Tool Talk
Woodworking Forum => Woodworking Forum => Topic started by: Jim C. on October 03, 2013, 10:24:29 PM
-
Link to Hand Planes Thread Index- http://www.papawswrench.com/vboard/index.php?topic=10243.0;topicseen (http://www.papawswrench.com/vboard/index.php?topic=10243.0;topicseen)
I like hand planes. They're fascinating tools, having many diverse patterns and functions that are absolutely invaluable to those who enjoy woodworking. Planes can be used in just about every aspect of working with wood. They can be set so precisely as to remove a shaving that's nearly transparent and floats (not falls) to the ground, or they can hog off material and dimension stock better than no other hand tool. A plane can fine tune a joint to create a seamless union between parts and will leave a sheen on the surface of a work piece that cannot be replicated mechanically or otherwise. Yes, I like hand planes. I use them, I collect them, and I enjoy learning about them. To those who already know the utility and pleasure of using planes out in the shop, then I hope you'll join in the conversation. To those who are thinking about using that old plane left to them by a loved one, or simply the plane they picked up at a flea market for a couple bucks, I hope you'll be inspired to give it a try.
Stanley #4:
Stanley started making the #4 in 1869 and is probably still making some version of this plane today, although I suspect that the earlier models, made prior to 1950, were superior in overall fit, finish and quality. The #4 is most likely one of the, or the most popular, and useful planes ever produced. So successful that it has scarcely changed in design or appearance in all of its years of existence. Its size and weight make it suitable for a number of tasks to include smoothing, fitting, finish work, and general carpentry, all depending on the user's personal preferences and the project at hand. The #4 is commonly found at garage sales, flea markets, and online. They're relatively inexpensive and should be in EVERY woodworker's arsenal of tools. Even the DIYer should own one of these, and know how sharpen the iron, tune it up and use it efficiently and effectively.
The plane depicted below is a Stanley #4 with a smooth sole. It's a Type 16, produced between 1933 and 1941.
-
Great post, Jim!
Are you going to continue to educate those of us not so educated on planes?
-
Great post, Jim!
Are you going to continue to educate those of us not so educated on planes?
I'm hardly the hand plane expert, and would more likely categorize myself as an enthusiastic user and collector. The best education one can receive is usually self imposed. If this thread acts as a catalyst for that curious individual to take the next step, then that's great.
-
Hi, Jim C.
I too like hand planes and find them fascinating. Some would say that I am obsessed with hand planes -- just because I try to build miniature versions of some that I have seen and like. I have learned how to really appreciate a part as simple as a lever cap by building some in 1/4 scale. And I have looked at frogs from both sides now - from up and down, and now, somehow, I really understand how frogs work and how to build one. But I really don't know enough about hand planes at all. There is so much to know about the #4 alone, let alone the great variety that have been produced throughout history. Thank you for sharing your views on my favorite (also), the #4.
Ralph
-
Even the DIYer should own one of these, and know how sharpen the iron, tune it up and use it efficiently and effectively.
I have seen this expression before, tuning a plane, would like to know the basics.
Thanks
Brian
-
For those of you not familiar with planes, more specifically the myriad of planes that were made by Stanley, check out Pat Leach's site called "Stanley Blood and Gore". There is a wealth of info there on every plane Stanley ever made.
Mike
-
Like Papaw said, great post. Planes can be addictive though. I can't seem to pass them up. Going through some boxes just out of storage recently, I discovered I have accumulated something like a dozen block planes over the years -- don't have the faintest idea how I got most of them.
Even if a plane is not really tuned, if it has a good, sharp blade it is a very satisfying tool to use. I think I have six wood bodied smoothing planes as well as a couple of Stanleys, a metal bodied Ohio, a no-name my wife pointed out to me in a junk shop (had to buy it to encourage her help...), and a Baker so unused that it still has its paper label. Got Stanley #5s in plain and corrugated, a pair of #7s ditto, a #5 1/2 that I probably use most. Recently picked up a #75... Have several hand made wooden planes made by Viet-Namese carpenters, and a bunch of wooden planes from 5 to 30 inches long, and a selection of wooden molding planes as well as two Stanley #45...
Did I say addictive?
-
........Going through some boxes just out of storage recently, I discovered I have accumulated something like a dozen block planes over the years -- don't have the faintest idea how I got most of them.......
You make an interesting point. It's so easy to accumulate tools over the years, and the circumstances behind their acquisitions is often forgotten or obscured over time. At some point in the future, our loved ones will be blessed, or saddled, with OUR tools. Unfortunately our prized possessions may not have the same sentimental value to our heirs. Keeping that in mind, when I started buying planes about twenty years ago, I kept track of my acquisitions. EVERY plane that I bought was accounted for on a handwritten list and on a duplicate 3"x5" card. I've since started keeping the same information on a computerized spreadsheet too. The information I keep on each plane includes, the manufacturer, it's age, condition, date acquired, how I acquired it, and how much I paid for it. Although I probably overpaid for a few of them, at least when the time comes, my kids will know approximately what they're worth and will hopefully realize their value if they decide to part ways with them.
Jim C.
