lifting-arm assembled to the unpainted clamp/tube assembly, then holding the arm received its red paint, so red paint necessarily painted in and around the clamp as appropriate to such an item, thus getting red overspray on the inner end of the lifting arm, but leaving a sprayed/feathered edge, and not a masked/line edge. I have several photos of original C204/A Jacks showing this effect, but extent of feather-edge demarcation varies from just to outer-edge of clamp, to similar as shown with Anthony’s Jack which is about the maximum limit I would be comfortable with. See attached photo of an original C.204A
You can clearly see that the Clamp has been fully painted, the inner end of the lifting arm painted, and also see traces of residual red paint on both the bolt head and the two lock-nuts. I have several more similar examples of how C204/A Jacks were painted.
The Jack as per your picture is a C2953 Jack as used in later Mark V and early XK120 (with a 5" lifting arm and smaller hex drive nut), and yes in this case based on viewing many original unrestored Jacks these did have the clamp assembled to the main body, then were painted red, including the setscrew securing the clamp in position (but not the drive-nut). The blackened 5" lifting arm was then assembled to the clamp with unpainted/but blackened bolt and two lock nuts giving the effect as per your photo. The unpainted/blackened probably drive nut was then drilled and pinned in position. The earlier C2654 Mark V Jack with same 5" arm, but still the larger C204/A size drive-nut was similarly painted.
AS far as I can ascertain - and impossible to be 100% sure - I am comfortable with saying this change in painting arrangement was at a clear C204/A to C2654 demarcation.
The biggest detail with restoring these C204/A and C2654/C2953 Jacks is not the red/blackened demarcation, but colour matching the red paint used, as I believe it varied based on age. My advice to a restorer is to colour match your own Jack before you strip it of any remaining original red paint, and stay with that. In simple terms (over the 1945 to 1960 period of these SMITHS style Jacks) I have noted very distinct variations in the red shade that generally evolves from a deep RED (with black in it), to a RED (with much less black) to a RED (with obvious orange) to something my eyes actually would call more an Orange/Red – but at this stage I don’t think there was any simple demarcation, and I suspect more a batch by batch variation. I tend to simplify things suggesting the RED-BLACK more for the 1945-49 Mark IV period, more RED/less Black for the C.2654 1949/50 period and the earliest C.2953 1950, but becoming more Orange-Red to welded arm variety, but then more RED/less Orange for later C.2953 and finally for the last C16392 now painted BLACK.
It should also be recognised that the C204A Jack is a carry over from that used pre-war with SS-Jaguar, and I am struggling with getting good original examples, of when exactly some were painted black all over, and not red. So still working on the 1936 to 1940 Jack colour situation. Would LOVE any contribution re SS-Jaguar Jacks.
Ok Roger, I suppose you would know. Seems peculiar for Stevenson to assemble it and then paint only part of it. Looks like sloppy workmanship.
I was confident about Mark V. Didn’t see any red on the arm of the Mark IV jack in this photo, just black and rust.
Rob,
I don’t see any C204/A Mark IV Jacks amongst your five pictured examples.
But please note, with a C204/A as far as I can tell, the ‘H’ section lifting arm is always a 7" length cut from a black-steel “H” section extruded bar. With good examples you can determine there has been additionally blackening, maybe I think a simple black-oxide finish but not with common oil-sealing, (maybe a light phosphating) thus limited survival of the added blackening/protective coating, so it doesn’t take much exposure to be lost and then to look rusty.
Equally as before, the C204/A was made up to Jaguar Contract Drawing C204/A, which would have resulted in SMITHS Stevenson making a batch(s) to fulfil order(s), based on drawing from their range of offerings. Their patented Jack design, came in a choice of body lengths, a choice of bespoke lifting-arm attached, and a choice of drive-screw affixed at the top. This earlier Clamp style, also allowed the clamp/lifting arm to be set at customers exact height requirement, which is an issue I believe with pre-war SS-Jaguar Jacks.
