The Lufkin Rule Company Takes on Stanley…Really?

By Stew May

Originally published in The Tool Shed, Number 208 (June 2022)

 

Shortly after WWI, and certainly by the early 1920s, The Lufkin Rule Company of Saginaw, Michigan (1869-1977) made the decision to enter the highly competitive carpenter's boxwood folding rule market. The market at this time was extremely mature, dominated by long time Connecticut rule makers Stanley (1854) & Chapin-Stephens (Chapin and Stephens were forced to merge in 1901; the combined company shut down in 1929). Gone were Belcher Brothers & Co. (1822-1877), once the largest rule manufacturer in the U.S., the Upson Nut Co. (formerly Standard Rule Co. [1872-1922]) and numerous smaller firms. At the same time tapes and zig-zag rules were gaining favor amongst tradesmen, further shrinking the boxwood rule market. So, under these circumstances, why would Lufkin challenge the predominant leader in the field, when others were falling by the wayside and the market for boxwood rules was continuing its long decline?

Figure 1. Lufkin factories and headquarters, ca. 1918.

Just for the record, Lufkin was a well-established and highly profitable specialty rule-maker for lumber, tailor and other industries. It also had a major share of the tape and zig-zag folding rule market. But, not so with boxwood rules. At the time of Lufkin's entry, Stanley had over 65 years of boxwood rule production and marketing experience, and dominated the industry. In Phil Stanley's book, Boxwood & Ivory we learn that Stanley's 1915 product line numbered 132 rules. Shortly after WWI, at the time of Lufkin's entry, Stanley still had a significant offering of 78 rules. Lufkin came in whole hog … a reprint of Lufkin's Measuring Tapes and Rules, Catalog Number Ten, ca. 1920, contains Lufkin's offering of 45 box-wood rules – all copies of Stanley rules, all refer-ring to Stanley's numbers as the "Old No."!

 

While we have the business, marketing and sales story here, we also have the manufacturing story. What Lufkin did by my estimation was truly amazing … they copied, engineered and produced much of Stanley's rule line – rule for rule. I would like to underscore the engineering and manufacturing part of this feat: rule-making machinery had to be developed or procured; rule joints and parts had to be designed or re-designed; boxwood had to be procured, aged and cut to exact specifications; an etching and inking process had to be developed; tiny brass components had to be cut to shape and inserted onto and into the rule legs.

Figure 2. Lufkin No. 651 (Ref. Stanley No. 68).

 

What really captured my attention is that in the days before companies dared refer to their competition by name in their advertising (a trend that gained favor in the 1960s and '70s), Lufkin actually placed Stanley's rule number (not the Stanley name), in parentheses, next to or below the Lufkin number on the rule itself. A direct challenge. For example, here's Lufkin's 2-foot, 4-fold, round joint, boxwood rule #651 (68), with its Stanley counterpart number (see Fig. 2). They did this in their catalog as well, showing the Stanley number "(Old No. _ _)" next to Lufkin's number in the rule description, but not on the rule itself (see Fig. 3).

Figure 3. Lufkin Measuring Tapes and Rules, Catalog Number 10.

 

While other companies like Chapin-Stephens and Upson also used similar rule numbers, I'm not aware that they did it on such a broad scale as did Lufkin, who jumped whole-heartedly into the fray. These companies certainly didn't use both their own number and the Stanley number on their rules. The following ads show Lufkin rules that, like their catalog, do not have a Stanley number. (Fig.4) and (Fig. 5)

 

Figure 4. Lufkin ad in American Carpenter & Builder, ca. 1915.

Figure 5. Lufkin ad in American Builder, ca. 1927.

 

So, here's where this article really begins. I have a fairly significant Stanley boxwood rule collection. I also have 17 of those Lufkin boxwood rules, each with the Stanley number; AND, I have their Stanley counterparts. What follows is an attempt to conduct a side-by-side comparison of four of these rule pairs, venturing an opinion on how the Lufkin rules compared to their Stanley counterparts – what's the same/similar, significant differences and overall quality. This has been my inspiration for writing this article in the first place. Certain style characteristics like logo placement, embellishment lines, comparisons of drafting scales, etc. are too much to address here. Note: Lufkin rules are at the top of each picture.

 

Lufkin No. 781(62) vs. Stanley No. 62 – known as 2-foot, 4-fold, square joint, fully brass-bound rules

Same/similar:

• One inch wide
• Fully brass bound
• Square joint
• Numeral placement and style

Differences:

• Lufkin chose to use two middle plates on the main legs (Fig. 6 & 8 – note that plates protrude from the joint into the square joint legs) vs. Stanley's use of edge plates alongside its brass binding (a much stronger joint per Phil Stanley)
• Lufkin's drafting scales are different than Stanley's (Fig. 8)
• While Stanley placed the inside alignment pins directly into the leg's boxwood, Lufkin chose to place them directly into the brass of the square joint (Fig. 8; seems like an improvement).

Overall quality of Lufkin's rule: Lufkin did an excellent job on this rule producing a close copy of Stanley's rule. The quality of the materials – boxwood and brass – is excellent, as is the rule's overall construction.

 

Figure 6. Front side: Lufkin No. 781 vs. Stanley No. 62.

Figure 7. Reverse side: Lufkin No. 781 vs. Stanley No. 62.

 

 

Figure 8. Inside: Lufkin No. 781 vs. Stanley No. 62.

Lufkin No. 982 (78-1/2) vs. Stanley No. 78-1/2; known as 2-foot, 4-fold, double arch joint, fully brass-bound rules

Stanley changed its arch joint (produced before 1912, bottom rule) from a circular curve with sharp corners to a modified ogee style arch (center rule – after 1912), which was easier to produce. Lufkin only copied the modified ogee style for all of its arch joint rules. This section only addresses the Stanley's ogee style rule (top vs. middle rules).