-
Every tool box, whether it belongs to a serious craftsman, or an "average Joe" homeowner, and everyone in between, should have a simple block plane in it. They're so versatile and absolutely perfect for so many jobs. Set properly, with a super sharp cutting iron, they can trim end grain for the perfect fit, or knock the edge off long grain for a smooth finish. Any time I'm working with wood, there's usually a block plane on my bench within reach. Block planes were manufactured in several different patterns, some more useful than others. The basic block plane is usually about six or seven inches long, with a fixed non-adjustable throat, and an iron bedded at approximately twenty degrees.
Stanley #9 1/4:
Over the years, Stanley and others made dozens of different block plane patterns, and literally sold millions of them. The #9 1/4 was about as simple as they come. It was most probably marketed to the homeowner as an inexpensive, easy to use, handy tool. Although one could use it for fine woodworking, it is probably more suited to DIYer applications. Sturdy and dependable, it can handle most general woodworking jobs and deliver acceptable results. Stanley manufactured the #9 1/4 from 1947 into the early 1980s. The #9 1/4 is a relatively easy plane to come across at garage sales, etc., and not really expensive. If you've never tried a plane and wanted to get the hang of it, this is a good one to start with.
The plane depicted below is a Stanley #9 1/4, Type 23, produced between 1956 and 1959, at the end of Stanley's truly golden age of hand plane production.
-
Every tool box, whether it belongs to a serious craftsman, or an "average Joe" homeowner, and everyone in between, should own a simple block plane. They're so versatile and absolutely perfect for so many jobs.
Amen to that! It's probably the reason I have picked up so many. There are three next to my bench, and there's one that lives in my go-to window tool box. Endlessly useful. The one in the window box is a 60 1/2. Wide enough for window sash. The ones next to my bench now are the newest versions of the venerable block plane, and I have found them very satisfactory. They have a good weight in the hand and definitely do the work. One I picked up a year ago in a box lot of tools, and it has the non-adjustable mouth. The other two are adjustables, one narrow like the 60 1/2, the other wider. (What I like best about the adjustable mouth is that closes enough to protect the edge of the blade when it's bouncing around in a tool box.)
For planing end grain, that 20 degree angle makes it tops. For one handed use, it's the champ, and it takes up just about no space in a tool box.
Stanley now makes a holster for these, by the way. Makes them even handier on the job.
-
Even the DIYer should own one of these, and know how sharpen the iron, tune it up and use it efficiently and effectively.
I have seen this expression before, tuning a plane, would like to know the basics.
Thanks
Brian
Hi Brian,
Tuning a plane is term that basically means "perfecting" the plane so that it performs at its highest optimal level. Contrary to popular belief, most planes are not ready to use right out of the box. That was particularly true of the antique planes that I plan to show you in this thread. They were mass produced items that needed a little more work on the part of the final consumer to get them cutting and functioning correctly. One of the first things a new plane, and most garage sale/flea market planes need is a super sharp iron. A REALLY sharp cutting iron is half the battle. Although it might seem sharp, the irons on new planes are about half as sharp as they need to be in order to cut properly. Old plane irons usually need to be re-ground/re-shaped (depending on its intended use) and definitely re-sharpened. Then there's the matter of the plane's sole. Many were not actually flat from the factory, and may need some lapping to get them to where they are truly flat. Moving parts need to work freely. Sometimes that's just a few drops of oil to loosen things up. Other times it's more involved rust and crud removal. The union of parts, for example the joining of the cutting iron and the chip breaker on a bench plane, need to fit perfectly, so that wood chips don't jam between them. The same can be said of the union between the frog and the sole of the plane, sometimes some light filing is necessary. For more information about hand planes, I highly recommend checking out a book called "The Handplane Book" by Garrett Hack. It's a great book that discusses the various types of planes that were manufactured over the years, as well as how to "tune" them and use them.
Now, with all that being said, if you come across a collector quality plane, you would be GROSSLY de-valuing it if you did anything to it like I just described above. Leave it in "as found" condition. Don't try to clean it, never use a wire brush or wheel on it, do not try to enhance the japanning or finishes on it. Just leave it alone. There are soooooo many user quality planes on the market that it would be a shame (almost a crime) to destroy the tool's originality. The two planes I've depicted above are mint, collector quality planes. Using them at this stage of game would de-value them. Although they're very common planes and easily found in used condition, finding them in superior, NOS condition, is rare. If you plan on using planes, which I hope you do, go for the ones that are in "user quality" condition. You'll pay a lot less for them too. Just as an example, the Stanley #4 above, in the same NOS condition is probably worth approximately $75 - $100 to a collector. The very same user quality plane could be had at a flea market for $5 - $10. If a plane is super rare, even the user quality examples can command big money, just like any other collectible tool.
Jim C.
-
Jim is absolutely right about "collector quality" planes.
There are people willing to pay a lot of money for 100% factory paint on a tool.
Not almost new, but perfy perf perfect, new new new. Nobody can explain why, but old things that are still new is the biggest appeal in the world to many people. These are also the people willing to spend far and away the most money to get it. They don't want to do anything with them. They just trade them back and forth as commodities of value.
