Adam Smith used a pin factory metaphor, in the 19th century, of 100 people doing different tasks where nobody knows how to make a pin.

Judge against the text of Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations (Book I, Chapter 1) and its publication date. The parts to check are: (1) Smith used a pin factory example of the division of labour, (2) it dates from the 19th century, (3) it involves about 100 people, and (4) it makes the point that nobody knows how to make a whole pin. True: all four hold. Mostly true: the pin factory example exists and makes the point of (4), but one minor detail is off: the century (the claim says 19th) or the number of workers. Mixed: the pin factory example exists, but two of the details (century, worker count, or the 'nobody knows how to make a pin' point) do not match Smith's text. Mostly false: Smith did use a pin factory example of the division of labour, but the century, the worker count and the 'nobody can make a pin' point all misdescribe it. False: Smith never used a pin factory example.

Set before the research began.

1. E1 Chapter I | Adam Smith Works Adam Smith Works · 1 January 2017

   “To take an example, therefore, *19 from a very trifling manufacture; but one in which the division of labour has been very often taken notice of, the trade of the pin-maker”

2. E2 Chapter I | Adam Smith Works Adam Smith Works · 1 January 2017

   “I have seen a small manufactory of this kind where ten men only were employed, and where some of them consequently performed two or three distinct operations.”

3. E3 Chapter I | Adam Smith Works Adam Smith Works · 1 January 2017

   “the important business of making a pin is, in this manner, divided into about eighteen distinct operations”

4. E4 Adam Smith and Pin-making: Some Inconvenient Truths - Conversable Economist Conversable Economist (blog, Timothy Taylor) · 23 August 2022

   “But those who specialize in this area have pointed that Smith’s example was based on second- and third-hand reporting, while actual studies of pin-making in the 18th century suggest that it may not be a great example of the gains from division of labor.”

The evidence confirms that Smith used a pin-making example of the division of labour [E1, E3] and shows a worker count of ten, not about 100 [E2]. None of the evidence gives the publication date of Smith's text, or shows or rules out the 'nobody knows how to make a pin' point, so it does not establish the two mismatches that a mixed verdict requires.