Wartime Guarantees

[Wingnut]

Hi All,

It's been a long time since I posted (2014, as I recall!)

The conventional wisdom in the tool collecting world is that Snap-on “E” (1944) and “G” (1945) date-coded tools were only made for the military during WWII, and, therefore, that they do not carry a warranty. I strongly disagree with this. I see it so often on forums like Garage Journal or Papaw’s Workbench that I don’t even bother to argue anymore, which typically leads only to confrontation. Ironically, even misinformed Snap-on truck dealers believe it. And it probably doesn’t help that it is repeated here on a website considered, with good reason, to be “the Bible” by Snap-on collectors. The problem is, this website has been such a handy, well-respected, well-researched and indispensable reference for Snap-on collectors - this one included, that it wouldn't surprise me if it was heavily influencing the misunderstanding to begin with.

I recently contacted Frank, respectfully recommended to him that he reconsider and revise his statements about the guarantees, and he respectfully suggested that he would, once my argument got vetted here on the forum first.

I figured Veteran’s Day would be a perfect day to do it.

Hence, this thread.

(Post 1 of 6)

[Wingnut]

In the FAQ section, linked here, Frank writes this about Snap-on’s famous replacement policy: “It was basically one year until 1931. Then it changed and basically became a life-time guarantee, with 3 years of exceptions: 1943, 1944 and 1945, when there was no guarantee.”

He provides a hyperlink from the FAQ section to a page where he discusses the guarantees in more detail, summarized from the Intro page of each catalog, linked here.

On that page, he writes, “Also, in 1944 and 1945 all known tools are marked G or E and carry no guarantee.”

But nothing in Catalog P (published in February 1942) or Q (published in November 1944) evidences the life-time guarantee being revoked in 1943, 1944, and 1945. The guarantee statement that appears in the wartime catalogs - Catalogs P (1942) and Q (1944) - is no different than the guarantee statement that appears in Catalog N (1939). Read the statements for yourselves, linked here (Cat N, 1939), here (Cat P, 1942), and here (Cat Q, 1945). Catalog P and Q include an exception caveat, explained in a Note, and denoted by a big black star throughout the catalog, but that Note first appeared in Catalog N (1939) and pertains only to certain tools that are prone to abuse (for example, the very smallest pin, starter, and drift punches, Phillips head screwdrivers, and special sockets and pliers). That was not prompted by the war.

While the War Production Board put limits on hand tool production, beginning May 29, 1943, those limitations were meant to reserve only certain types of tools for the war effort and curtail redundancy to conserve steel; they did not end commercial production. A notice in Snap-on Catalog Q (1945) acknowledges WPB L-216, stating: “In conformance with the Government’s Simplification and Elimination Order L-216 it is necessary for us to suspend temporarily certain units from our line…such items are indicated in this catalog by the symbol (S). As soon as permission to reinstate them is forthcoming, these tools or improved models will again be made available.” You can read the note for yourself here.

I’m not going to list the tools that were restricted, but I am very familiar with the list. As a summary, I can tell you with great assurance that the limitations are the same in every mfgr’s wartime catalog I have reviewed, including those from luminaries such as Plomb and Williams, and they are compliant with WPB L-216 to a tee. Once you realize what the WPB was trying to do, it becomes very logical and predictable as you review Cat Q (1945). Any type of wrench (DOE, DBE, flare, etc) that had a milled opening redundant to the opening on another wrench (e.g., XD-2526, S-2526, etc) was restricted. Socket drive extensions were limited to only a few basic lengths (e.g., F-2, -6, & -9), with the extra short (e.g., F-1) or extra long (e.g., FX-20) extensions restricted. Same with hinge handles and speeders, again, on the premise that shorter or longer were redundant. All flexible spinners or extension were restricted (again, because they were redundant to those with a solid shank). Sockets with 6 point broachings in the same size service opening as sockets with 12 point broachings were restricted in all drive sizes. Sockets were restricted across drive sizes by opening size, too. For example, sockets L-463 to L-583, the smallest sockets in the 1-inch drive range, were restricted because those service openings were available in some of the larger openings in 3/4-inch drive. This logic is followed right into other types of tools. For example, 7” lineman’s pliers 57-R were restricted, but 8” lineman’s pliers 58-R were not.

The overall result is minimal. Less than 10% of all the tools listed in Catalog Q were affected by WPB L-216.

(2 of 6)

[Wingnut]

On that same page, Frank writes further: “Basically, 100% of Snap-on was government contract or military during WWII.”