• Modified ogee style arch joint style (Fig. 8)
• Numeral placement and style (common for most makers)
• Fully bound edges and edge plates on the inside of the rules

• Both of my Stanley rules are 1-10/32" wide when closed (the Stanley catalog has it at 1-3/8", or 1-12/32"), while my Lufkin copy is wider than my Stanley copies at a full 1-12/32")
• Lufkin's main arch joint is longer than Stanley's (by 2/32") & thus has a more elongated look, while Lufkin's center arch is significantly longer than its counterpart (by 10/32") (Fig. 8)
• The Lufkin rule's drafting scales are different than the Stanley rule (Fig. 10)
• Lufkin has only edge plates on its outer legs, while Stanley's has middle plates (Fig. 10)
• While Stanley placed the inside alignment pins directly into the leg's boxwood, Lufkin chose to place them directly into the brass of the arch joint (Fig. 11; seems like an improvement)

Overall quality of Lufkin's rule: Lufkin did an excellent job copying this complex Stanley rule. The quality of the materials – boxwood and brass – is excellent, as is the construction of the rule. This rule was the top of the Stanley boxwood line and there's every reason to say it was also the top of the Lufkin line.

Figure 9. Front side: Lufkin No. 982 vs. Stanley No. 78-1/2.

Figure 10. Reverse side: Lufkin No. 982 vs. Stanley No. 78-1/2.

 

Figure 11. Inside: Lufkin No. 982 vs. Stanley No. 78-1/2.

Lufkin No. 475 (65) vs. Stanley No. 65 – known as 1-foot, 4-fold, unbound, square joint rules

Same/similar:

• 5/8-inch wide
• Square joint
• Numeral placement and style (although Lufkin's numbers are larger).

Differences:

• Lufkin's square joint is slightly smaller than Stanley's (by 1/32" – not a meaningful difference)
• Lufkin has double middle plates on both main and outside legs, while Stanley has double plates on the main legs and single center plates on the outside legs (Fig. 13 & 14)
• While Stanley placed its pins directly into the boxwood of its main legs, Lufkin placed its pins directly into the brass of the square joint (Fig. 14)

Overall quality of Lufkin's rule: Excellent! Lufkin did an excellent job on this rule. The quality of the materials – boxwood and brass – is excellent, as is the construction of the rule.

Figure 12. Front side: Lufkin No. 475 vs. Stanley No. 65.

Figure 13. Reverse side: Lufkin No. 475 vs. Stanley No. 65.

 

Figure 14. Inside: Lufkin No. 475 vs. Stanley No. 65.

Lufkin No. 862 (83C) vs. Stanley No. 83C – known as 2-foot, 4-fold, arch joint, unbound, caliper rules

Same/similar:

• 1-3/8 inch wide when closed
• Numeral placement and similar number style (common for most makers)
• Arch joint style (modified ogee style with rounded edges)
• Shape and style of caliper (see Differences for graduations)
• Use of edge plates (those plates protruding from the center joint on the outer edge of all four legs)

Differences:

• Lufkin's arch joint is longer by 3/32" (Fig. 15)
• The Stanley rule has drafting scales while Lufkin chose to omit them (Fig. 17)
• Stanley's caliper is graduated in 32nds while Lufkin's is graduated in 16ths (Fig. 15)
• While Stanley placed the inside alignment pins directly into the leg's boxwood, Lufkin chose to place them directly into the brass of the arch joint (Fig. 17)

Overall quality of Lufkin's rule: Excellent! Lufkin did an excellent job on this rule. The quality of the materials – boxwood and brass – is excellent, as is the construction of the rule.

Figure 15. Front side: Lufkin No. 862 vs. Stanley No. 83C.

Figure 16. Reverse side: Lufkin No. 862 vs. Stanley No. 83C.

 

Figure 17. Inside: Lufkin No. 862 vs. Stanley No. 83C.

Conclusions and Questions

While Lufkin's marketing strategy seems obvious, I wish I had more information. I can't find any formal information on their marketing plan, timing and how they geared up to design/copy, engineer and produce such an extensive line. The closest I get are comments such as this from Phil Stanley: "Lufkin … began the manufacture of traditional folding rules sometime in the 1920's, in an effort to provide a broad product line for their customers." Also, this comment from Martin Donnelly in his 2000 Catalogue of Antique Tools: "In their zeal to match Stanley number for number in the rule competition, Lufkin began making rules at about the same time Stanley was ceasing production."

What I can say for certain is that copy-for-copy, coming in late to the game, Lufkin did a superb job in creating rules to compete with Stanley at the local hardware store. There may be minor differences, but if I had to give Lufkin a rating on the rules themselves, it would be a 100!

In closing, I believe this to be an amazing story of an American corporation's ingenuity, engineering and manufacturing capability AND business courage (or business short-sightedness). If the purpose of Lufkin's copies were to allow the hardware store owner to offer a quality alternative to Stanley's rule, I believe they succeeded in doing that. How this new product line performed in actual sales, market share, profit and longevity, while going head-to-head with Stanley is unknown to me at this time.

Attribution:

• Boxwood & Ivory: Stanley Traditional Rules, 1855-1975 by Phillip E. Stanley
• The Catalogue of Antique Tools, 2000 Edition Martin J. Donnelly Antique Tools
• Lufkin Measuring Tapes and Rules, Catalog Number Ten circa 1920; reprinted by The Mid-West Tool Collectors Association in 2005
• Stanley Tools Catalogue No. 34, Copyright 1927 by The Stanley Works