Talk:Locking pliers

Vice grip

i think that they shouldnt have vice grip linc to this thats not good —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.241.63.87 (talk) 16:55, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Where do you think that link should go instead? Richard New Forest (talk) 22:37, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Licensing

Somehow, everybody makes these. What is the story of the design licensing (or lack of?) 41.193.82.58 (talk) 08:03, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

They were invented in the 1920s so the patents are way expired, therefore anyone can make them. Wizard191 (talk) 22:07, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Invented by?

Under History the article names Mitchell Jemson as having invented locking pliers. Follow the External link "History of the Vise-grip" and it names William Petersen as having invented them. Anyone know the real story? Or was it a combination of their 2 efforts? Or what? JSL595 (talk) 18:37, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Fixed with citation.TMCk (talk) 22:02, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Misused?

A caption claims that a pair of locking pliers is being "misused" as a knob on an expresso machine. This would seem to be exactly the type of use for which the tool was intended. Now, it might be misuse to use the tool as a hammer, but a substitute knob would seem to be "use" and not "misuse." Fotoguzzi (talk) 01:16, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

• I came here with the same exact thought. Changed "misused" to "used". This also agrees with the content of the section: "They are also invaluable for holding a nut or bolt that has been 'rounded' or as temporary levers/knobs on equipment and machinery." Ironearth (talk) 14:37, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Nolan Van Loo?

Who is Nolan Van Loo? the page that is cited says William Peterson invented the tool. Technical keys (talk) 13:53, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

The spelling "vice grips" is missing

Britain uses the spelling "vice" instead of "vise": this is also true in "vice grips", even though it isn't the commonest British term for this tool. It certainly exists, and you can find it in published books by a simple search in Google Books. I tried to add this as an alt spelling but was reverted by somebody who didn't do their basic checking. Please can a "popular user" restore it, as they don't get auto-reverted like us lesser beings? :) Equinox ◑ 22:23, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

No, it's not true in "vice grips". Vise Grip is a trademark and uses the US spelling. There is no rebranding as "Vice Grip" in the UK market. Now "vice grip" probably does get used, as do many mis-spellings of many words, but that doesn't give them encyclopedic weight. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:46, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Just step back from your preconceptions for a moment, okay? And visit this link, and see that the spelling is really used: [1]. Now you may say "those are all bad mistaken misspellings", but that's prescriptivism. It's like me saying "people can't possibly use gay to mean homosexual, because it only means happy!" (i.e. refusal to accept change), or "Kleenex is a trademark so Americans can't use it as a generic term for any tissue" (let me assure you they have done so for decades). How can I escalate this question to others? A helpdesk? Equinox ◑ 03:37, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Incidentally, as far as "encyclopedic weight" goes: I am the #1 Wiktionary editor by volume, who has spent years upon years researching words and their use, and I can say that Wikipedia articles often include bizarre obsolete synonyms for words in the lead sentence that aren't even attestable by Wiktionary's weak standards of finding merely three hits in Google Books. By comparison "vice grips" is absolutely normal and commonplace. Equinox ◑ 03:41, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Congratulations. And we still don't work by proof by authority, let alone "I'm the biggest editor here". Andy Dingley (talk) 09:24, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello. I'm not a popular user. Perhaps I'm an unpopular user. But so what? ¶ Now, this list does appear to show that a lot of what may be described as books use the term "vice grips" (so uncapitalized). One may regard a word as misspelled; but once a misspelling is widely used in contexts that are taken seriously, it becomes an unembarrassing spelling -- and in time perhaps even the spelling. (Consider the once-silly spelling "debt", for example.) Or do I misunderstand something? -- Hoary (talk) 03:59, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Outsider comment - "Vice grips" is a commonly used name for this device in Australia, probably THE most commonly used name. Examples....

https://www.ebay.com.au/i/142649312764?chn=ps

https://www.gumtree.com.au/s-tools-diy/vice+grip/k0c18430

https://transquip.com.au/categories/hand-tools/handtools-by-brand/sp-tools/vice-grips-locking-pliers/

HiLo48 (talk) 04:33, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

eBay, et al., are not WP:RS. A colloquial misspelling exists, but that's no reason for us to repeat it here. Especially not to repeat it, in Wikipedia's voice as a valid alternate spelling. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:48, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Could you perhaps show some good faith here and accept that colloquial spelling IS real spelling, and maybe it's the spelling of a commercial brand name that some might argue is not correct English? Your absolute position on this is somewhat concerning to me, but I didn't come here looking for a fight, so I shall leave it there. HiLo48 (talk) 08:54, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps you could avoid switching to personal attacks on another editor and stick to policy of WP:V & W:RS? Let alone the passive-aggressive tactic of "It's all your fault because you're being such a bad person, but don't even reply to this because I am literally not going to be listening".