Boxes are worth even more. A simple cardboard box meant to be tossed when you got home with the tool? These are often worth more than the tool inside, by a wide margin.
So if you find a crispy new looking box from 1860, that has never been opened, with a new plane inside, it will buy you a house.
Well almost that much.
90% paint? Not so much.
90% is not enough paint for them. It has to be 100% or nothing.
90% is often not worth a nickel.
Or any one of 100 other little things, that don't mean anything to a guy cutting wood, qualifies a tool for scrap, in the collectors' world.
Perfy perf perfect, remember. Nothing else counts.
This means only 1 in 1000 planes you see are tools that collectors might really go after.
The rest you get to have cheap. As many as you want.
999 to 1? I liked these odds. :) These were good odds for me for a long time.
Unfortunately the odds are changing as more and more people are starting to restore old tools and put them back to work and finding out how good they are to use.
I was once considered a felonious vandal for restoring old tools, in the collector's world. But that is steadily slipping away. Pretty soon the fine cheap tools will be gone. So get them now if you want them.
yours Scott
-
Jim is absolutely right about "collector quality" planes.
There are people willing to pay a lot of money for 100% factory paint on a tool.
Not almost new, but perfy perf perfect, new new new. Nobody can explain why, but old things that are still new is the biggest appeal in the world to many people. These are also the people willing to spend far and away the most money to get it. They don't want to do anything with them. They just trade them back and forth as commodities of value.
Boxes are worth even more. A simple cardboard box meant to be tossed when you got home with the tool? These are often worth more than the tool inside, by a wide margin.
So if you find a crispy new looking box from 1860, that has never been opened, with a new plane inside, it will buy you a house.
Well almost that much.
90% paint? Not so much.
90% is not enough paint for them. It has to be 100% or nothing.
90% is often not worth a nickel.
Or any one of 100 other little things, that don't mean anything to a guy cutting wood, qualifies a tool for scrap, in the collectors' world.
Perfy perf perfect, remember. Nothing else counts.
This means only 1 in 1000 planes you see are tools that collectors might really go after.
The rest you get to have cheap. As many as you want.
999 to 1? I liked these odds. :) These were good odds for me for a long time.
Unfortunately the odds are changing as more and more people are starting to restore old tools and put them back to work and finding out how good they are to use.
I was once considered a felonious vandal for restoring old tools, in the collector's world. But that is steadily slipping away. Pretty soon the fine cheap tools will be gone. So get them now if you want them.
yours Scott
I guess it's all a matter of opinion that I won't debate, but for the sake of clarity, I want to make sure that we're all on the same page when it comes to the actual finish on an antique hand plane. They weren't really "painted," but rather "japanned." The process involved coating some of the plane's surfaces with a black material consisting of natural asphaltum resins, dissolved in linseed oil and thinned with turpentine. The substance was then hardened onto a surface by means of baking it at high heat. The process of japanning falls somewhere between painting and enameling. It was very commonly used in the metal wares industry, and thus was an easily obtainable, relatively inexpensive way to provide a protective coating to a variety of items including hand planes and other tools. As a user and collector of old planes, I've found that various companies, like Stanley and Sargent, must have had their own secret recipes and processes for japanning tools. When comparing two planes that were manufactured in the same era, by the two different companies, I've found that the quality and consistency in their applications is different. Generally speaking, the japanning on the Stanleys seemed a little more durable in my opinion.
Jim C.
-
Hi Brian,
Tuning a plane is term that basically means "perfecting" the plane so that it performs at its highest optimal level. Contrary to popular belief, most planes are not ready to use right out of the box. That was particularly true of the antique planes that I plan to show you in this thread. They were mass produced items that needed a little more work on the part of the final consumer to get them cutting and functioning correctly. One of the first things a new plane, and most garage sale/flea market planes need is a super sharp iron. A REALLY sharp cutting iron is half the battle. Although it might seem sharp, the irons on new planes are about half as sharp as they need to be in order to cut properly. Old plane irons usually need to be re-ground/re-shaped (depending on its intended use) and definitely re-sharpened. Then there's the matter of the plane's sole. Many were not actually flat from the factory, and may need some lapping to get them to where they are truly flat. Moving parts need to work freely. Sometimes that's just a few drops of oil to loosen things up. Other times it's more involved rust and crud removal. The union of parts, for example the joining of the cutting iron and the chip breaker on a bench plane, need to fit perfectly, so that wood chips don't jam between them. The same can be said of the union between the frog and the sole of the plane, sometimes some light filing is necessary. For more information about hand planes, I highly recommend checking out a book called "The Handplane Book" by Garrett Hack. It's a great book that discusses the various types of planes that were manufactured over the years, as well as how to "tune" them and use them.
Jim C.
Jim C. Thanks for that info!
Brian
-
Again 1000% true
Japanning is a very early form of hardened enamel paint. Not quite the fused glass enamel jewelers use, but certainly harder than regular paint.
And its a pain in the butt!!
Its as thick as molasses in the wintertime.
You paint it on, air dry overnight, and then fire it. Not once, but at least 3 times to truly harden.
