Here's a photo of a two-pole chain that a rancher found under a bush in a pasture on his place in southwestern Montana more than fifty years ago. The links are iron, the handles cast brass, and the tags are brass as well. All the brass parts show coarse file marks.
I haven't found any maker's identification on the chain anywhere. No stampings on the handles or tags.
But what seems to me to probably be an identifying feature is this unusual link that I'm supposing mostly functions as an additional point of length adjustment for the chain. Either that or as just an additional swivel joint.
Can anyone identify the manufacturer and approximate date this was made?
It's not unusual for a chain to contain no maker's identifying mark. Chains made by the more prolific makers such as Chesterman or Gurley are usually marked on the handle or center tally but many chains were produced by lesser-known makers, perhaps even by the local blacksmith.
The thing in the middle is a swivel. I have a two-pole chain with tallies very similar to the one in your picture. Like yours, it has no markings. Unlike yours, the swivel is mounted at one end next to the handle.
Here are some rules for dating a chain gleaned from "Surveying the Land, Vol. 1: Distance Measuring Tools and Their Accuracy 1620 to 1920" by Milton Denny.
Ten Rules to Date a Chain
1. Most 33 foot or two pole chains date before about 1810.
2. Most chains with wire handles date before 1800.
3. Chains made before 1800 most likely will have three rings between each link.
4. Chains made after 1800 will have two rings between each link.
5. Some chains made between 1880 and 1920 have only one ring, and a few like the Grumman had no rings between the links.
6. Chains made before 1800 most likely will have the loops on the end of each link bent in opposite directions.
7. Most chains made before 1850 will not have the links and rings brazed shut (required by the GLO after about 1855).
8. Chains made after 1800 will have cast brass handles.
9. Almost all chains made after 1855 will be four poles (66 feet) long.
10. Before 1800 most chains had at least one swivel in the middle. Some chains before 1780 had as many as three swivels.
Evaluating your chain, we find it has a swivel and loops on the end of each link bent in opposite directions, indicating it is pre-1800. It has brass handles and two rings between each link, indicating it is post 1800. It is a two-pole chain which might put it before 1810. The links are not brazed shut most likely putting it before 1850.
Thus we can conclude it was made either before or after 1800, possibly before 1810 and almost certainly before 1850 by somebody.
Did they ever put these together from parts?
> Thus we can conclude it was made either before or after 1800, possibly before 1810 and almost certainly before 1850 by somebody.
LOL! Yes, according to the Denny Criteria:
Two-pole chain? Yes. Before about 1810.
Wire handles? No. After about 1800.
Rings between each link? Two. After about 1800.
Loops bent in opposite directions at the ends of each link? Yes. Probably before 1800.
Links and rings brazed shut? No. Probably before 1855.
Cast brass handles? Yes. Probably after 1800.
Longer than four poles? No. Probably not after 1855.
Swivel in the middle? Yes. Probably before 1800.
Considering that Montana was in the possession of the Indians at most of those early times, this probably was left by the Lewis & Clark expedition. :>
One other clue is that there are no threaded parts on the chain. The ends of the links have not been threaded so that the length of the chain can be adjusted. The annular brass fitting on the end of the link that attaches to the handle is held in place because the end of the iron link has been slightly flattened so that it won't pass through the brass fitting.
> Did they ever put these together from parts?
The chain itself was almost certainly made by bending heavy iron wire around various fixtures and jigs. That's probably the toughest part of the operation: getting the links bent the right size. The brass parts of the chain are the least impressive as far as level of technology goes. The tags don't appear to be punched, for example, but to have been shaped by sawing and/or filing, although not by an amateur but by someone working to a functional design.
Gallatin County, Montana, where the chain was found, was originally surveyed around the late 1860's, which to me seems about right for the (low) level of mass production technology evident in the thing. No threaded joints. Tags shaped by sawing and filing. I wonder if some US GLO deputy surveyor could have had to cache the chain for some compelling reason and then just didn't get back to retrieve it.
I would date this one pre-war (the War of Northern Aggression)and after 1830. No idea of the maker.
To address some of Milt's stuff listed by Richard:
- 2 pole chains were certainly made up to about 1910, not 1810. In fact 2 pole chains were mandated on the PLSS surveys.
- It is my belief that cast brass handles did not come into common usage until about 1820-1830.
- Swivels in the middle were quite common. And on 4 pole chains you might find them every pole.
- A chain without a maker's name is not uncommon.
- And even the chains that are labeled may not have been made by the given maker. I have reliably heard that Gurley did not make make the steel parts of their chains. Only the brass parts and then they assembled them.
That's my $0.04 educated guess.
>2 pole chains were mandated on the PLSS surveys.
How common are 2-pole chains versus 4-pole chains? Sufficiently common to believe that the majority of PLSS lines were actually run with 2-pole chains? Or vice-versa?
