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

R

rfdes

Active User
Registered
Joined
Dec 10, 2012
Messages
52
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
 
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
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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
 
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
..
 
(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.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top