If you try to bake it all the way up to final heat in one pass, it bubbles on you..... (grrrr)
[Regular paint can be fired too btw. Any traditional oil based alkyd enamel (rustoleum etc).
But you have to fire even longer, and more times working up to final heat. (bake for 1/2 hour, ...cool it down. Bake again for an hour, ...cool again. and so forth, until final heat and hardness occurs)
It takes --a lot-- more coats because true japan paint is so thick.
But in the end it will harden to a very durable finish itself. I have done it a number of times and Wiktor does it everyday on his restored-better-than-new Millers Falls hand drills. ]
The factories did this by just dunking them (once for most companies, twice for Stanley, I think) and then firing after. The bright parts, or bare metal parts, were sanded off smooth afterward.
They used a form of precision sanding called linishing. Its still in use today.
If you drop off your cylinder head to get milled at the machine shop, they actually sand it.
True milling or high precision surface grinding takes too long, and its overkill.
Linishing is close enough and its a whole lot quicker.
The plane companies were going to machine these surfaces anyway, so why not just wait until after it had been painted?
I am pretty sure Stanley did all this twice. Nobody else comes close to the thickness of finish Stanley used before WW11.
I have some alphaltum japan, made to the original recipe (as good as could be anyway) and even though it is thick enough to stand a brush up in, it still takes at least 2 complete fired coats to make a finish as thick as Stanley used.
Neither Sargent, Millers Falls, Auburn or Ohio are anywhere near as thick.
yours Scott
-
In my last featured plane post, I included a few pictures of the Stanley #9 1/4 block plane. That got me to thinking of just how MANY different types, patterns, and sizes of block planes that Stanley actually made during their most diverse and productive years. There were literally dozens of them. Some were nickel plated, some were japanned, some came in a combination of both finishes along with some brass trimmings. Some had adjustable throats, while others were manufactured with fixed throats. Some had mechanical iron adjustments, and others had to be adjusted by hand. All, at least in the eyes of Stanley, were produced to fill some perceived niche in the market place. Many of the block planes Stanley, and others, produced were extremely useful and successful. Those are the ones that lasted and stood the test of time. Others seemed like good ideas on paper, but in actuality, had design flaws, or weaknesses, or characteristics that made them non-user friendly.
Stanley #130:
This is a double ended block plane, whose body is cast with two ramps that will accommodate the cutter on either end of the plane. It's one of those planes that I see as an "oddball." One end functions like a regular block plane, while the other end has a bull nose, allowing the iron to cut very close to the end of the plane. Useful? I don't know. I've got a "user" version of this plane and I've never had a reason to use the bull nose end, instead opting for other more capable tools to make those sorts of cuts. Like any cast iron plane, the #130 is very prone to damage if dropped on the floor. The bull nose section on these particular planes are often cracked off. The casting is extremely fragile around the bull nose, simply because there's not much metal there to begin with, so, a good knock and the bull nose snaps off. Because so many are found broken, they are often altered on the bull nose end, and turned into chisel planes (more on chisel planes later). I think the angle is a little high for a chisel plane, but I've seen more than one that has been "fixed" to become a chisel plane, so I know they're out there. Just beware that they were not originally manufactured like that. Personally, I think the #130 is a little bit too large, and therefore limited in its uses. At eight inches in length, it's almost as long as a #4 bench plane (see post #1 above). There are several more block planes that I like to use well ahead of the #130. Although it functions just fine, it's not my favorite to use. From a collector's point of view, well, I really like odd ball planes and this one fits the bill. In used condition, the #130 is relatively inexpensive and they do occasionally turn up at garage sales and flea markets. (If you absolutely still must have one, contact me....)
Stanley produced the #130 between 1884 and 1955. The example depicted below was probably manufactured in the late 1920s or early to mid 1930s. Notice the remains of the Stanley logo on the pressure cap. They were decals that didn't survive regular use, simply by virtue of their location on the plane, right under the user's palm. The decals were affixed to several different models during that time period, and were usually found on the handles, totes, and pressure caps, depending on the plane. This particular plane appears to have never been used, and still retains its original factory grind on the cutting iron.
-
It's no secret, I've said it before, I really like old hand planes. As a user and collector, I frequently receive planes from people (family, extended family, friends, co-workers, neighbors) who want to help me along with my collection. Many of the planes I receive are well used and often abused, with broken, missing, and/or poorly repaired parts. I can't count how many times I've received old wooden bodied planes that are cracked and well beyond repair. Still, I accept them all with a smile and a genuine appreciation, because someone took the time to think of me. Many of them end up in my "parts box" which occasionally yields that one little screw, washer, chip breaker, etc., that can be re-used on another plane. Over the years, I have received a few nice user quality planes to include some block planes, a Stanley Bedrock #608, and a pretty good Stanley scrub plane #40.
