# Sears (Atlas) vs Montgomery Wards (Logan) - Competitive Pricing



## rfdes (Feb 28, 2014)

Not sure if this is the correct forum to post this question but here goes.  It is my understanding
that the Atlas lathes are considered to be on the low end of the scale in regards to quality.  This
from what I understand is based on using the South Bend and Logan lathes as comparable measures.
The thought came to me today in regards to the competition that existed back in the day with Sears and
Montgomery Wards.  Sears sold Atlas lathes under the Craftsman name whereas Montgomery Wards sold the
Logan lathes under their name (PowerKraft or something).  Anyway, Logans have a great reputation and
I understand their quality in on par with South Bend lathes of the same size.  My question (finally) is
the pricing between the Atlas and Logan lathes.  Since Sears and MW were competitors I would think the 
pricing would be something comparable for the same lathe setup.  I'm just curious if it was possible that
Logan sold a slightly less quality lathe to MW for this reason.  Does anyone have any historical information
in regards to this?

Just wondering...
Jim


----------



## iron man (Feb 28, 2014)

Atlas was lower end on price not quality it was built for a general purpose. I assume logan was doing the same thing. It is similar to snap-on and blue-point both are the same wrench one has a better warrenty. Ray


----------



## CluelessNewB (Feb 28, 2014)

Rather than give you dinner I will teach you to fish!

There are loads of old catalogs and manuals on the *Vintage Machinery* Web Site : http://www.vintagemachinery.org/

On the left hand side is a tab that says *Manufactures Index* if you click on that it will take you to a huge list.  

Look for "Montgomery Ward" if you click on that it will bring you to a page of Monkey Wards stuff.   There is a bar with links for 
"history", "products", "machine info", *"Publication Reprints"*, "Photo Index" and some other stuff.

You are probably interested in the  *"Publication Reprints"* here you will find users manuals and other stuff including old catalogs with prices.  All are in PDF form and are FREE to download! 

The Wards catalogs are interesting because they start out selling only "Power-Craft" labeled  Logan lathes but then later they have some labeled Logan and in the 1958 catalog it's Logan only!   In general the Power-Craft labeled lathes lack a full belt cover and I'm not sure if any came with the "automatic apron".    

Under the *Manufactures Index* you will also find "Sears Craftsman", "Atlas Press Co" and "Logan Engineering Co.".  Each one will also have a "Publication Reprints" section.  For pricing info Sears and Wards are probably your best bets.  

 Just like the Hobby-Machinist site they run on donations.  If you find it useful please send them a few bucks just like you should be doing here.


----------



## Terrywerm (Feb 28, 2014)

As far as I know, there are few if any differences between the Logan and PowerKraft brands in most cases. There were a few differences in some models, but they were more cosmetic rather than functional differences. Most parts are directly interchangeable also, regardless of brand name.


----------



## Jack C. (Feb 28, 2014)

My Logan M/W 10" has "V" ways. I believe the Atlas/craftsman lathes had flat ways. The V ways would be more accurate I would think.

Jack C.




terrywerm said:


> As far as I know, there are few if any differences between the Logan and PowerKraft brands in most cases. There were a few differences in some models, but they were more cosmetic rather than functional differences. Most parts are directly interchangeable also, regardless of brand name.


----------



## shoeboxpaul (Mar 1, 2014)

Iron Man, Not arguing with you and I understand the comparison. Just a little imput. The Snap-on combination wrench (open end-box) has been the elite wrench for ages, copied all the time once the patent ran out. Slim, tough, "flank drive",minimal wear, almost unbreakable, good alloy, tumbled before plating, and the lifetime guarantee. I do not know the years but, they used to be stamped Blue Point prior to the "flank drive" feature on the box end. I own a nice set of Snap-on combination wrenches but,  I would love to own a complete set of early Blue Point combination wrenches. The box ends were the simple hex or 12 point sans "flank drive". Every one I have ever examined showed no wear.  Now, most of the stuff they market with the Blue Point label, if not all,  is re-branded, made by someone else. That triggered the lesser warranty. I was a Snap-on dealer for three years and I witnessed the re-introduction of the Blue Point wrenches. For the dealer, the corporation is tough to deal with. No mercy.  They want payment NOW and expect the dealer to put his money on loan to customers  e.g. give a man $500.00 worth of tools and pray to get $50.00 a week until paid. This was/is the "Revolving Account". Ever notice the turnover in dealers? 
Guess I got a little carried away.
I own a 6" Atlas/Craftsman and I am thrilled with it. For anyone reading, just enjoy what it does.  A good man on a insufficient lathe will do better than an insufficient man on a good lathe.


