Tom

Thanks for posting the link. Now I have something good to read while waiting for
 the next Charlaine Harris book!

Rabbit for Rubber does make sense, especially if you cook your rabbit too long a
nd the stew becomes thick and gummy.

Gary
...............................
Gary Roberts
http://toolemera.com

"I'ld rather read a good book, than write a poor one." Christopher Morley

On Aug 11, 2012, at 2:31 PM, Tom Holloway  wrote:

> On Aug 11, 2012, at 10:02 AM, Gary Roberts  wrote:
>> Can you get an image of the relevant original entries? 
> 	[rest snipped, per FAQ]
> 
> > 	Yes. But first: I got the list I posted from John A. Hussey, _Historic Stru
cture Report, Historical Data, Volume II, Fort Vancouver National Historic Site,
 Washington_, (Denver: National Park Service, Denver Service Center, 1976) types
cript. Anyone interested can download a PDF here:
> <http://www.nps.gov/fova/historyculture/upload/Hussey%20HSR%202.pdf>
> > The inventories of the carpenter shop "articles in use" are on pp. 407-11. T
hey date from 1844, 1845, 1847, and 1848. "Case plane" and "rubber plane" appear
 only on the list for 1845 (pp.409-10). No "rabbit plane" appears in the 1845 li
st, but that name DOES appear on the lists for right before and after 1845. That
 in itself argues for a misreading of the original document when transcribing th
e 1845 list, mistaking "rabbit" for "rubber."
> > 	To answer Gary more completely: Hussey did his research in the Hudson's Bay
 Co. Archives in Winnipeg, Manitoba. Since he worked the archives have been micr
ofilmed, and a couple of years ago the library at Ft. Vancouver NHS acquired wha
t is supposed to be a full collection, on film, of materials relating to the Col
umbia Department (the HBC territory west of the Rocky Mountains, of which Ft. Va
ncouver was the HQ from 1824 to 1846). I have recently begun working through tha
t sizable collection, and I feel confident that the inventories Hussey used are 
in there somewhere. Unfortunately the film rolls are labeled in the most general
 way, and there does not seem to be an index using the original archival referen
ce numbers (which appear in Hussey's footnotes) pegged to the film rolls. So I m
ight run across the original manuscript documents soon, by calculated guessing a
s to which film roll to look at, or it might take a while.
> > 	In the meantime, a consensus seems to be building, reinforced by internal e
vidence (the chronologically contiguous inventories mentioned above) and externa
l evidence (virtually assembled Porch wisdom that no "rubber plane" existed with
 that name), that the "rubber plane" appearing in the 1845 inventory was a misre
ading of the archival document, resulting in a mistranscription in the typed rep
ort.
> > 	Thanks again for your interest in this topic, the discussion of which has b
een most helpful. When I have more, I'll report to the group.
> 		Tom Holloway
> <http://furfortfunfacts.blogspot.com/>
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> OldTools is a mailing list catering to the interests of hand tool
> aficionados, both collectors and users, to discuss the history, usage,
> value, location, availability, collectibility, and restoration of
> traditional handtools, especially woodworking tools.
> 
> To change your subscription options:
> http://ruckus.law.cornell.edu/mailman/listinfo/oldtools
> 
> To read the FAQ:
> http://swingleydev.com/archive/faq.html
> 
> OldTools archive: http://swingleydev.com/archive/
> 
> OldTools@r...
> http://ruckus.law.cornell.edu/mailman/listinfo/oldtools

------------------------------------------------------------------------