Along the way, I ended up with a couple "Razor Blade Planes." One of them actually belonged to my grandfather. He was a "tinkerer of the highest order." He actually made and smoked corncob pipes, enjoyed making model houses and scenery to display in a winter setting under his annual Christmas tree, and was famous for re-cycling old pallets and turning them into bird houses. His collection of tools was meager to say the least, but he made do with what he had. After he died, I ended up with several of his tools, to include his razor blade plane (The Little Giant). The other plane (Wil-Kro) was given to me by my dad, who recalled buying it in the late 1950s when he was working on building a model ship. According to him, it was almost useless, and that was that. It ended up in the bottom drawer of his workbench never to see the light of day again...... until he gave it to me a few years ago. I really don't collect these things, or use them, but their origins are special, so I keep them. I'm sure these planes are found in "grandpa's basement shop" all across America.
Razor Blade Planes:
These were most likely produced in the 1950s and into the 1960s, for the home hobbyist. They actually used a safety razor blade as the cutter. I don't think they'd cut much more than balsa wood, or some really soft pine. I've heard that they may have provided some utility working with leather, but I'm not entirely sure about that. The Little Giant, manufactured by Wilson Bros., in Springfield, Missouri, came in a flat soled version (see below) and a curved version (which I do not have), patent number 2781804. The Wil-Kro version, manufactured by Craft Master Tool Company, in Cleveland, Ohio, was a four in one model that could allegedly function as a flat sole, bull nose, chisel and curved sole plane, depending on the configuration of its four parts. If you're really interested in seeing more about this plane, its patent number is 2289504. Razor blade planes must have had some level of popularity at some point, because there were several models and manufacturers, to include Select, Raza-Plane, Zip Plane, and Sollingen Balsa Planer to name a few. I believe that Lee Valley even made a version of the razor blade plane. These planes may have sold well because they promised a multi-functional tool with a forever sharp blade, that would be useful for the home handyman. In the end, I don't think they actually lived up to their hype. I don't believe that razor blade planes are in much demand on the collector market either. I see them frequently at garage sales, flea markets and online, usually for less than a couple dollars. As for small planes, that actually work, there are MANY superior choices to be had. We'll save some of those for another day.
-
Thank you for the information and the pictures. I've seen some of these on eBay from time to time and thought about getting one to play with. I find planes more than a little addictive... Like you, I have a number that have been given me, and am glad to receive every one. I picked up two because my wife found them in a junk store we were cruising through -- I appreciated her looking out for tools for me. (Her latest find was at a yard sale -- a working Makita battery in its charger that cost me $2) Someone else found a Stanley low knob 5C at a garage sale and got it for me. Good user.
And I have a box of plane parts somewhere in storage.
Looking forward to more posts from you like this.
-
Razor blade planes. How cool. Got to love them. The definition of the word Cockamamie heeheh
Here is what happens to the 130 bullnose planes when the front section snaps off.
These ends are ridiculously fragile anyway. Not to mention, whose idea was it to have a tool that will --almost-- work into a corner?
So here's mine. The blade is about twice as thick as Stanley's offering, for stability. The lever cap is solid steel to mop up vibration too.
(http://users.snowcrest.net/kitty/sgrandstaff/images/chisso.jpg)
Also here is what you need for the really tight places.
(http://users.snowcrest.net/kitty/auction/chiselnose8.jpg)
yours Scott
-
Thank you for the information and the pictures........Looking forward to more posts from you like this.
You're most welcome. I'll try not to bore you.
Jim C.
-
Good looking planes Scott, and a nice fix on that #130. You're right... It's a silly design that's prone to breaking, and "almost" get's the user into the very corner of a workpiece. The key word is "almost." I tried to make clear to anyone who may come across a #130, that it's really one for the collectors. Even in used condition, it's far from being one that I reach for when I'm in need of a block plane. I'm not sure who's reading any of this, but wait until I break out the #131..... Just as silly and even more fragile!
-
Millers Falls also made one of these abominations, although they drew the line when it came to the No. 131.
Mike
-
> I'm not sure who's reading any of this
All of the 2,405,518,376 people on the Internet ;P
I always read these threads, people who, in fact, use tools know them better
than people who just see how many shelves they can fill up :)
-
Millers Falls also made one of these abominations, although they drew the line when it came to the No. 131.
Mike
Yes Mike, a version of the #130 was manufactured by a few different companies. Sargent also got in on the act, producing its double ended block plane, the #227, between 1901 and 1943.
The Stanley #131 is certainly a "contraption" to say the least, and as far as I know, was only produced by Stanley. It's one of those planes that is the result of some very fertile imagination and much less the result of principled engineering. That's another one best left to the collectors, because it's tough to find undamaged in any condition. I would never consider using a #131 because the chance of breaking the iron adjusting mechanism is pretty high.
-
> I'm not sure who's reading any of this
All of the 2,405,518,376 people on the Internet ;P
I always read these threads, people who, in fact, use tools know them better
than people who just see how many shelves they can fill up :)
I don't know if 2.4 billion people are reading about hand planes online or not. Maybe so..... And while I will admit that I have several planes that I use regularly, about a dozen or so, there are many, many, many more that are sitting in boxes on shelves in my shop that will most likely never be used by me. Thanks for reading along with the other 2.4 billion people.