----------



## AR1911 (Mar 1, 2014)

I have used and reconditioned Atlas, South Bend and Logan lathes. I rank them in that order, low to high.

Atlas lathes are lightweight. The bed is the lightest of the 3 by far. It's torsional rigidity is far below either of the other 2.
Atlas used Zamak for many critical parts. We always called it pot metal in the past. Those parts deteriorate and break. Neither Atlas nor South Bend used Zamak - they used steel or iron.

Most Atlas lathes have Timken roller-bearing headstocks, but I think they are just automotive-grade bearings.  Earlier versions used plain bronze bearings.
   Atlas lathes were built for the mass market, for a price. They work fine  for what they are, a hobby lathe. I have had several, but I don't keep  them. 
  The only Atlas I will keep is the 618. In that size the Zamak is less of an issue, and those lathes are just so cool regardless. I still regret selling the last one.

As for South Bend vs Logan, both are excellent lathes. The biggest difference is South Bend used a plain bearing headstock in every lathe they built- the spindle runs in cast iron or bronze bearings. Logan always used high-precision roller bearings. (The downside to that is they are VERY expensive, as I am about to find out. If you are looking at buying a Logan, make sure the spindle spins smooth and quiet at the highest speed setting.)
   Personally, I suspect South bend ways are softer. I have seen a LOT of SB lathes with very worn beds. I have only seen one Logan with the same degree of wear, and it came out of an armature shop. That's just an observation. 

The last SB I had was a 9A, in excellent original condition. I hung onto it for years, just because it was an great example of a prized model.  But when a couple of nice Logans came my way, the South Bend found a new home.

The good thing about Logans is most people don't know the differences, and Logan is an unknown name outside of this interest group. Craftsman, Atlas and South Bend are all somewhat familiar to anyone who has a passing interest in such things. The result is Logans are undervalued compared to the others, and there are lots of them out there.   
   For example, in recent years, I have sold 2 very comparable 9" lathes, a Logan and a south Bend. Bother were 1950s vintage, both had QCGBs, both were well tooled, both were mounted to a usable bench etc. The Logan brought $1200, the South Bend $1850.   That's a pretty dependable ratio I have seen between the 2 - the Logans are about 2/3 the price of a comparable South Bend. 

Parts availability is better for Atlas and South Bend, and there is more information out there for them. There is even a good aftermarket parts business on them. There were simply a lot more of them built. 
  Scott Logan, grandson of the founder, supports Logan lathes as a sideline business. He maintains a website, a Yahoo group, and is active on several hobby forums.  He sells parts and manuals on his website, and has lots of information on the lathes.

All the above is My opinion, YMMV etc.

Right now I have 3 Logans. I especially like the later Powermatic versions, and I was lucky enough to score 2 at one auction, after looking for one for 9 years.  Then last month I stumbled across a 9" Logan with QCGB sitting a backyard. I am currently doing a complete rebuild on it, and it's looking real nice.


----------



## iron man (Mar 1, 2014)

I have an Atlas and I was raised using a southbend of similar size I could not take any heavier cut on a southbend than I can on an Atlas. The bearings in the Atlas can be changed to a better bearing but it would not make much of a differance. On a (well built lathe) they use bearings not bushings but that does not matter either both work fine. I would challenge anyone to turn a more accurate part on a southbend or Logan of similar size than the Atlas it is not the machine it is the operator, Ray


----------



## docn8as (Mar 1, 2014)

FWIW.......several  years  ago  i  ran  some  less than  scientific  tests on a cfrtsmn  commercial 12x36 lathe  ( 1/2 in thick  bed..earlier ones  were 3/8 thick & a lesser  machine ) ..vs  a  wards  logan 10X24.....used a large  radius  round  bit &  tested  for  max  speed to take  th same  depth  of  cut w/ out  CHATTER  ....belt speeds  were not  th e same  so i  came as  close as  possible ...conclusion  was abt  the  same ridgidity Xcept  the crrftsmnspindle  was  one inch  higher  from the   bed  ...so  maybe  it was  a  tad  LESS susceptible  to  chatter ...

   i have  had a  6x18  crftsmn incle 1958 &  have  never  seen any deteriation  of  the  zamak ,,,which  is  NOT  pot  metal  even tho some  call it  that ....there  were  apparantly some  bad lots  , but  mostly  storage  conditions  caused  problems 

  pick  you lathe  on CONDITION , ACCESSORIES ,size needed , & PRICE ..south  bends  are  overpriced  cause  near  every  one that  took  shop used  one  &  wants  one ...MANY have  severely  worn beds ..but that  is overrated ..just  negative  bragging  rights 

    .10 thou bed wear  translates  to a few tenths  variation in a  cut  on a  one in  bar  , more  on smaller  bars  ..BUT  near all can be  mitigated w/ a  folower  rest  since it pulls down the bar  as  the  carriage  drops  so th e cut styas  in  line ......since  most  wear is  in the  first 12 in   of th e bed  , there  is  little  variation  there  ...ony  shows  up on LONG cuts & then as  mentioned a  follower  rest  takes  nearly all that  out.

