The Forum at Handcuffs.Org

Lillie Iron??

21 visible archived posts · 21 preserved total · topic ID 5593

John Bushey 10 Mar 2014

HI,
I'm wondering if anyone knows who made this reproduction Lillie Iron. There are no markings at all.
It is larger, and much thicker than an original Lillie iron. It works well, and very well constructed.
I'm thinking as early as the 1920's to as late as the 1950's, but am open to any thoughts.

It has a very nice and old patina, with a little rust here and there. It's been in a cold garage the past three years.
I'll take the surface rust off, but would love to know who made it.

Thanks, John

Ian McColl 10 Mar 2014

Hi John, I think it's older than you think. The hinges look right. How do you think the tubes have be fitted?

Ian

John Bushey 11 Mar 2014

HI Ian,
The bolt is installed as with the original. There is a pin through the top tube that holds the bolt in the tube. The tubes appear welded onto the top
and bottom steel strap. The hinges are what I thought looked really good and old as well. Very well done, and done by hand (metal heated and bent).
It's a larger than normal bolt but the top is standard size. It is much larger than the other repro lilies I've seen; wider, thicker, and a little longer. It's heavy, and again very well made. But, no markings at all. The inside looks like they used steel bars, and each piece was not "hand forged". The hole in the "middle" piece is larger than it needed to be - which was the only "flaw" in the building of the thing I found. Another collector thought it might have shown evidence of brazing but I found none upon closer examination. Thanks for your input. My first gut reaction was the 1920's, but when I saw it in the light I am just not sure. I'll try to photograph the inside and post that later.

Best Wishes, John

PaulJDavies 13 Mar 2014

John, to me it looks more like a repair job on an old pair.
As you have all said, the hinges and wrist shackles look good. The tubes are too thick, not tapered and where they join the bar it is rounded, not a flush square join.
If you were going to weld the tube to the bar, you might as well weld the wrist section to the bar as well, but that does not appear to be the case.
I look forward to seeing some more photos of the inside.
Paul

joe tanner 13 Mar 2014

i would say ALL, but i will just say MOST of the LILLY HAND IRONS that do NOT look ORIGINAL (even some that do) are REPRODUCTIONS made by or made for them by different makers that did blacksmithing..... STANLEY SMYTH - DON HINZ are just 2 of the people... there are others, but as i believe they are still with us, i will not give their names...... joe

Franklin 15 Mar 2014

Mr. Tanner:

Do those reproductions include the one you had a while back with a stylized stamp upon the same of JHL to perhaps mark it as a reproduction rather than an original?

Franklin

Franklin 15 Mar 2014

Mr. Tanner:

To perhaps refresh your memory:
http://www.network54.com/Forum/261154/m ... Lilly+Iron

joe tanner 15 Mar 2014

FRANKLIN :: guess you are somewhat jealous.... the J H L lilly was/is everybit an ORIGINAL - but who knows - maybe not as i was not present to actually see it made from start to finish... ???? joe

sean97 15 Mar 2014

Franklin 16 Mar 2014

#10

Mr. Tanner:

No; I am not jealous , but curious.

Just how do you tell a fake item from the real ones.

You are the expert

Joshua 16 Mar 2014

#11

The so called lead "plug" is one clue, the presence or lack thereof numbers or Roman numerals on the cuff is another and the craftsmanship or crudeness of the entire piece. These are all clues that are commonly looked at when one is determining if it is indeed an authentic Lilly. Id venture to say there are cuffs that may be missing one or more of the above mentioned characteristics that may very well be the real deal but it's a pretty good place to start.

Also a cast "H" key which is likely the original is a good sign.
(Sorry Ron I couldn't resist)

Franklin 19 Mar 2014

#12

Thank you, Joshua

Franklin 22 Mar 2014

#13

Mr. Tanner:

Any information, honest information, you may have regarding that particular item will be greatly appreciated.

Franklin

joe tanner 22 Mar 2014

#14

FRANKLIN ::: as you think that you are so smart -- find info yourself.. joe

John Bushey 22 Mar 2014

#15

HI Franklin,
I started this thread looking for good solid info on the lilly iron pictured at the top of the thread. I will politely request
you discontinue the discussion with Joe. Thank you. For all my fellow collectors, much information has come to light
on the LIlly irons, thanks to the extensive research of a few people. It's not my place to say anything, so we'll wait.

I know this one is not an "original" lilly iron, but it is extremely well made, and several things differ from most Lilly irons I've seen: The bolt does
not move in and out of the tube when the cuff is open. It must be screwed through the bar under the top tube. The TPI is an odd diameter, at just slightly over 1/2 inch, and 13 TPI. The "lack" of a lead plug in the bottom tube is one key piece of info, although there is lead in the bottom of the
hole. The lead does not go all the way through. The hole in the middle bar is much larger than it needs to be, at 3/4 of an inch. The width of the bar stock is just under 1 3/8 of an inch. The thickness of the top lock tube is a full 1/4 inch. The locking bolt itself is 15/32 of an inch.

And Joe, if you ever care to email me privately, I would relish the information on different people who have reproduced the lilly irons in any quantity.
I never knew Hinz made any, for instance. Did Hinz did have the ability to make them himself? I'd guess he must have had them made. I spoke to him many many times years ago when we'd meet in Chicago at collectors, and reconnected about two years before he died, and we spoke until his death.

I find it a little sad that so much information from even the generation of collectors is being lost; History of the Reno/Auborn collection, Dick Norman, Stanley Smyth, Prynce Wheeler, Frank Roshan, etc..... To share what we know can only further the history and knowledge of our hobby. But, to hassle, heckle, or harass each other does none of us any good. I thank everyone for their input to this thread, so let's please keep it on task.

Best Wishes, John Bushey

Franklin 23 Mar 2014

#16

Mr. Bushey:
Thank you.

Mr. Tanner:
Your nasty response does indeed speak volumes.

Franklin

LK 07 Apr 2014

#17

John while surfing I found these name's you might want to check out further in your research on lillie iron's

James Edward Lillie, born 11 September 1833 at Owego. Married Lucy Ketchum, of Corning. He died 27 May 1901 at Washington D.C.

James Edward Lillie was a machinist. He lived at Corning NY and at Susquehanna PA and was later and for many years employed in the government machine shops in the ordinance department at Washington D.C. in which city he died May 28, 1901.

the above can be found:
http://www.griffingweb.com/a_view_of_owego_in_1845.htm

LK D~D

grenchat 07 Apr 2014

#18

While the origins of this rigid restraint are somewhat shrouded in mystery, these irons are mentioned in certain historical references. The supposed inventor, John Lilly, is rumored to have gone mad and died while wearing these irons of his own design.

Ron Spitz posted a useful reference taken from "American Brutus: John Wilkes Booth and the Lincoln Conspiracies" HERE.

Regards,
Jason

LK 10 Apr 2014

#19

John, on the same page "A view of Owego in 1845" from above, is also mentioned a DR. JOHN HOYT LILLIE, at the bottom of the page.
He was an inventor, a Dr.,lived around the right time period, had the mends to produce the iron's and leg iron's and a reason why he would not apply for a patient.

you may want to check him out further !
also this page include other LILLIE name's of different spellings !

LK D~D

LK 10 Apr 2014

#20

John, my above post's are in regard to the real iron's if confused , sorry, how is the book coming ?

LK D~D

John 11 Apr 2014

#21

What book might that be?