From original examples I have been able to examine, the C204/A 7" lifting arm was always assembled prior to red-painting, thus the red paint on the inner-end of the blackened lifting arm, and the blackened bolt and lock-nuts (as per earlier photo supplied), but adhesion was not as good as onto the cast clamp and the steel tube, thus this painting subtlety can be easily overlooked. At the top end, I believe the top washer was peened in place before painting red, but blown from below, so no/minimal red paint on the top, nor on the protruding drive shaft, and thus the blackened drive-nut then drilled/pinned onto the exposed shaft remained unpainted, and again a minimal survival of the blackening. With restorations its all nice new paint and blackening, and usually done to a far better standard of workmanship than the factory ‘quick-hit’ when they were making hundreds at a time, and not for the benefit of Concours Judge.
But yes, original examples I have also examined of the later C2654 (as used early Mark V) and C2953 (Later Mark V and early XK120) clearly changed the assembly/painting procedure/method, with their blackened 5" lifting arm being assembled AFTER the clamp/tube/foot was painted red.
All the non-Jaguar Jack variants in your photo, I have no idea of which car models they were supplied to, and thus no idea about their colour nor indeed assembly/painting procedure, especially as they could span at least a 20 year manufacturing/supply period (their are dating clues) of this style STEVENSON Jack introduced in 1936. I have a box in the garage of some 20-30 STEVENSON and SMITHS STEVENSON Jacks I have acquired over the years, suiting all manner of different British makes/models, and they come in a variety of tube lengths, clamp designs and fitted Arms, welded-on-arms, and drive-nuts/handles, but also paint colours (various reds and black usually) and painting arrangements. Some could be modified with effort, and restored/repainted to be ‘authentic’ Mark IV/ V/ XK120, but others would need major remanufacturing, so hardly worth the effort. There was a short period where there was a mm/yy date stamp underneath the foot, which is a helpful identifier, and indeed although the main factory making these was in Birmingham, there was also a batch made in Belfast as supplied to some XK120s, albeit seem identical to Birmingham production.
As with many things - starts of as a simple “Part Number” only to be considered, but it gets complicated the more you go into the ‘authenticity’ detail.
The photo was taken by me at Jim Kakuska’s shop.
The second from the left has a square solid bar arm, not an H section, and he believed it was from a Mark IV.
Rob,
Anything is possible, if not probable, and at this stage without definitive proof.
Certainly the square solid arm was a legitimate section offered on certain ordered STEVENSON SMITHS Jacks, albeit to date although I have seen a few, the only one of reliable original-car origin was that supplied to a 1950 Jowett Jupiter.
My understanding is that this Jack Arm was something specifically detailed/requested by the car manufacturer to suit their particular car model application, and based on their own Contract Drawing, was supplied by Stevenson Smiths accordingly.
Indeed I do have a copy of Jaguar engineering drawings for their Part No C204A Jack and indeed it fully dimensions the ‘H’ cross-section Lifting Arm as being 1-3/16" x 1-3/16" overall, with the two webs 1/4" wide, the spine 9/16" wide, and all radii 1/16" all-round. The overall length of the ‘H’ section is nominally 7", but both ends are cut parallel at 4 degrees off-square, thus when installed the slight drop down of the lifting arm.
This C204A drawing is dated 1943 and revised Oct 1945 specifically for ready for post-war Mark IV production, but is based on what was being used for SS Jaguar. I also note that the C.2954 Jack drawing of September 1948 for the Mark V, has the identical ‘H’ cross section Arm, but now 5" nominal length, with the same 4 degree off-square ends.
I am confident any solid square section arm is therefore definitely not Mark IV or Mark V, and not at least 1940MY SS-Jaguar, but cannot verify if maybe used earlier 1936-39MY, albeit there are other clues that could date this Jack as being 1936-9 or not, which is unlikely.
The fourth Jack from the left, does in photo look to be possibly an early XK150 Jack with a pressed/dimpled foot.