   FWIW  the  bronze  oilites  in  my  6x18  are  still just  fine ( new in 1957) ,as  are  the  bronze  bearings  in my 14 in 1918 Mopnarch  A  the babbit ones on the  1895  Reed  14 in......,so  are  the  timpken  in  my  1974 crftsmn commercila ,,,,the  bearings  in the  wards  logan required , washing  &  repacking ...hope  they  are  still functioning ...there  has  been a  problem  w/ Logan  supplied  bearings  for a  Logan  200 ....required  reworking  the  spindle  to prevent  serious CHATTERING making  teh  lath e unusable ...they  were  not  to original  spec.......

.answer to long  life  bearings.... KEEP THEM  OILED 

best  wishes'
doc 
 ..


----------



## wa5cab (Mar 1, 2014)

(this isn't a comment on Doc's post but some earlier ones)  

The bearing comments aren't exactly correct.  In the 1930'sTimken made tapered roller bearings and inspected them into three classes, C, B and A (ABMA Class 3, 0 & 00) from lowest to highest precision.  Advertising hype aside, I suspect that Atlas probably bought Class B and "inspected for quality" as they appear to have done 100% receipt inspection.  Automotive applications would have used the cheaper Class C or (from other vendors) the even lower precision ABMA Class 2.

I don't know what Logan used but SB used bronze spindle bearings, at least on the ones that usually get discussed on this site.  Atlas only built two machines (the short-lived Craftsman 101.07300 and the Craftsman 101.07301) with bronze bearings.  I assume that was driven by Sears.   All 612's and 618's used Timken bearings.  The Atlas 9" and early 10" and 12" used babbit bearings which continued to be available as an option until 1944 or 1945.  From about 1937 on the 10" and 12" were also made with Timken bearings.

The comments made earlier about the relative bed and carriage weight of Atlas versus SB and Logan lathes comments are correct, at least up through 1957.  However, Atlas assumed that users would follow installation instructions.  Unfortunately, too many people with an Atlas or Craftsman today don't.

Robert D.



AR1911 said:


> Most Atlas lathes have Timken roller-bearing headstocks, but I think they are just automotive-grade bearings.  Earlier versions used plain bronze bearings.


----------



## docn8as (Mar 2, 2014)

FWIW  early  in the thrd , the  comment  was  made  suggesting V ways  more  accurate  than flat  ways ...i do not  THINK that  is  accurate ...early shapers  were almost ALLw/ box ways ...in the past  few years   some  mills  have used  box  ways &  touting  THIS as superior  PRECISION.....

 flat  /box  ways require  double  gibbs , & w/ modern  manufacturiing , V  ways may be easier & cheaper  to  construct.??????  (two  surfaces  to grind ( or  earlier , 2  to scrape )  rather  than 3-4 + double  gibbs ..

.Atlas /sears  advertised  specs  were to a  thou. for the  LATHE ....CERTAINLY  ADEQUATE  FOR  HOME  SHOP OR  LIGHT  INDUSTRY AT  THE  TIME ...... even  today when near all in  industry  goes to th e grinder  for  finishing ..

   when  considering purchase , one shud  think  carefully abt  resale due to the  widespread atlas /crftsmn predjudice , much  of it  unwarranted......BUT some things  ARE  AGGRAVATING ..cast iron &  bronze  can be REPAIRED ...broken  zamak castings are another  story to  restore  to  factory  specs...&  the cheap supply of  factory  replacements  is  for all practical  purposes  non existant ..they  were REALLY  cheap at  one time ... way more so  than SB /Logan .......so  when  breakage  of  zamak occurs  , almost ALWAYS  from  operator  error ( zamak is  much  tougher  than  pot  metal ), one  cannnot  get out  the torch  / bronze  rod  &  repair ...& that IS a  real PIA ..
.i have a a pre civil war  shaper  in use in my shop ...over the  years  , bronze  bushes  & brazed replacememt of  broken parts  ( again operator  error ) have  kept it fully  functional ....same  w/ an 1893 millers falls  power hack saw....no need for  $200   precision ball/roller  bearings........or  inflated  priced  ebay  parts 

best  wishes

doc


----------



## calstar (Mar 2, 2014)

From wiki:

