Inflation amusement with old port. pwr. tool prices

[bob vaughan]

While looking through a copy of a 1945 American Craftsman’s Supply Co. catalog, I got to thinking about what it must have been like for a home workshopper to need a portable power tool. I did some inflation calculations and realized that the prices at that time commanded a significant proportion of a person’s disposable income. Even Festool prices can’t compete.

Sure, there are clear reasons why today’s differences exist, but its still amazing that a portable power tool was so expensive. Those drills today, if still working, would bring $5.00 or less at a swap meet. That’s 38¢ in 1945 dollars.






(note: I posted this over at OWWM.org, but thought you guys might get a grin out of this also.)

 

[ehpoole]

Indeed, inflation is all too frequently overlooked when people lament how much today's tools cost versus when they were growing up. Fifty dollars does not buy nearly as much today as it could back then. In reality tools today are much less expensive (though many are more poorly made) than their older counterparts from the past.

Even gasoline, as expensive as it has gotten at times in recent years (e.g. $4+/gallon), is cheap compared to the past once inflation is accounted for -- especially once you factor in today's improved fuel economy that allows one to travel much further on the same gallon of gasoline for a given size vehicle.

 

[KenOfCary]

Ah yes, wax nostalgic. But I do remember when the gallon wheel went around 3 times faster than the dollar wheel. Guess I'm dating myself.

But I digress (again) as this thread was about power tools.

 

[mkepke]

Bob - I wonder if you are looking at prices right before a major inflection point in hobby power tools - and that may be distorting the perception ?

I recall that Black and Decker introduced its first 'handyman' drill in 1946 for $17. That's fully 50% of the Skil price you posted for a 1/4" corded drill. B&Ds webpage says they made a million of those $17 drills in the first five years. I wonder how many drills Skill sold at $35 ea. ?

Granted $215 for a B&D is still quite a chunk of change (in today's dollars) - but it is slightly less than the selling price of the average (unlocked Android) smartphone. And US families have managed to afford 180-odd million of those

Imagine what they'll be saying about 2015-model smartphones in 2085.

-Mark

 

[Hmerkle]

Imagine what they'll be saying about 2015-model smartphones in 2085.

-Mark

Something like "Why would anyone want to carry something around that does so little, when you have much more memory and access with the Einstein implant?"

 

[ehpoole]

Bob - I wonder if you are looking at prices right before a major inflection point in hobby power tools - and that may be distorting the perception ?

I recall that Black and Decker introduced its first 'handyman' drill in 1946 for $17. That's fully 50% of the Skil price you posted for a 1/4" corded drill. B&Ds webpage says they made a million of those $17 drills in the first five years. I wonder how many drills Skill sold at $35 ea. ?

Granted $215 for a B&D is still quite a chunk of change (in today's dollars) - but it is slightly less than the selling price of the average (unlocked Android) smartphone. And US families have managed to afford 180-odd million of those

Imagine what they'll be saying about 2015-model smartphones in 2085.

-Mark

I don't know that it really distorts pricing so much. The B&D "Handyman" drill may well have been half the price but it was also likely a much less capable and well built drill compared to the Skil (as is typical of the DIY/handyman models even today). Which makes the price comparison no different than a modern day Bosch/Makita (insert your favorite brand) versus an economy line Ryobi. The Ryobi is much cheaper than the better models, but it does not significantly influence the pricing of those better models -- they still cost far more.

However, in this specific case it may be more applicable to ask what effect government mandated materials rationing and price controls may have had on a 1945 model "anything".

 

[bob vaughan]

The skill advertise that they had ball bearings, or at least: "ball bearing construction". I think the B&D had sleeve bearings. 1946 would be right for the homeowner market to emerge.