That is not true. “The Snap-on Story,” a special booklet published for the 1960 Snap-on Shareholders Meeting, is very insightful on this matter. In fact, as a WWII niche collector, I was pleasantly astonished to discover that Snap-on credits WWII and their experience in making and selling tools for their industrial and commercial customers during the war for their now-legendary truck sales strategy. Because Snap-on’s military contracts had first priority, industrial and commercial sales were suffering extreme lag times. This led to Snap-on developing a strategy of forward- and over-stocking their dealers, who started hand-selling out of the trunks of their cars and the backs of their trucks. The strategy was so successful, that Snap-on institutionalized it across the country in 1946, it was soon copied by competitors, and truck sales have been a standard practice of the industry ever since.

Here are the actual pages for reference:

1960 Snap-On Story pg 32.jpg (112.61 KiB) Viewed 5580 times

1960 Snap-On Story pg 33.jpg (101.79 KiB) Viewed 5580 times

(Post 3 of 6)

[Wingnut]

Also, note that on page 29 of “The Snap-on Story” there is a chart of dividends payouts, shown in 5-year increments, including sale figures. The sales figure for 1945 ($9,529,960) dwarfs the amount of their 1945 military contracts ($876,000), as shown on page 2868 of the Alphabetic Listing of Major War Supply Contracts, Volume 4, published by the War Production Board in 1946. It also dwarfs the cumulative amount of all their military contracts between 1942 and 1945 ($7,780,000) tabulated in the same book.

The huge delta between these two figures – Snap-on's total sales, and Snap-on's military contract sales – is Snap-on’s industrial and commercial sales.

Here are those references:

1960 Snap-On Story sales chart.jpg (129.21 KiB) Viewed 5580 times

Snap-On WWII Contracts.jpg (104.48 KiB) Viewed 5580 times

(Post 4 of 6)

[Wingnut]

But even without such direct evidence, I think common sense prevails here.

Ask yourself these questions:

If they weren’t selling tools in the industrial and commercial sectors, why would they be advertising in every major trade journal and magazine in the country? (See ads from 1943 heralding endorsements from United and Delta Airlines here and here, respectively.)

And here is another typical ad, from the November 1943 edition of Popular Mechanics in which their advertising agency is looking to exploit Snap-on’s military contracts and patriotic pride to remind readers that they are still hand-selling to the pubic directly.

Snap-on Popular Mechanics ad Sep 1944.jpg (163.11 KiB) Viewed 5579 times

If they weren’t selling tools to the public, why would they bother publishing catalogs in 1942 and again in late 1944? And, even more telling, why would they have to include the WPB L-216 Notice in the catalogs? Their government and military customers were well aware of the limitations.

We tend to glorify WWII in hindsight, deservedly so, but in glorified retrospect, everything always seem bigger, and popular culture has tended to paint a picture of a War Effort that consumed everything else. When you look at the hard numbers, reality sets in. For example, in 1945, the US Army – including the US Army Air Forces, had 8,209,238 soldiers and airmen. Only 230,000 of them were mechanics. The population of the United States in 1945, by contrast, was 136,739,353. That's a lot of industrial applications, a lot of automobile service stations, a lot of garages, and a lot of professional mechanics.

(5 of 6)

[Wingnut]

In summary, the facts show that not all “1”, “2”, “3”, "E" and "G" date-coded tools made in 1941 through 1945, respectively, were made for military contract tools. The truth is just the opposite: the overwhelming majority of them were not. Because all Snap-on tools in the wartime era have the same finish (natural steel, zinc oxide, oil-black, or cadmium plating) and there are no alternate date codes to distinguish Snap-on tools made for industrial and commercial sales vs military sales (as is sometimes the case in later eras with the insertion of a “V” in a model number, for example), there is no way to know (without any further obvious corroborating evidence, such as cosmolene, or surplus packaging) if a found and preserved Snap-on tool with a “1”, “2”, “3”, "E" and "G" date code was originally produced for the commercial, industrial, or military marketplace.

Snap-on tools were made and sold to the public during WWII, and in the absence of anything superseding the guarantee statement in the 1942 and 1944 catalogs, they were clearly guaranteed.

All questions, thoughts, comments and substantiated arguments welcome.

(6 of 6)

[Wingnut]

One last addendum: For those who may know me from other tool forums, I am Wingnutt on G503.com and Private Lugnutz on Garage Journal (Wingnut was already taken when I first registered there! )

[snapmom]

I agree. But I have all but given up correcting most people,

[J.A.F.E.]

Quite an encyclopedic writeup thank you for it and all the work it took. Your post is something I have waited to see quite a long time. I have some opinions about why I think you're correct and the reasoning behind it but that's maybe for later.

[rdwaaw]

I absolutely agree. Page 32 of the Snap On story, mentioned civilian tool sales. Thanks for all your research!