16oz Ball Peen hammers

[Chuck Lutz]

In the signature of this hammer & screwdriver I saved it with the "J. B." notation which stands for John Barton. That's the only one I have and no closeup of it.

Barcalo Hammer J. B..jpg (41.5 KiB) Viewed 2154 times

I only posted it to illustrate the type of ball-pien it had....no other info on it. I think he used an Army blanket as a background on many of his photos.

[pjones]

Thanks Chuck. The Barcalo catalog I just posted has the same shaped pein. It sure would be nice to see if there are any markings on the hammer head.
Phil

[mudbox]

Recently picked up this Heller. 14.8oz actual weight.
I initially thought that the 'C' mark was a poorly stamped 0 (zero) but after seeing the Heller on page 1 with a small 'A' stamp, I'm not sure...
Here's mine.

Here's the Heller from page 1 of this thread.

Same logo stamping. Different letters. Maybe a date code of some kind? Perhaps a quality marking, like a 'second' or poorer quality tool?
-Jason

[Wingnutt]

Interesting, Jason. FWIW, the "A" looks to my eye to have been made at the same time and with the same machinery as the rest of the logo. Everything about both markings is very uniform. Conversely, the "0" on the other hammer you found does not look like the logo. It's deeper, thicker, and appears to have been stamped unevenly, as if it was done by hand. I agree that the same location of the two marks on each cheek is compelling. But I'm not sure that hammer with the "A" would dissuade me from thinking the "0" on the other hammer is a size marking. All of this is speculation without a statistically relevant sample size, of course. As far as that goes, I don't remember seeing other Heller hammers to support either theory (i.e., Heller hammers with "0", "00000", etc, or Heller hammers with "A", an implied "B" or a "C" (if that's what yours is). Something to look for, for sure. Thanks for posting.

[mudbox]

Poking around in old threads, I found a thread from Roger about refurbishing an old FireGuard F/E. The conversation mentions 2 different types of Heller hammers, one pic of the 'A' type Heller but otherwise very little detail on the hammers...
viewtopic.php?f=48&t=166789
To save time, I'll repost the relevant bits here:
Roger talking about the Heller hammer he's using to remove dents from the F/E---

I know its a genuine Ford GPW tool! You can see the "A" for Army!..

The eye roll emoji leaves me wondering if he's serious in his assumption.

I also will comment on the Heller hammer in the illustrations scoring points over the J.Bizal Heller which has the less desirable civvy trade markings. A subject worthy of another thread.

I don't think the 'other thread' was ever created...
Does anyone have a pic of the Bizal hammer?
Seemingly alludes to 2 types (A=Army and C=Civilian?) of Heller hammers...

Conversely, the "0" on the other hammer you found does not look like the logo. It's deeper, thicker, and appears to have been stamped unevenly, as if it was done by hand.

Agree, that's why I'm leaning toward it being a zero. Would have been an easy way to identify the weight of the hammer since we know that the weight markings were absent from most, if not all, wartime specimens.

Edited to add another image.

-Jason

[EAMount]

All,

I recently came across this 16 oz Heller ball peen in VGC. No weight marking on the head or ID on the butt of the handle, Definitely the original handle - tight and intact. The total hammer length is 14-1/8". 19.95 ounces total weight. It has a partial "B" marking on the same side of the face with the Heller marking. Marking appears to be original to the hammer. No it's not an F I would also characterize the finish as more of a "war type finish" for the forging and finishing quality on areas other than the striking surfaces. My only reference for this comment is based on original and reportedly correct Fairmount and Williams models of th same type. So it appears there is an A, B and C (or 0) marking on Heller ball peens. Here are a few photos.







Everett

[pjones]

Nice find Everett. I agree that it is an original handle as they had "s" shaped wedges. Interestingly the 4oz Heller I just posted in my keeper set thread is stamped identical to yours including the "B".

phil

[EAMount]

Some commonality - perhaps "B" is some type of identification or date stamp...........

[mudbox]

Some commonality - perhaps "B" is some type of identification or date stamp...........

Or some way to identify tools made for a specific contract?
-Jason

[43GPW98036]

I have this WILLIAMS ball peen hammer that is stamped “H.B.P.O.” On one face of the hammer head and handle is branded with a “WARNING” label. I’ve browsed through this thread and did not find an example similar to what I have. Any thoughts, is this version correct for a wartime G503 tool kit?

Mario Maipid
2-16-43 GPW, Louisville

[JAB]

I tried to figure that out once too. I think the HBPO is an in-house designation for Williams; Hammer, Ball Pein, but I don't know what O is for. I think it might be a post-war period designation though. This is all guess and conjecture on my part.

[43GPW98036]

I have this WILLIAMS ball peen hammer in my collection - stamped “H.B.P.O.” on one face of the head and has ”WARNING: …” in red inscribed on the handle.

I have been browsing through this thread for more information and have not seen any posts with similar markings.

[Rustman]

I'm fairly certain that any tool with the "WARNING..." markings came later. But I can't cite a source on that right now.

Matt

[Wingnutt]

I have this WILLIAMS ball peen hammer in my collection - stamped “H.B.P.O.” on one face of the head and has ”WARNING: …” in red inscribed on the handle.

Check to see if it shows any signs of being re-handled. As Rustman alluded to, those warnings, sometimes seen on the cheek of the head (i.e., "WEAR SAFETY GOGGLES" etc), are postwar tells. OSHA was established in 1970. The reason I ask about the originality of the handle, however, is the marking on the cheek. The "H.B.P." is almost certainly Hammer Ball Pein. This is a syntax that carried over into modern model numbers HBP-16, for instance. The "O", though, seems like it could very likely be the size marking. Most US prewar ball-pein hammers either had no size marking or markings that used a very early arcane standardized system, where "0" was 1 lb, and all other hammers went up or down in 4 oz increments from there. For example, "00" on a hammer indicated 12 ozs, whereas a "1" was 20 ozs. "000" was 8 ozs, "2" was 24 ozs. And so forth. I do have a few "0000" hammers, but because of that and the even smaller "00000" 4 oz. hammer, makers started using "5-0" (as in "five 0's") or "5/0", and once they started doing that, even though "00" didn't take up any more space, you'd also see "2-0" or "2/0", etc.

Modern size markings are usually considered iffy for wartime. Model numbers that embed the size in lbs. (e.g., "HBP-16" or BP-16" etc) are definitely postwar. The older system is less concerning.

In summary, the head on that hammer has vintage characteristics. The handle not so much.

[43GPW98036]

My thoughts exactly, the head appears to of the “vintage” period and a much later, modern, handle had been used as a possible replacement.