(Thread title refers to the tool, not to me. I may be an oddball, but I'm well known as an oddball!)
The tool looks like some sort of a household combination from the late 1800's. I'm seeing pliers (with stove-pipe crimpers in the jaws), a hammer, wire cutters, and a jar opener. There is a nail puller claw at the end of one handle, and possibly some type of can opening device at the end of the other. Length = about ten inches, made from heavy cast malleable iron by the looks of it. The box-type plier joint is unusual. Only markings are PAT APPLD FOR.

You are the Master of pliers type tools. Great screen name.

Truly odd. Hat was the age of invention.

Bob,
Other than the half-round "jar wrench" portion, it is not a lot different than the "Little Wonder" and similar tools shown on pg. 20 -21 of the March 2015 MVWC Newsletter.  Maybe a slight modification, from the same maker??
Regards, Stan S.

anyone else thinking Ed McMahon saying "everything a person could ever want in a tool right there in one handy tool!"

Quote from: oldgoaly on March 20, 2017, 05:36:51 AM
anyone else thinking Ed McMahon saying "everything a person could ever want in a tool right there in one handy tool!"

Billy Mays?

Ronco?????

Another neat one Bob! It always amazes me to see the places they mount the hammer polls.  It can't be easy to use the hammer.

Quote from: mvwcnews on March 20, 2017, 01:11:59 AM
Bob,
Other than the half-round "jar wrench" portion, it is not a lot different than the "Little Wonder" and similar tools shown on pg. 20 -21 of the March 2015 MVWC Newsletter.  Maybe a slight modification, from the same maker??
Regards, Stan S.

By jove I think you've nailed it Stan. Here are the two side by side. The Pat Appld For tool is so much bigger and cruder that it did not occur to me right off that it could be related to the G.H. Strong patent tool. But now that you mention it, there are a lot of similarities, including gripper teeth on the inner handle surfaces to open jar lids. And both have stove pipe crimpers in the plier jaws, and both have a box joint style pivot.

Clearly, the pliers on the bottom did NOT use birth control.

Groan.

Quote from: Bill Houghton on March 21, 2017, 10:36:15 AM
Clearly, the pliers on the bottom did NOT use birth control.

Well this just gets curiouser and curiouser. I stumbled upon patent 757,981 today, which is a dead ringer for the pregnant/overweight version of the tool above. I also obtained an intermediate version of the tool a few months ago, stamped PAT APL 19' 04.  What I find curious is that the big, clunky, cast iron versions came along almost 30 years AFTER the sleek, svelte, forged steel version.

TOP: Stamped PAT APL 19' 04
MIDDLE: Dead ringer for 1904 patent, marked PAT APPLD FOR
BOTTOM: Stamped PAT MAY 11 1875

Quote from: Plyerman on January 06, 2018, 03:59:59 PMWhat I find curious is that the big, clunky, cast iron versions came along almost 30 years AFTER the sleek, svelte, forged steel version.

I don't find that curious at all: the company decided to "value engineer" it, making it more cheaply so they could sell it for less money and increase market share.