> 2 pole chains were mandated on the PLSS surveys.
From the '73 Manual..I don't think it's changed in the '09:
Units
2-1. The law prescribes the chain as the unit of linear measure for the survey of the public lands. All returns of measurements in the rectangular system are made in the true horizontal distance in miles, chains, and links. (Exceptions are special requirements for measurement in feet in townsite surveys, chapter VII, and mineral surveys, chapter X.)
Units of Linear Measure
1 chain = 100 links
= 66 feet
1 mile = 80 chain
= 5,280 feet
Units of Area
1 acre = 10 square chains
= 43,560 square feet
1 square mile = 640 acres
The chain unit, devised in the seventeenth century by Edmund Gunter, an English astronomer, is so designed that 10 square chains are equivalent to one acre. In the English colonial area of the United States the boundaries of land were usually measured in the chain unit, but lengths of lines were frequently expressed in poles. One pole is equal to 25 links, and four poles equal one chain. The field notes of some early rectangular surveys in the southern States show the distance in "perches," equivalent to poles. The term now commonly used for the same distance is the rod.
> >2 pole chains were mandated on the PLSS surveys.
> How common are 2-pole chains versus 4-pole chains? Sufficiently common to believe that the majority of PLSS lines were actually run with 2-pole chains? Or vice-versa?
I have 15 or 16 chains and they divide about half and half 2-pole and 4-pole.
I have one 2-pole chain that was quite obviously made after 1810. My copy of Milton's book is a pre-publication copy so the 1810 date may be a typo.
Early PLSS instructions did call for the use of a 2-pole chain with distances to be reported in full 66' chains.
The unit of measure was to be a chain as you cite. But the device specified in several manuals or sets of instructions was a chain of 50 links - 33'.
Without actually having kept a count, I believe a majority of chains that hit the market are half chains. And in my personal collection of chains I have more half chains than full chains.
I've been doing a bit more research into the possible origins of that chain. The provenance provided with it is that it was found on the Antonsen Ranch in Gallatin County, Montana, West of Bozeman. I think that would have been near Anceney in T2S R5E, Montana Meridian.
The earliest surveying in that area appears to have been that a couple of the lines of the township were run in 1868. The township itself wasn't subdivided until 1890. The county line between Madison and Gallatin Counties runs through the vicinity, however, and was apparently run before 1890.
Was it found near a township boundary?
On the other hand their camp was sometimes miles from the work.
I could imagine maybe a Deputy working on the township boundaries stashed a bunch of equipment anticipating getting the contract to subdivide the township then when he found out the work wasn't going to happen right away he came back and retrieved it but missed the chain so it got left there. Or maybe a couple of lazy chain carriers just dumped it when they finished so they didn't have to carry it anymore.
> I could imagine maybe a Deputy working on the township boundaries stashed a bunch of equipment anticipating getting the contract to subdivide the township then when he found out the work wasn't going to happen right away he came back and retrieved it but missed the chain so it got left there. Or maybe a couple of lazy chain carriers just dumped it when they finished so they didn't have to carry it anymore.
After looking at that patent records, I see that the Antonsen brothers acquired land in Section 30 of T1S R4E, M.M. That township was originally subdivided in 1868 by a Deputy named B.F. Marsh.
One interesting detail is that the township plat gives the survey date as Nov. 2 - Nov. 20, which seems almost unimaginable, but that's what the plat says. I'm wondering whether they got caught in a snowstorm, left some equipment with the idea of picking it up later and didn't.
Sorry for the sidetrack but
I think that it belongs to Keith.
Sorry for the sidetrack but
> I think that it belongs to Keith.
I might agree with you except that I checked that chain and it is straight. The fact that it doesn't have any "little marks" on it is merely suggestive, not conclusive.
Sorry for the sidetrack but
I am curious. Have you calibrated this chain?
It looks in fantastic condition.
I remember seeing that scalloped tag before. Was that universal?
ah two pole chain. Life was sure simpler back. I think Tiffin's Instructions for the 5th PM called for 2 pole chain.
somebody can correct me if I am wrong like DDSM
Sorry for the sidetrack but
> I am curious. Have you calibrated this chain?
> It looks in fantastic condition.
> I remember seeing that scalloped tag before. Was that universal?
I probably will check the distance between handles to see how close to 33 feet it is, but haven't done it yet.
The chain is in surprisingly good condition for having sat under a bush on a Montana ranch for some undetermined length of time that may have been more than fifty years.
Every surveyor's chain I've seen had tags at some interval along it. The tag in the photo is the 40-link mark.
100 ft. chain
On the subject of tags, one of the interesting things I hadn't realized about 100-foot chains is that the tags run 10-20-30-40-50-40-30-20-10. So, to read "60" you have to estimate which side of 50 you're on by some means. That particular chain was made by Aloe, I believe. I don't know whether that pattern of tagging was commonly followed, but I'll bet it was.
