Myford secondhand machine prices

[NJHParticipant @njh]

Agreed Rod an excellent summary and I agree with all your points.

Other reasons that I have for sticking with the brand are that the tooling and accessories, made / built up over the years, that I have been able to use on each replacement machine. There is also the "safety net" of the availability of spares should they be required. ( OK – at a price maybe but they are readily available) .

Starting out again now? No – the far eastern stuff would be fine – my machines have a quiet life and are treated kindly. I still enjoy using my Myford !

Norman

[CotswoldsPhilParticipant @cotswoldsphil]

Rod describes Myford's following very well,

I was inspired in the 60's by work produced on a Myford Super 7 with all milling done using a swiveling milling slide. The only other makes of small model engineering lathe I was aware of at the time, were the ML7, Drummond – round and flat bed and I think a Flexispeed?, and of course the little Unimat.

If I was starting from scratch would I buy a second-hand Myford ML7 or Super 7; certainly, so long as it came with all the accessories to make it a useful machine without further cost.

CotswoldsPhil

[The Merry MillerParticipant @themerrymiller]

Hi Rod,

Just a minor bone of contention. I don't think that the ML7 was designed for Model Engineers per se.

In the early 1950's it was ostensibly a toolroom lathe as my post of 23/11/12 shows.

Len. P.

[Swarf, Mostly!Participant @swarfmostly]

Hi there,

In 1955 in the Trainee Model Shop at EMI's factory in Feltham, Middlesex, there was a row of six ML7 lathes, on Myford stands, each with a label saying 'Ministry of Supply'.

It was the 'Trainee Model Shop' so were we temporary inmates 'Trainee Model Engineers'?

Best regards,

Swarf, Mostly!

[CotswoldsPhilParticipant @cotswoldsphil]

Hi Len,

Thanks for advising that the ML7 was ostensibly a small toolroom lathe, how many small Chinese made machines might you expect to find in a toolroom today I wonder. So maybe discerning model engineers adopted the ML7 / Super 7 as the machine of choice because of its pedigree.

CotswoldsPhil

[NJHParticipant @njh]

I don't know about that Phil – I suspect that when many of the posters here started out in model engineering there was little choice other than Myford (or Boxford.) The far eastern option was not available.

Norman

Edited By NJH on 07/09/2014 15:50:55

[Neil WyattModerator @neilwyatt]

I think you'll find that right from the start the ML7 was marketed in Model Engineer as 'for model engineers', I think the toolroom aspiration came later.

There were cheaper alternatives at the time, though of British make they were all pretty basic compared to what you get with an import today.

Much as I would be very happy to own a Myford, I'm not completely convinced by all Rod's advantages. I can't see why anyone would prefer a screw-on chuck or belt-changing instead of (reliable) variable speed. Other down sides are the poor choice of guide surfaces for the saddle and (to my mind) the use of plain bearings.

As non-Myford owner I would say the main plus points are the gap bed and general rigidity of the bed, together with the undeniable quality and accuracy of the various moving parts.

But if a new Myford was designed today, I think it would bear far more resemblance to the Myford 254 than the S7 and, indeed, the various far-Eastern imports.

Neil

[Roderick JenkinsParticipant @roderickjenkins93242]

Posted by Neil Wyatt on 07/09/2014 16:52:33:

…. I can't see why anyone would prefer a screw-on chuck or belt-changing instead of (reliable) variable speed…

My feelings about chuck changing are jaundiced by my experiences using a Hobbymat that had fixed studs on the chuck which had to be fitted with nuts between the backplate and the headstock, whose clearance was too small for fingers! I have 3 and 4 jaw SC chucks and tend to use one set up with external jaws and the other with the internal. I also tend to shift work in the lathe to the mill dividing head for work holding and back again. I like using collets in the lathe when I can as well. I change chucks a lot.

When I had to replace the motor on my S7 I took the opportunity to go 3 phase VFD and it is wonderful but I still occasionally find myself running out of torque and have to "change down" with the belt.

My Myford Super 7 is a bit like my house – if I had to buy it now I couldn't afford it!

Cheers,

Rod

[Neil WyattModerator @neilwyatt]

That was one of the good things about the roller bearing mod to my lathe, although you reduce the overhang (slightly) you increase the space behind the flange by enough to make fitting nuts a doddle.

On my 'dream lathe'? – camlock, definitely!