You and Equinox both - per WP:BURDEN, if you want to include this as an alternate spelling, then show WP:Verifiable by WP:RS sourcing for "Vice Grips" as a spelling for these, more than just an accidental colloquialism. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:28, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

I wasn't going to say any more, but I won't put up with being accused of a personal attack. Sorry, but that's bullshit! Goodbye. HiLo48 (talk) 09:33, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

This notion of "colloquial spelling" is new to me, Andy Dingley, and it puzzles me. Whether or not the spelling "vice grip(s)" is "colloquial" (whatever that might mean), it appears in Ralph Berry, Frank Cahill, Phillip Chadwick, Electrical Trade Practices 2nd edition (Cengage AU, 2019; ISBN 9780170397957), page 220, notably the caption to figure 5.49; and in Heather Smith Thomas, Storey's Guide to Raising Horses 2nd edition (Storey Publishing, 2010, ISBN 9781603426879), page 89. As well as in more that you will find (intermixed of course with self-published and other bilge) within this list, which I again draw to your attention. ¶ Incidentally, come back, HiLo48! -- Hoary (talk) 10:20, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

I have little more to offer. Came here to help with some information, and a perspective. Got abused for my troubles. Wasn't looking for a fight, and still don't want one. I obviously agree with your point about spelling. HiLo48 (talk) 10:54, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

• Raised at WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Locking pliers Andy Dingley (talk) 11:33, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

The OED has the entry "vice grip" with five cites from 1915 to 2004. The definition is "A proprietary name for any of various handheld (or occasionally mounted) clamping tools'". The 2004 entry is capitalised: "Vice Grip locking pliers" Dbfirs 15:04, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm sixty mumble years old, in the UK and a native English parler. Re "Vice Grip" I didn't realise that it was a TM, but I have used vice grip all my life, as have many Brits. It isn't a colloquialism, but British English. I think it should be in sentence one, and also remind editors that the redirect Vice grip exists, and I didn't create it. Should I make this point at DRN? -Roxy, the dog. wooF 18:07, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Dbfirs, it was on the OED new words list in 2006, as both forms vice grip and vise grip. As such, it seems that it does now pass WP:NEOLOGISM. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:21, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Trade names

Surely "Vise-Grip" (singular) and "Mole wrench" {singular) are both trade names, in the US and UK respectively, and should be clearly described as such? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:22, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

That's what the upper case designates. Very clearly. It defines them as proper nouns. Their trade names.

I was suggesting that the trade names should be clearly described or marked as such. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:07, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Why are these jumbled together, with non-proper nouns, in the opening sentence? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:29, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

The order reflects usage. "Vise-Grip" is the trade name of the original and by far most popular version of the plier in its largest market (the U.S., where it was invented and is made). "Vise Grips" is how it is ubiquitously used, a reference to the dominant variant, written and uttered both specifically and as a genericization (slightly corrupted into "Vice-Grips", aping the irregular convention of referring to a singular tool (plier) in the plural (as "pliers")).

Following "Vise-Grips" is a popular corruption of that proper noun, "vice grip", which uses the proper (lower case) British spelling for a clamping tool (the "vice"), that also happens to be a popular U.S. misspelling of "vise"; being a variant of "Vise/vise" it naturally follows the proper noun identification of the tool introduced first.

Last comes "Mole wrench", again a proper noun, popularly contracted from the "Mole Self Grip Wrench". It's not a "mole Wrench". It's both a specific reference to the Mole brand locking wrench (similar to "Crescent wrench" for an adjustable wrench), and a genericized use of that term for the tool.