Third from left - cant see enough to offer an opinion, but possibly Mark V.
The short round tube arm on the left Jack, looks to be maybe Morris, but there were a number of Model variations.
It may be possible to interpret some of the black and white factory photos depending on the colour sensitivity of the film used but another interesting photo is of the tool kit of the 1948 DHC 637102 that appeared to be fairly original in the photos when it was offered for sale a few years ago.
Peter
Hi,
I am not sure what it came form, but I have one just like the grey one to the right with the wooden handle. The bag it came in looks just the same as my original 1972 E-type V12 OTS jack bag and the original 1975 XJ6C jack bag. The jack is obviously different, but I had believed it to be from a later large Jaguar Saloon, maybe I should look closer as to which chassis / jack mounts it would fit.
Cheers,
Pekka T. - 647194
Fin.
The large gray one on the right, we thought was for Mark VII/VIII/IX but had no car to try it in.
The third and fourth from left we agreed were for Mark V and XK120.
Third from left confirmed the paint on my own Mark V jack. Unfortunately I did not get a shot of the hex size on the top of that one.
H-section question, was that a standard rolling mill size? I wouldn’t think Jaguar would specify such a shape as a special order, too expensive.
That appears the same as my 420G, (altho the angle is not perfect to see.)
MKVII are different
BTW, Roger (or anyone) the light grey paint on the (420G) jack (and seat rails)…is a flat/satin enamel?
Are you able to advise the correct paint & color ?
What is the purpose of the little pin in the feeler gauge section?
Peter
The brass ‘pin’ as you call it, is a C.993 EXTRACTOR for Tyre Valve.
These were introduced for 1938MY SS-Jaguar Tool Kits, and continued to be provided in all SS-Jaguar and new model Jaguar Tool-Kits up to the introduction of the XJ6, albeit from 1962 onwards they were made from Yellow Plastic. There are several styles of this brass C.993 EXTRACTOR, that pictured with straight-splines is as expected for Mark IV/V tool-kits, but see picture of four correct original C993 from different 1930s/50s period.
Roger
Hi,
Yes, one of the very few tools I got with my MKV was that one. I found it inside the trunk lid and it is like the third from the left, with the “DUNLOP” text on it.
Cheers,
Pekka T. - 647194
Fin.
Pretty amazing car this 1948 DHC, lots of pictures on advert to download, and undoubtedly unspoiled/original, including tool-kit, missing Screwdriver and three small tools from triangular recess.
Shame the photos were not higher resolution so you could magnify for detail, but still this photo clearly shows its original Jack with the lifting-arm bolt painted red, as per my previous posting, so no surprises at all.
And Anthony, I can see a pretty nice looking C178 Box Spanner - you could have bought the car! 
And I meant to also say - 637102 is a May 1948 d-o-m DHC (can you date any better Peter), thus an important reference for the demarcation re painting of the Tyre Pump handle, this being pretty well the earliest for the BLACK painted handle, with earlier Mark IV and pre-war, being clear varnish.
This detail is obvious without the need for better resolution photos.
Also has the earlier tyre-pump hose-flex brass-fittings, just visible.
Hello Roger, what is also of interest is the orientation of the copper/rawhide faces in the hammer head, this car, as per the Alan Crouch 1948 DHC, has the faces installed so that when the hammer sits in the kit with the rawhide face(with it’s greater protrusion) toward the outer edge , the “2” would be facing upward. It illustrates how the 501310 patent , applied to this style of hammer, allows the copper/rawhide faces to be fitted in either end, unlike the later XK- on, style of Thor Hammer.
Hi Roger,
Thanks for the valve extractor information. As to 637103 dom I’m afraid I don’t really know although based on body numbers I would guess about July. Allan Crouch or Terry McGrath would probably be able to give the actual dom.
It sold to its first owner on 4th August 1948.
See:http://www.saloondata.com/cars/detail/?car=637102
Peter