Neil

[Nigel McBurney 1Participant @nigelmcburney1]

When I bought my ML7 in 1968, with chucks ,motor etc it cost £120 ( basic it was £72 ) about a tenth of my annual salary,very good value compared to a Fobco drill at £52 .I would have preferred a Boxford as I had used one weeks at a time at work and they were good,they were expensive and so were the accessories, and as I wanted to build a TE the 10 inch gap was better than the 9 inch swing of the Boxford, Larger lathes in those days were not considered as they were expensive ,no room at home ,and engineering was expanding and s/h machines were not available.In 1973 after a good run of overtime I upgraded to a super 7 ,keeping all mt accessories from the ml7

The Myford at that time was ideal,it was essentially a smaller version of larger lathes ,with back gear ,leadscrew half nuts and was operated like a full size lathe,plus there were useful accessories though these could be expensive compared to the base machine cost .The price of Myfords rose over the years higher than inflation until the price in recent years got rather silly ,I was at a ME exhibition a few years ago and when looking round the Myford stand and thought that at these prices its not if but when they go broke . They had a good product and in straight engineering terms it was probably still good value for money but its a hobby market where for the average person its the pounds that count,and there is no answer to the low cost but far inferior import.

If I was starting today what would I do ,models are now built to larger scales,I have space and easy access to the workshop, I would buy a Colchester,probably a Bantam. When redundancy loomed I had to earn a few shillings at home I acquired two Colchesters plus other kit. Now I shall soon have to downsize and the hardest decision will be what to keep and what will have to go,though I doubt I will ever sell the Myford, for its time the design was right.

[doubletopParticipant @doubletop]

I agree with some of Rod's points and at the time the Myford would have been an ideal choice, however things have moved on considerably since the 60's and 70's. I wouldn't advocate anybody changing what they have and are happy with. I have a 1938 Lorch and love it and all its quirkiness. The Lorch will never be sold but the import could well be replaced at some point.

The point I'm really making is to all those starting out to think beyond the obvious and just getting what the other guys use because they can't be wrong. For the price of a decent Myford you could probably get a comparable import lathe plus a mill that would be far more capable than the 'make do' vertical slide milling.

Pete

[Ady1Participant @ady1]

Myford dropped the M series at the end of the war to focus on their new 7 series for home workshops

M series lathes continued to be issued, mainly longbeds, to use up the remaining castings in the post WW2 period but the big drive was for the 7 series to move Myford forwards into the future

Britain was gearing up to sell its stuff to the world

Spareys definitive 1948 book "The Amateurs Lathe" was pretty much dedicated to showing the ML7 in the best possible light, and yet this particular lathe had only been around for about 18 months at the time of the books publication

[CotswoldsPhilParticipant @cotswoldsphil]

The 'make-do' capability of the vertical slide is no doubt a compromise, but for someone with very limited space, i.e. no room for a milling machine however small, it provides a means to mill components with some accuracy, especially if combined with collets to hold the cutter. The swiveling version of the slide gives you the additional capability of milling on an angle.

CotswoldsPhil

[JESParticipant @jes]

I wouldn't swap my ML7, bought in 1959, although starting out now would be another matter. The second hand price must to a large extent mirror the value that people put on it, if they wouldn't buy then the price would reflect the fact.

JES

Mine is NOT for sale!

[CotswoldsPhilParticipant @cotswoldsphil]

JES,

My ML7 (1965) is for sale… only because I've managed to obtain a Myford Super 7 (1972 vintage) in very good condition, at what I consider to be a fair price.

CotswoldsPhil

[Roderick JenkinsParticipant @roderickjenkins93242]

Posted by CotswoldsPhil on 08/09/2014 10:22:40:

The 'make-do' capability of the vertical slide is no doubt a compromise, but for someone with very limited space, i.e. no room for a milling machine however small, it provides a means to mill components with some accuracy, especially if combined with collets to hold the cutter. The swiveling version of the slide gives you the additional capability of milling on an angle.

CotswoldsPhil

Even though I have a milling machine it is sometimes much easier to use the lathe and vertical slide. Drilling a pair of holes in this nascent flange is much easier and quicker for me than setting up the rotary table to hold the chuck in the mill.

Milling a helical gear is only possible in the lathe since I need the lead from the change gears to rotate the gear blank under the cutter and have the milling spindle held at the helix angle.

These facilities are not unique to the Myford but the availabilty of 2 types of vertical slide, the long cross slide and the ability to easily adapt the gearbox to cut a 5" lead all add to the desirability if your tastes run to these sort of envelope pushing exercises. The fact that the likes of Radford and Thomas designed things like the Headstock Dividing Attachment explicitly for the Super 7 because of its easily accessible bull wheel just add to the charm in my opinion.

Rod

[CotswoldsPhilParticipant @cotswoldsphil]

Hi Rod,

Slightly off topic, but thanks to your photos I now realise what the threaded hole in the casting next to the headstock oiler is for. I must make a Thomas Dividing Attachment to go with the Potts Milling Attachment which came with the Super 7. My next project is some form of clock with remontoire compensation.

CotswoldsPhil

[doubletopParticipant @doubletop]

The article by John Stevenson in ME4490 "The Myford Moped" gives an interesting insight into Myford in the 1950's

"Realising early on that the biggest show stopper to the ML7 was the small spindle bore, the development side brought out a big bore in 1953 with a D1-3 spindle….Because the super 7 was bought out at the same time – and the management said they would need a new headstock casting the idea was shelved"

"The following year, 1954, they converted the same machine to an all geared headstock but at the time were told it would be too expensive and they were to drop it"

So I guess the marketing men got into gear, defined the product as a for the model engineer, put the necessary spin on the advertising and people bought it and kept buying.