 

[junquecol]

As a child, I didn't understand why my dad (a carpenter) didn't own better branded tools. Most of his power tools were Sears. He said he could pay Sears $10 a month till he died. Most of the contractor's furnished the better power tools. I quickly realized that I wanted better quality tools, but prices new kept me out of the market. Then I discovered pawn shops and flea markets. My former wife still has and uses a $9.95 B&D drill we bought from K-Mart in 1968. I own a couple of name brand tools that almost as old as I am (1947 vs 1953.) The $39.99 B&D angle grinder that I bought in 1978, now as DeWalt sells for around $100. Super SawCat was around $150 in mid eighties,and now sells as DeWalt for around $160.

 

[bob vaughan]

Here's a Porter Cable list I randomly populated from 1973 list prices. Even then, the sanders, drills, saws, and routers were relatively expensive for the new tool buyer. The 330 speed block sander we know today sells for about a c-note. Back then, it took the average guy more man hours to make enough money to buy one. Obviously, manufacturing has gotten much more efficient these days.

 

[mkepke]

I don't know that it really distorts pricing so much. The B&D "Handyman" drill may well have been half the price but it was also likely a much less capable and well built drill compared to the Skil (as is typical of the DIY/handyman models even today). Which makes the price comparison no different than a modern day Bosch/Makita (insert your favorite brand) versus an economy line Ryobi. The Ryobi is much cheaper than the better models, but it does not significantly influence the pricing of those better models -- they still cost far more.

However, in this specific case it may be more applicable to ask what effect government mandated materials rationing and price controls may have had on a 1945 model "anything".

I said 'distorts the perception' (of hobby tool pricing) not the prices of the tools themselves.

I tend to agree that the expensive Skil models shown were probably better made than the B&D Handyman drill of 1946, but Bob's point (I thought) was "its still amazing that a portable power tool was so expensive [for a home workshopper]".

What was - probably out-of-reach - expensive to the average home workshopper in 1945 was suddenly 50% as expensive in 1946.

Since you mentioned Ryobi, I'll point out the same thing happened in 1985 when Ryobi introduced the homeshop thickness planer the AP-10. In 1984 a Hitachi P100 would cost you $1150, a Delta RC-33 $1500 and a Powermatic PM100 near $2300 (all 1984 dollars).

The Ryobi sold for <$400.

My point in all this is that while drills for the homeshop might have been expensive in 1945 (and planers in 1984), it would be a mistake to think that *class of tool* (i.e. tools for the home workshop) remained that way other than briefly. The market sees an opportunity and fills it.

-Mark

 

[mkepke]

Here's a Porter Cable list I randomly populated from 1973 list prices. Even then, the sanders, drills, saws, and routers were relatively expensive for the new tool buyer. The 330 speed block sander we know today sells for about a c-note. Back then, it took the average guy more man hours to make enough money to buy one. Obviously, manufacturing has gotten much more efficient these days.

Bob - list/MSRP or street price ?

-Mark

 

[bob vaughan]

From a price list printed by Porter Cable so its MSRP for sure. Street price would likely be some less, maybe 10% to 20% depending on the dealer and market. Pretty much the same as it is now as percentages go.

 

[Gotcha6]

The 1946 power tool market was influenced by several factors. During WWII, aircraft workers using portable drills at work and taking them home showed B & D that there was a viable but not yet ready market. Once the war was over, aircraft production tanked and the housing boom for returning GIs took off creating a need for all corded power tools. My dad was a carpenter during those years and said a good circular saw would cost 2-3 week's pay. Manufacturers have since then streamlined their processes and learned to make substitutions for once all metal housings without any significant reduction in quality. And lest you think the 8-1/4" worm drive saw shown was overkill, remember that at that time most houses were framed with rough sawn pine that probably had squirrels running around in its branches the week before. That necessitated a saw that had high torque to cut through such lumber efficiently.

 

[junquecol]

And no carbide blades either

 

[Gotcha6]

And no carbide blades either

Nope. You'd spend half of your lunch break resharpening and setting your blade. When the first carbide blades came on the market they were so pricey no one would buy them, but then the import houses started selling cheap blades cheap. Trouble was, those early blades had issues with the carbide bonding and you'd get a lil' zing by your head once in awhile (better than in your eye). Nowadays, the quality is so good on them that I don't give a standard blade a second look.