Covid-stay-home-thunder-dome leads to archaeological find in a *C* press.

[ApacheCoTodd]

Looks like someone repaired it. I have done brazing jobs (not on a press, mind you) that look similar.

Agreed but I figure they repaired a flawed amateur casting more than a damaged original.

I'm always a fan of repairs whether military depot or lower level on down to home-bench and deer-camp fixes.
This press earns my appreciation for the time someone put in to make it work.
Form the day when you didn't just hammer a credit card for a replacement. Gotta love that.

Todd.

 

[Offfhand]

Excuse me for butting in, but here is some additional information that may be of interest to this discussion: Amongst my collection of vintage reloading equipment there is a series early Pacific presses, as shown in attached pics. Beginning with with what I call the 2nd model, introduced and cataloged about 1933, after patent grant. (The 1st model was marked Pat. Applied for and previous to 1933) I have owned several of this series, and noted small changes occurring from 1933 to about 1942. Small but noticeable defects in in casting of the main frame were not uncommon, many of which were final finished and delivered after obvious repairs. Many quite similar to pics supplied by OP. Also in attached pic of my sample, with rough casting evident around edge of base before being ground flat during final prep. The OP's sample has been modified at some point, , as shown in two angled holes in the die head. Apparently in order to attach a bracket for auto primer feed assembly. Also, just for fun, is a pic of my first reloading, bought when I was 14 and first getting into handloading, and now displayed on wall in my gun room.

 

[ApacheCoTodd]

Excuse me for butting in, but here is some additional information that may be of interest to this discussion: Amongst my collection of vintage reloading equipment there is a series early Pacific presses, as shown in attached pics. Beginning with with what I call the 2nd model, introduced and cataloged about 1933, after patent grant. (The 1st model was marked Pat. Applied for and previous to 1933) I have owned several of this series, and noted small changes occurring from 1933 to about 1942. Small but noticeable defects in in casting of the main frame were not uncommon, many of which were final finished and delivered after obvious repairs. Many quite similar to pics supplied by OP. Also in attached pic of my sample, with rough casting evident around edge of base before being ground flat during final prep. The OP's sample has been modified at some point, , as shown in two angled holes in the die head. Apparently in order to attach a bracket for auto primer feed assembly. Also, just for fun, is a pic of my first reloading, bought when I was 14 and first getting into handloading, and now displayed on wall in my gun room.View attachment 902059 View attachment 902060 View attachment 902061

Thanks for that and in particular the Super.

The flaws shown are't even remotely close to what's wrong with mine but are still fun to look at none the less.

Once again, though the photos may not do it justice, trust me on this, it is a home-brewed sand cast of an original piece. Mine is slathered with brazing to make up for a flawed casting on the part of a hobbyist.

Todd.

 

[buck460XVR]

This reminds me of when my dad(God bless his soul) used to collect antique cast iron toys, his preference was mechanical banks. He talked about reproductions, imitations, fakes and cast-offs. Like with older guns, old cast iron toys were a thing of beauty made by craftsmen who took great pride in their work and thus, for the time, were very expensive.Not so much reproductions, imitations and fakes. Basically comes down to the quality of the cast and the finish. Quality toy makers used very fine sand, and is how they were able to get the detail into small toys. My Dad swore he could tell an original by closing his eyes and feeling the surface. Graininess generally meant not an original. Reproductions were made to be cheap imitations. Imitations were sometimes made as just cheap alternatives. Fakes were made to deceive and were the bane of cast iron toy collectors. Like Todd said, most of these were made by using an actual piece for creating the pattern in sand as opposed to the carved wooden patterns used for the originals. This, along with the use of coarser sand made for less details and a grainier texture. Most of these were made in more under-developed countries like India, China or Mexico. Not always were they made to deceive, sometimes they were just a cheaper way to make a tool or a toy, or even frying pans for everyday use. Patents didn't really matter in those countries and weren't enforced. Then there was what Dad called the cast-offs. Even the best of casters had failures. Sometimes it was a small defect, sometime a large one. Those were generally thrown in a bin to be remelted and used to cast another day. But sometimes, they found their way out of the factory and made it to someone's home. Sometimes like misprinted stamps or mis-minted coins they can be collectable. Many times they were "bubba'd" to make them usable or to try and make them more like they should have been. They generally were never finished or polished like good castings, so they showed more flash because of this. This made them hard to distinguish as original 'seconds".

Don't know what the OP has, odds are he knows better than me. I still have a bunch of cast iron toys and banks that were my dad's. Can't tell you if they are originals, reproductions, imitations, fakes or cast offs. They just look good sittin' on the shelf.

 

[ApacheCoTodd]

This reminds me of when my dad(God bless his soul) used to collect antique cast iron toys, his preference was mechanical banks. He talked about reproductions, imitations, fakes and cast-offs. Like with older guns, old cast iron toys were a thing of beauty made by craftsmen who took great pride in their work and thus, for the time, were very expensive.Not so much reproductions, imitations and fakes. Basically comes down to the quality of the cast and the finish. Quality toy makers used very fine sand, and is how they were able to get the detail into small toys. My Dad swore he could tell an original by closing his eyes and feeling the surface. Graininess generally meant not an original. Reproductions were made to be cheap imitations. Imitations were sometimes made as just cheap alternatives. Fakes were made to deceive and were the bane of cast iron toy collectors. Like Todd said, most of these were made by using an actual piece for creating the pattern in sand as opposed to the carved wooden patterns used for the originals. This, along with the use of coarser sand made for less details and a grainier texture. Most of these were made in more under-developed countries like India, China or Mexico. Not always were they made to deceive, sometimes they were just a cheaper way to make a tool or a toy, or even frying pans for everyday use. Patents didn't really matter in those countries and weren't enforced. Then there was what Dad called the cast-offs. Even the best of casters had failures. Sometimes it was a small defect, sometime a large one. Those were generally thrown in a bin to be remelted and used to cast another day. But sometimes, they found their way out of the factory and made it to someone's home. Sometimes like misprinted stamps or mis-minted coins they can be collectable. Many times they were "bubba'd" to make them usable or to try and make them more like they should have been. They generally were never finished or polished like good castings, so they showed more flash because of this. This made them hard to distinguish as original 'seconds".