I can't help thinking that, for general motoring, you wouldn't buy a Ford Pop 103E these days, regardless of the tweaks and mods that may have been done by individuals over the years.

Pete

Edited By Doubletop on 13/09/2014 22:46:02

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

Pete,

I suspect that you see Myford-Baiting as good sport … But let's assume that you are playing Devil's Advocate, for the sake stimulating a forum discussion.

I think that the Morgan 4/4 would provide a better automotive comparision [than the Ford Pop.] for the Myford.

As you may see on another thread; I have recently bought a Myford ML7-R … and I am very impressed by the design and engineering of the machine.

Although there are some "issues" with my particular lathe [caused by previous abuse], I remain convinced that this was and remains somewhere very close to the optimum design.

MichaelG.

[Anonymous]

Warning!

I can't comment on whether the Myford design is optimum from a user point of view. But from an engineering design point of view one might argue that it wasn't optimum, since it was presumably too expensive to produce, with the result that the original company went out of business?

I think the Ford Pop is appropriate: My Ford – geddit?

Regards,

Andrew

Note to Moderators: How about a smiley of a steaming cauldron being stirred, as on 'practicalmachinist'?

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

Posted by Andrew Johnston on 14/09/2014 11:28:21:

… But from an engineering design point of view one might argue that it wasn't optimum, since it was presumably too expensive to produce, with the result that the original company went out of business?

.

… and Myford is now back in business, under new ownerhip, and successfully [?] selling the same thing [???] at even higher prices. … I'm not sure what that proves, but I think it merits exploration.

MichaelG.

[doubletopParticipant @doubletop]

Michael

No I'm not intentionally "Myford Baiting" but I can see that it would appear to be the case. This thread is asking why the price of second hand prices are so high. Of course it's a case of market forces and people are prepared to pay. But why is this so when there are other options available. Is it because a Myford is seen as the safe choice, albeit a 60 year old design? Some of us would genuinely like to know whether a second hand Myford would be a better deal than a new import?

Pete

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

Pete,

Speaking personally, and with some recent experience of the ML7-R

• It's big enough to do most of the jobs that are too big for my Pultra
• It was [just] light enough for me to move on my own
• It is sufficiently compact to fit the space I can make available.
• The Headstock and Tailstock are, I believe, both very well designed.
• The castings all appear to be very fine-structured.
• The Screwcutting arrangement is very compact, and adaptable to my requirements.
• There is an "honesty" to the build [*]
• It is visually attractive … it has good lines … and I particularly like the way that the bed casting is curved at the mounting points [reminds me of a rather fine Oak tree that I know]

[*] …I don't want to get too "Zen" about this, but; whilst dismantling the lathe, I felt that I was getting to understand the man that built it.

MichaelG.

I shall be interested to know if others agree, or not.

[CotswoldsPhilParticipant @cotswoldsphil]

Hi,

I started the thread because I was looking for an ML7 tailstock to use my Cowell ML7 attachment on my (new to me) Super 7 and was astonished at the prices being achieved for secondhand parts.

My recently purchased Super 7 (1972 vintage) unlike Michael's ML7R does not appear to have been abused in any way, apart from grease in the annular contacts in the headstock and a slightly noisy 3/4 hp motor. The motor has probably suffered from lack of lubrication as it is quite difficult to get to the pulley-end motor oiler on a S7. I think I paid a reasonable price for it based on what has been on offer over the last 12 months.

I've had a ML7 since 1969 and built a Minnie traction engine with it along with some tooling. I'm self-taught (I'm not a apprenticed engineer). The ML7 & Super 7 are not, to me, intimidating machines (they are reasonably quiet, accurate, but light enough to move reasonably easily.

My spare-time in the workshop is on the increase and I look forward to putting the Super 7 to work with my next project.

CotswoldsPhil

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

Posted by CotswoldsPhil on 14/09/2014 12:55:05:

I started the thread because I was looking for an ML7 tailstock to use my Cowell ML7 attachment on my (new to me) Super 7 and was astonished at the prices being achieved for secondhand parts.

.

This does highlight one interesting aspect of the secondhand pricing.

As hinted by my use of [???] in an earlier posting … There seems to be a perception that: "they don't make 'em like that anymore".

• This may, of course, be just a [convenient to the Sellers] myth, but …
• Many of the items are specifically advertised as "Genuine Beeston" or similar.

I honestly don't know if there is any truth in this myth; but I would be very interested to hear of others' experience with the new products.

MichaelG.

Edited By Michael Gilligan on 14/09/2014 13:51:39

Edited By Michael Gilligan on 14/09/2014 13:58:56

[Author]

Posts