Zamak (formerly trademarked as ZAMAK[1] and also known as Zamac) is a family of alloys with a base metal of zinc and alloying elements of aluminium, magnesium, and copper.
Zamak alloys are part of the zinc aluminium alloy family; they are distinguished from the other ZA alloys because of their constant 4% aluminium composition.[2]
The name zamak is an acronym of the German names for the metals of which the alloys are composed: Zink (zinc), Aluminium, Magnesium and Kupfer (copper).[2] The New Jersey Zinc Company developed zamak alloys in 1929. While zinc alloys are popularly referred to as pot metal or white metal, zamak is held to higher industrial standards.
The most common zamak alloy is zamak 3, but zamak 2, zamak 5 and zamak 7 are still commercially used.[2] These alloys are most commonly die cast.[2] Zamak alloys (particularly #3 and #5) are frequently used in the spin casting industry.
A large problem with early zinc die casting materials was zinc pest, owing to impurities in the alloys.[3] Zamak avoided this by the use of 99.99% pure zinc metal, produced by New Jersey Zinc's use of a refluxer as part of the smelting process.
Zamak can be electroplated, wet painted, and chromate conversion coated well.[4]


Brian


----------



## wa5cab (Mar 2, 2014)

Taking the earlier advice, I downloaded a few Wards catalogs (I made a donation in January).  The first year that a metal lathe appears is 1941.  It is a 10x24 change gear model and was available with either split or ball type spindle bearings and the same size spindle as the Atlas 10" and Craftsman 12".  The equivalent Atlas models would have been the H-42 and the TH-42.  Came equipped with substantially the same accessories as the Atlas models (two 2MT dead centers, 3MT to 2MT adapter, tool post, etc.).  All are less motor.  The only specification differences worth mentioning are V-bed versus flat, flat pulleys versus V, 12 Speed (41-1270 rpm) versus 16 (28-2072 rpm) and shipping weight of 320 versus 271 pounds.  1941 list prices were:

H-42    $119.00
TH-42  $136.00
701     $117.50
700     $147.50

There is no mention in either the 1941 or the 1943 catalogs of either Power-Kraft or Logan and the catalog photographs don't show any badge on the headstock (however, we know that catalog photos were often heavily retouched).  I can only assume that the lathe was made for Wards by Logan due to its similarity to the one shown in the 1949 catalog.

The 1943 prices were"

H-42    $145.00
TH-42  $166.00
701     N/A
700     $172.50

Sometime between 1943 and 1949 Wards (Logan) changed the model and catalog numbers.  The two machines look very similar.  An optional 48-speed QCGB was added.  After 1941 Atlas quit putting prices in their catalogs (at least the ones I have - the prices in the L43 catalog quoted above were carefully handwritten by a PO) so I will have to use the prices in the Sears catalogs for the equivalent Craftsman models.  Sears didn't list the QCGB until 1951 so I'll only quote the Change Gear model prices.  In 1949, Wards also listed a Logan 9x18 for $169.50 but there is really nothing on the Atlas side to compare it to.

101.07403-2075   $210.00
2130                  $237.50

The next and final match that I have between Wards and Sears catalogs is 1956, the next to last year of production of the Atlas 3/8" bed lathes.  Wards that year still offered the 9x18 @ $262.50 and had added a Logan 11" with QCGB only.  The bench model 11x24 cost $685.00 and weighed (crated) 505 pounds.  The Power-Kraft 10x24 was still the same model as in 1949.

101.07403-2075  $286.00
QCGB 54-speed   $91.00
2130                                $354.95
QCGB 46-speed   $103.50

I can't explain the large price jump on the Power-Kraft 2130 between 1949 and 1956 compared to the Craftsman.  The two machines look the same as far as I can tell.  There was also a 10x31 version available of the later 2130 Power-Kraft (catalog # 2136)but Atlas (and Sears) dropped the 30" bed 101.07403 around 1948 so I didn't list it.  

Also, although I have no proof that Logan did or didn't sell the 700 and 2130 under the Logan badge, we know that Atlas didn't sell what Sears was selling until 1958 and later.  Clearly, the 10" Power-Kraft's and the 11" Logan's aren't the same machines with different badges.  But the Atlas 10" and Craftsman 12" shared a lot of parts so maybe Logan did sell something that was more or less the same as the Power-Kraft plus several that weren't.

Robert D.


----------