Don't know what the OP has, odds are he knows better than me. I still have a bunch of cast iron toys and banks that were my dad's. Can't tell you if they are originals, reproductions, imitations, fakes or cast offs. They just look good sittin' on the shelf.

It's of interest to me, this market of *non-originals* - in particular, military or Service gear.

I really have an appreciation for the vintage Indian knock-offs or British and U.S. equipment like compasses and such. At one time, they made damn good imitations that I value as *place-holders* in a collection until and authentic.

I really dig Frogo207's observation that it may also have in fact been a reject from the factory that someone took home and tuned up. Maybe the result of training Journeymen or apprentices in the casting shop at Pacific too.

Todd.

 

[Scooter22]

Could it be the rare "Door Stop" model brought home by a employee?

 

[buck460XVR]

I really dig Frogo207's observation that it may also have in fact been a reject from the factory that someone took home and tuned up. Maybe the result of training Journeymen or apprentices in the casting shop at Pacific too.

Todd.

Kinda what my Dad's theory was on what he called "cast-offs". Maybe a Janitor or someone other than those involved with actual production, grabbing a reject meant to be melted down and recycled, to take home a toy for their family they otherwise couldn't afford or buy. Because castings were many times rejected for the smallest of imperfections, the item probably still would work, just not cosmetically perfect.

 

[hogslayer6]

So, here I be.
Lining up and prioritizing Kung-Flu projects and one can I've been kicking down the road for many years is attending to my neglected re-loading gear.

I had stopped re-loading, more or less, in the 90's as access to inexpensive ammo made it wasteful for me and the relaxation of reloading can be equaled for me in other pursuits too.

Now, looking to spool up for semi-auto .38 Special and a couple of other projects - along with the semi-lockdown - has me digging through the inventory and assessing quality and usefulness.

I got this C press a very long time ago and just assumed it was a horrendously re-painted example. The trueness and smoothness of throw never lead me to believe otherwise.

So, I get it out, clean it a bit and disassemble for the electrolysis tank. When it comes out and passes through the hot ultra-sonic, I get what is shown here.

Initially, I thought it was a re-weld and then upon closer examination, I find it's a home-cast and properly sleeved and machined example of someone's roll-yer-own. Probably copied his own for two or someone else's on the cheap.

Another possibility is that this is just the kind of thing we'd do in our advanced metal-shop classes in high school in Minnesota in the 70's.

In any case, I sure wish I knew the story behind it and thought I 'd share it here.

I still like these *inefficient* items and processes for the simplicity and also for one-time, one-off operations complimenting my manual turrets.

Todd.
View attachment 901531 View attachment 901532 View attachment 901533

I have one just like it and it is my go-to press. I have an RCBS and a Lee but I just like the Pacific better.

 

[ApacheCoTodd]

I have one just like it and it is my go-to press. I have an RCBS and a Lee but I just like the Pacific better.

I assume your RCBS and Lee presses are straight-vertical presses. If so, how much of what you like about the Pacific is that angle they built them to?

For my part, it's the general pleasing shape and that angle. In a perfect world, they'd have biased the can't of the handle t favor right handed people too.

I knew a fella who's reloading bench was a giant cable spool and he had 5-6 (maybe more) presses on it at any time and I believe they were all Pacific *C* presses. Very cool outfit.

Todd.

 

[ApacheCoTodd]

Excuse me for butting in, but here is some additional information that may be of interest to this discussion: Amongst my collection of vintage reloading equipment there is a series early Pacific presses, as shown in attached pics. Beginning with with what I call the 2nd model, introduced and cataloged about 1933, after patent grant. (The 1st model was marked Pat. Applied for and previous to 1933) I have owned several of this series, and noted small changes occurring from 1933 to about 1942. Small but noticeable defects in in casting of the main frame were not uncommon, many of which were final finished and delivered after obvious repairs. Many quite similar to pics supplied by OP. Also in attached pic of my sample, with rough casting evident around edge of base before being ground flat during final prep. The OP's sample has been modified at some point, , as shown in two angled holes in the die head. Apparently in order to attach a bracket for auto primer feed assembly. Also, just for fun, is a pic of my first reloading, bought when I was 14 and first getting into handloading, and now displayed on wall in my gun room.View attachment 902059 View attachment 902060 View attachment 902061

Do you have a more detailed picture of the 2nd and 4th from the left of your presses? I'd love to see the primer feed on the one and the holder-table on the *SUPER* model.

That display piece is a great idea. I may crib that plan one day for my old turret press. It's the first I ever owned myself and sadly, I can't do it with what I learned on since that was a giant iron affair hand-made by the guy who taught me down San Angelo, Texas.

Todd.

 

[Offfhand]

Do you have a more detailed picture of the 2nd and 4th from the left of your presses? I'd love to see the primer feed on the one and the holder-table on the *SUPER* model.

Here'ya go..

 

[ApacheCoTodd]

Here'ya go..
View attachment 903558 View attachment 903559

That's a beautiful add-on from Pacific on the first one.

Todd.