No relation to Starrett afaikIs that Starrett?
Eric … not following you on the dark color. The last thing you mentioned was denatured alcohol … is that what darkened the steel? And can you be more specific on the lacquer stick. How did you get the steel completely clean before starting.I used a gun blue first. Got several from Brownells a few years ago. My first attempt was the OXPHO-Blue on the smooth backside. It didn't work. Probably because the square is not tool or gun steel but a softer steel. Cleaned that off and used Formula 44/40. It worked better, but still had issues. Cleaned it off and washed the square with denatured alcohol. That worked. I was hoping the gun blue would work because if I used a paint it would fill the lines and numbers more. For the white I used a wax-like lacquer stick. Rub it in and wipe it off. Finally, I sprayed it with a clear lacquer.
Wow, haven't seen one of those in years. Forget where I saw it, but I'm guessing Alameda antique flea market.This looks to be a version of Chaplin's patent center square. In fairly rough shape with a modified locking screw, mounted on a "M F Co" rule
The OXPHO-Blue and 44/40 are the chemicals that do the dark bluing. Mostly a wipe on wipe off application. Because I polished using a wax compound on a cotton wheel, I used the denatured alcohol to remove all the wax/oils before bluing.Eric … not following you on the dark color. The last thing you mentioned was denatured alcohol … is that what darkened the steel? And can you be more specific on the lacquer stick. How did you get the steel completely clean before starting.
You said the oxpho didn’t work, and the 44/40 had issues.The OXPHO-Blue and 44/40 are the chemicals that do the dark bluing. Mostly a wipe on wipe off application. Because I polished using a wax compound on a cotton wheel, I used the denatured alcohol to remove all the wax/oils before bluing.
The square was not tool steel and the OXPH didn't cover easily. The first time I tried the 44/40 there were areas that also didn't cover (blotchy). So I did a really good cleaning and wore plastic gloves when wiping down with the alcohol. Had to be really clean. That worked. The white lacquer stick is like a wax. Just rubbed it into the grooves and numbers and then wiped the top surface leaving the stamped areas white.You said the oxpho didn’t work, and the 44/40 had issues.
A handy trick for determining if a piece is clean enough for plating or treatment is the water bead test. If water (I use distilled) beads on the surface--anywhere on the surface--back to cleaning. If the water forms a nice, smooth film over everything, it's clean.The square was not tool steel and the OXPH didn't cover easily. The first time I tried the 44/40 there were areas that also didn't cover (blotchy). So I did a really good cleaning and wore plastic gloves when wiping down with the alcohol. Had to be really clean. That worked. The white lacquer stick is like a wax. Just rubbed it into the grooves and numbers and then wiped the top surface leaving the stamped areas white.
I use the water test when nickel plating. Didn't think about it for the Bluing. Probably because one of them said a little oil or rust would not matter much.A handy trick for determining if a piece is clean enough for plating or treatment is the water bead test. If water (I use distilled) beads on the surface--anywhere on the surface--back to cleaning. If the water forms a nice, smooth film over everything, it's clean.
I believe that the earliest Starrett square sets used a thinner blade, similar in thickness to the Bates example.Starrett made a variety of squares (obviously). I measured a few Starrett rules and most are .090" thick, but one is a fat .092".
The Starrett squares I have all use those big fat ball-end scribes.
The problem with identifying these tools is that the bits and pieces often get mix-matched over the years and they don't often mark the logo on the square itself. I do have Starrett squares that are marked, but even more of them that are not.
That said, I assume the unmarked examples are Starrett based on the castings being the same and the thumb nut design.



That's correct for that model, the 94 is a carpenter's square, not machinist's. I have one kicking around at home also. Note in the text that the lack of a scriber is also correct.The locking nut looks wrong.
Thanks for that reference!That's correct for that model, the 94 is a carpenter's square, not machinist's. I have one kicking around at home also. Note in the text that the lack of a scriber is also correct.
![]()
Starrett Tools : Revised Catalog No. 25 : L. S. Starrett Co. : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
420 p., illus., 19.0 cm, trade catalogarchive.org
Thanks. I never noticed that.That's correct for that model, the 94 is a carpenter's square, not machinist's. I have one kicking around at home also. Note in the text that the lack of a scriber is also correct.
![]()
Starrett Tools : Revised Catalog No. 25 : L. S. Starrett Co. : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
420 p., illus., 19.0 cm, trade catalogarchive.org