-
In a previous post, I mentioned that I have about a dozen or so antique planes that I use frequently. There's something good about using an old tool. In some instances, the old tool is often better than new tools that are available and being made today. I really enjoy making furniture, or working on projects that require a higher level of precision than general carpentry. Over the years, my skills have gotten better, but I still have a long way to go. Like any craft/art form, metal working, ceramics, painting, etc., etc., woodworking has no beginning and no end. There's just learning, practicing, experimenting, refining, perfecting and more learning. Woodworkers were lucky that plane manufacturers recognized the need for tools that could achieve high levels of accuracy and make precise cuts. Rabbet planes were such tools. When outfitted with a sharp cutting iron and its throat set for a whisper of a shaving, the rabbet plane has the ability to fine tune some high end furniture joints that no other machine or tool can.
The rabbet plane's sides are ground at right angles to its sole, and with an iron that protrudes approximately 1/64" beyond both sides of the plane, it is able to get into the very corner of a joint (see last picture), such as a rabbet or lap, and square them up or remove the slightest amount of waste so that joints mate perfectly. As seen in the picture below, by removing the nose section of the plane, it also functions quite well as a small chisel plane (third picture). I find this feature to be extremely handy at times. I'm currently replacing most of the window sash at my house. That's another story for another time.... Anyway, the rabbet plane depicted below has been absolutely invaluable to have on hand during this project. If you're interested in upgrading your woodworking skills, and making things that require precision joints, then a small rabbet plane is a "must have."
Stanley #90:
For many years, Stanley and others made some version of small rabbet planes. This type of plane is also known as a shoulder plane. The #90 bull nose was a classic, and as I've already stated, a most useful plane. The #90 was one of several that Stanley made along with other models to include the #11, #90A, #90J, #92, #93, and #94. We'll get to a few of these at some point down the road. Stanley started making the #90 in 1898 and continued to do so well into the 1980s and possibly beyond. The plane I've depicted below was probably manufactured in the late 1930s. Although it has not changed much over the years, it's interesting to note that the model number cast into the nose was reversed at some point. Looking at the fifth picture below, you'll see that the 1930s version of the plane (on left) was cast with the model number facing away from the user, while the 1920s version (on right) was cast with the model number facing the user. I don't know that either one is any more rare than the other. I think the Stanley #90 is a plane that a serious woodworker should own. They're not as common as some planes that one might see at a garage sale, but still readily available. The nickel plating on them does wear off and will dull with use, but that will not even remotely effect its ability to function properly, and produce some exceptional results. From a collector's point of view, the condition of the nickel plating is everything. For the user, the key to these planes is their accuracy. They shouldn't be abused. Even if you purchase a "user" make sure its sides and sole are perpendicular to each other, that it's throat is undamaged, the iron advances and retracts smoothly, and that it has no cracks or repairs.
Jim C.
-
Very timely! I just acquired one of these. I hadn't had time to figure out it could be used as a chisel plane. Now I like it even more. Dressing rabbets and lap joint cuts was exactly why I wanted it.
-
Very timely! I just acquired one of these. I hadn't had time to figure out it could be used as a chisel plane. Now I like it even more. Dressing rabbets and lap joint cuts was exactly why I wanted it.
It will also do a great job fine tuning the cheeks and shoulders of tenons.
-
I was out in the shop today working on a small cabinet, and as always, had a couple planes on my bench. So, I thought I might feature one of my "users" this time. This plane, a Stanley #103, was given to me by a co-worker about ten years ago. Knowing nothing about old hand planes, she still picked it up at a farm sale in Wisconsin because she thought I might like it. Well, I do like it. First, because someone thought of me, and second because even with its 80+ years of patina, it's still a very good, functional, useable tool. It's far from collector quality, but in some ways it's MUCH better. Use an old plane like this and you'll see what I mean. It's an honest, well made, well used tool. At some point, it received some green and red paint, and had a little rust on it, but with a good cleaning and a sharp iron, it can still slice off some really fine shavings.
Jim C.
-
Collecting and using old tools is something that I'm guessing all of us here enjoy. Otherwise, why would we be here in the first place? For me, trying to determine when a tool was manufactured is part of the fun. Unfortunately, with the exception of a few examples, it's nearly impossible to know EXACTLY when a tool was manufactured. In most cases, we have to rely on manufacturing clues, packaging, instruction manuals, old catalogs, and our own research or the research of others. Still, at best, we may only be able to determine a date range/era that a particular tool was made. That's definitely the case with old hand planes.
Over the years, Stanley made little changes to their planes, packaging, etc. By continuing to educate yourself, gaining some experience, and knowing some telltales, one can roughly determine when a plane was produced. The following example will briefly discuss tool finishes, packaging, and old brochures/instructions. Stanley was never a company to waste anything, so they used everything until it was gone. Boxes, labels, instructions, even plane parts were mixed and matched at the factory. Several times I've seen planes in original mint condition with parts that appeared to be from the end of one production mated with improved/changed parts from the immediately following production. Stanley didn't care about future collectors and all their "Type Studies." The same went for boxes, labels, and brochures. They used the old stock until it was gone.
