"Axminster No.1 Odd Jobs"

[Arthur]

Hi all. Just can't figure out what this thing is useful for.

[Roger]

The message from "Arthur" contains these words:

it tells you:

"Axminster No.1 Odd Jobs

? New version of a nineteenth century tool ? The forerunner of the modern combination square ? A very handy and useful pocket measuring and marking tool ? Functions as a Square, Mitre square 45° and 135°, Depth gauge, Level, Marking compass, Marking gauge and Rule ? Body of cast machined brass, rule brass edged beech wood ? Fits easily into the apron pocket"

No doubt crap at all the tasks including fitting easily into the pocket.

[Neil]

> But it tells you:

well, I think it *looks* lovely...

N

[Andy Dingley]

Makes a reasonable plumb-bob. For anything else, it's too small a length of side on the squares. Imagine a combination try-square set, but too small to be any use.

[dom]

No I wouldn't say it's too small at all. A lot of joinery marking out is less than 150mm - locks, hinges, mortice & tenons etc. But I'm not sure how much of an advantage it is over a compact combination square. It may be like many tools - the more you use it, the more ways you learn to use it.

[The Medway Handyman]

Me too. Don't you just lurve tools & stuff?

[Forrest Anderson]

[Peter Ashby]

More importantly the price is a bit steep for what it is. Very much a vanity tool.

Peter

[Andy Dingley]

The price is an absolute bargain for what it is: a copy of the original Stanley Odd-Jobs. Just look at the price of a real one!

More charitably, a collectors' oddity for those who want a Stanley, but can't afford one. I agree it's not a practically _useful_ tool.

I used to have a genuine one, but used it for the only obvious and rational purpose by flogging it off on eBay pronto. Unlike some of my other Stanley collectible rarities, or the Norrises, I didn't even feel any loss at no longer being able to use it.