I'd be interested to see some figures that support this ordering, if they exist. If "Vise-Grip" was indeed "ubiquitously used", there would be no other names in use at all. Why do we have "Vise-Grips" and not "Vise-Grip"? Crescent is not a brand name; I'm not sure it's even a proper noun. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:07, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

We also currently have an unexplained mixture of singular and plural: "'Locking pliers (also called Vise-Grips, a vice grip, or a Mole wrench) are pliers... Martinevans123 (talk) 15:45, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Again, that is how the terms are used. It would be appropriate to add the variant "vice grips" after "vice grip", as that too is a popular corruption of the proper noun "Vice-Grip". Feel free to add it after "vice grip" and before "Mole wrench" if you are so impelled (along with "Vise-Grip" before "Vice-Grips", likewise). Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 16:56, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Again, I'd be interested to see any figures that support this ordering. I'm not impelled to go anything, just trying to make the opening sentence clearer. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:07, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

1966 advert

Here is a link to an advert in the Liverpool Echo, for Thursday 13 October 1966, for the "MOLE SELF-GRIP WRENCH (TRADE MARK)" posted by M. MOLE & SON LTD., Crindau Works, Albany Street, Newport, Monmouthshire. Blog sources suggest that manufacture was moved from Birmingham to Newport in 1960: [2]. Access to the British Newspaper Archive is required to view. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:04, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

The image posted at this blog site here shows the wrench marked with "SELF-GRIP WRENCH NEWPORT MON. GT.BRITAIN". Martinevans123 (talk) 17:28, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Mole Pliers

I cannot find any information on how the Mole Pliers, is a different enough kind of Vice Grip pliers to warrant mention in this article. It looks identical in my search. As far as I can tell it is a United Kingdom version of the same design. There is no need to mention all of the companies that make these.

One website says this, "Coughtrie’s version and the ones produced by Petersen are very similar in appearance, with any differences between the two being unclear." Another website says this, "The invention is in dispute but it could be surmised or presumed that Coughtrie's company, M. K. Mole and Son produced their own version (the Mole Grip) originally in Birmingham based on the existing American Vise Grip. The likeness between the two is clear from sketch drawings."

It seems clear to me that the Mole Grip is a copy of the Vise Grip. Even though the Times (of London), and the UK Patent Office give Coughtrie credit, looking has a photos of early Mole Grips I cannot detect any difference from the Vice Grips. If someone has more concrete evidence, from reliable sources, them please correct the article. Nick Beeson (talk) 18:36, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

There is a difference - with vise-grips you push the lever down to release, whereas with a Mole wrench you pull up. With a Mole wrench, it's quite easy to flick the release lever with your little finger while holding them, which is very convenient. See http://progress-is-fine.blogspot.com/2017/01/vise-grips-versus-mole-grips.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.169.25.2 (talk) 00:18, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Mechanism Name

You use the term "an "over-center" cam action". The correct physics term is "toggle joint", a standard basic mechanism. The basic tool name is "toggle-joint pliers". In the United States that term is used, as is the generically reused tradename "vice grip" (always verbally, so no one cares about the spelling). "Locking" is almost never used by itself, but sometimes is with "toggle-joint".

The release lever direction is sometimes opposite to the locking lever direction, and is sometimes the same direction. Sometimes some of the ones that use the same direction have a more thorough action, a more complete release, but others are very poor. For the very cheapest ones, having the opposite direction is usually better.

Your article is missing the types that have automatic size adjustment, the user having the ability to change the grip force. There are many varieties of these, some are more effective for some uses. One type, patented about 1942, has always parallel jaws. Some of these tools would only use the correct physics name "toggle-joint plier" and not "vice grip".

Note that "plier" and "pliers" are used depending on the mood of the speaker.

Also missing is a list of all the many varieties of jaws that are available, such as c-clamps, needle-nose, crimping tools, wire cutters, etc. In particular the wire cutters are about the only ones that can cut spring wire. This article has to be viewed as not at all practical, but mostly an academic debate.

As is typical, all of my data (patent numbers, brand names, companies, dates, the actual tools, etc.) are on the other side of town, except I do have a 4" one in my pocket.

agb 173.233.167.50 (talk) 19:42, 16 May 2023 (UTC)