Below are two Stanley #271 router planes. It's one of my favorite models and very useful for cleaning and flattening the bottoms of grooves and dados. It was produced by Stanley from 1926 well into the 1980s. It could be used with an open or closed throat and included one 1/4" cutter. A very simple, but very effective plane. After tracking down some of the basic models, keep your eye out for one of these. In trying to determine when each plane was manufactured, I'd first examine the boxes. The box on the left has a yellow to orange colored paper covering it, while the box on the right is a drab grey to olive green cardboard with no paper covering. Immediately that tells me that the drab box was produced very near in time to WWII. For some reason, Stanley boxes from that era all look like that, versus the yellow and orange boxes that came before and after WWII. (Some VERY early Stanley boxes were a light green color.) Also notice the labels on the boxes. The one on the left appears to be more modern. Still, one cannot base a plane's approximate age on the box or the label alone. All the clues must be considered.
Let's look at the planes themselves. I should mention that the Stanley #271 depicted below was traditionally manufactured as a nickel plated plane before and after WWII. However, notice that the plane on the right has a japanned finish. Both are in mint condition, so which one is older? Here's where "continuing education" and some experience come into play. During WWII, nickel was being used for the war effort. As a result, Stanley started finishing their normally nickel plated planes and tool trimmings with black japanning. This practice went on at Stanley from the time the United States entered the war until the war ended. Again, because Stanley didn't waste anything, old stock japanned planes produced during the war could still be found on hardware store shelves well into the early 1950s.
Finally, let's take a look at the brochures that came with each plane. The content in each is virtually the same, but notice the cover of the brochure on the right. If you look at the the lower portion, you'll see that it celebrates Stanley's one hundred year anniversary, 1843 - 1943. Furthermore, looking at the back of both brochures, you'll see that one was printed in 1951, and the other was printed in 1943. Taking ALL of the clues into account (the boxes, the labels, the planes, the brochures, and some education) I can confidently say that the plane on the left was most likely produced during the early to mid 1950s, while the plane on the right was produced most likely near the middle or end of WWII.
What do you do if you don't have the benefit of original boxes, brochures, etc.? Again, educate yourself. Read available research done by others or do some of your own. Compare known older examples of planes to their newer versions. Many times subtle changes were made to patent dates, model number placement on castings, casting marks, mechanical parts, and logo stampings. Knowing these little details can still aid one in determining a plane's approximate age.
Jim C.
(We'll talk more about WWII era planes in a future post.)
-
Thanks for this information, Jim. I picked up one of these some years ago, basically NOS -- the blade hadn't even been honed (and still hasn't).
-
Many thanks to Jimc for starting this thread. In the past few months, I have picked up a few user grade old planes. I have a couple of transition Stanley's that belonged to my wife's grandfather. I have used an old Stanley 220 block plane for many years. Just this past week, I bought a Stanley 45 on ebay. I have a lot to learn about that one. A month or so ago I bought an underlined Craftsman rabbet plane that has a second frog on it that let's you move the blade and use it as a bullnose. I am not sure that it is the best idea ever conceived, but it is in unused condition and I could not resist. I'll post pictures later of these and the pair of #27 Stanley transitions. One was a tune up and use and the other got the iron parts re-japanned. Anyway, thanks again Jimc for a great thread!
-
Thanks for this information, Jim. I picked up one of these some years ago, basically NOS -- the blade hadn't even been honed (and still hasn't).
I love finding NOS hand planes! Still, I'm always conflicted when I do find one because I want to try it out and see how it works. At the same time, I know that it will only remain NOS if I leave it alone and don't do anything to it, like sharpening the iron, etc. That's when I go find a "user quality" plane for purposes of satisfying my itch to give it a try. The Stanley #271 is easily one of my favorites to use. I have one from the 1930s with most of its nickel plating worn thin or completely missing in spots. It works perfectly and it's a pleasure to use. The two #271s depicted above spend a lot of time in their respective boxes. They only come out for pictures, reference, and comparisons to other examples for educational purposes.
Jim C.
-
Many thanks to Jimc for starting this thread. In the past few months, I have picked up a few user grade old planes. I have a couple of transition Stanley's that belonged to my wife's grandfather. I have used an old Stanley 220 block plane for many years. Just this past week, I bought a Stanley 45 on ebay. I have a lot to learn about that one. A month or so ago I bought an underlined Craftsman rabbet plane that has a second frog on it that let's you move the blade and use it as a bullnose. I am not sure that it is the best idea ever conceived, but it is in unused condition and I could not resist. I'll post pictures later of these and the pair of #27 Stanley transitions. One was a tune up and use and the other got the iron parts re-japanned. Anyway, thanks again Jimc for a great thread!
Thanks John. I'll try to keep it light, educational, and motivating. I really do appreciate your kind remarks. If it gets boring, confusing, or uninteresting, just let me know. We're on a public forum here so constructive criticism is expected and welcomed. Part of the reason I started the thread was to see what others have in their collections and on their workbenches. I'm hopeful that you and others will post pictures, comments, and relate their experiences using and collecting hand planes of any era, make, condition, and preference. I'm partial to Stanley cast iron, but I hope that will not dissuade anyone from joining in the thread.
Back to the planes. I'm glad to hear that you've been adding to your collection. The Stanley #45 is A LOT of fun to play with. There's a book still in print (I think) that's soley dedicated to the Stanley #45. It was written by David Heckel. It's a "must read" for any combination plane enthusiast/user/collector. Your Craftsman plane sounds like the Stanley #78. That was one of Stanley's most popular planes. There's a pretty good chance that your plane was manufactured for Sears by Stanley, or Sargent. Post a few pictures. Let's see what you have there.
Jim C.
-
Jim, you inspired me to go looking in some of the darker Hidy holes in my basement. I came up with 15 planes. I didn't realize that I had that many. A couple weeks ago, I was at the Family Sharing Thrift Store and bought a Stanley #27 Transition Plane. I got it home and discovered that I already had one! So I torew them apart and started into a user restoration. Wash with mineral spirits, rotary wire brush the rusty blades and chip iron, sharpen and a couple coats of Galoot Mix and voila! One of them is a good, clean user. The other one had a nicer tote and knob and the beech was in better shape, so I went through the same drill only I stripped the japanning off. It was almost gone anyway. I don't have the secret formula for japanning, so I used a modern product that is a lot easier and almost as tough. POR 15. It is an automotive restoration paint that I have used extensively on my Model A Ford. It is, of course, a proprietary formula that the manufacturer is kinda secretive about. As near as I can figure, it is Super Glue with black pigment in it. It flows out beautifully, and dries in a few hours to a very tough gloss black finish that is about as tough as powder coating. It was a little too glossy for my taste, so I buffed the shine down with OO steel wool. I like the results. The POR 15 sets up like Super Glue with humidity. The drier the air, the longer it takes to set.
(http://i1202.photobucket.com/albums/bb373/johnsironsanctuary/Stanley%20Tools/DSCN3103_zpsc179ce81.jpg) (http://s1202.photobucket.com/user/johnsironsanctuary/media/Stanley%20Tools/DSCN3103_zpsc179ce81.jpg.html)
-
Jim, you inspired me to go looking in some of the darker Hidy holes in my basement. I came up with 15 planes. I didn't realize that I had that many. A couple weeks ago, I was at the Family Sharing Thrift Store and bought a Stanley #27 Transition Plane. I got it home and discovered that I already had one! So I torew them apart and started into a user restoration. Wash with mineral spirits, rotary wire brush the rusty blades and chip iron, sharpen and a couple coats of Galoot Mix and voila! One of them is a good, clean user. The other one had a nicer tote and knob and the beech was in better shape, so I went through the same drill only I stripped the japanning off. It was almost gone anyway. I don't have the secret formula for japanning, so I used a modern product that is a lot easier and almost as tough. POR 15. It is an automotive restoration paint that I have used extensively on my Model A Ford. It is, of course, a proprietary formula that the manufacturer is kinda secretive about. As near as I can figure, it is Super Glue with black pigment in it. It flows out beautifully, and dries in a few hours to a very tough gloss black finish that is about as tough as powder coating. It was a little too glossy for my taste, so I buffed the shine down with OO steel wool. I like the results. The POR 15 sets up like Super Glue with humidity. The drier the air, the longer it takes to set.
(http://i1202.photobucket.com/albums/bb373/johnsironsanctuary/Stanley%20Tools/DSCN3103_zpsc179ce81.jpg) (http://s1202.photobucket.com/user/johnsironsanctuary/media/Stanley%20Tools/DSCN3103_zpsc179ce81.jpg.html)
Wow!! You did a GREAT job restoring that plane John!! How does it cut? I'd also like to see and hear more about that old Ford. Have you considered starting a thread about it?
Jim C.
-
The planes cut nicely. The Model A has been on the back burner for a couple of years. I'm getting back to it now, but damn, it is cold out there in the garage.
Here is the Craftsman rabbet plane. I would date it as late 40's.
(http://i1202.photobucket.com/albums/bb373/johnsironsanctuary/Stanley%20Tools/DSCN3109_zps41f64457.jpg) (http://s1202.photobucket.com/user/johnsironsanctuary/media/Stanley%20Tools/DSCN3109_zps41f64457.jpg.html)
(http://i1202.photobucket.com/albums/bb373/johnsironsanctuary/Stanley%20Tools/DSCN3108_zps895ba863.jpg) (http://s1202.photobucket.com/user/johnsironsanctuary/media/Stanley%20Tools/DSCN3108_zps895ba863.jpg.html)
(http://i1202.photobucket.com/albums/bb373/johnsironsanctuary/Stanley%20Tools/DSCN3106_zps10fa078d.jpg) (http://s1202.photobucket.com/user/johnsironsanctuary/media/Stanley%20Tools/DSCN3106_zps10fa078d.jpg.html)
-
The planes cut nicely. The Model A has been on the back burner for a couple of years. I'm getting back to it now, but damn, it is cold out there in the garage.
Here is the Craftsman rabbet plane. I would date it as late 40's.
(http://i1202.photobucket.com/albums/bb373/johnsironsanctuary/Stanley%20Tools/DSCN3109_zps41f64457.jpg) (http://s1202.photobucket.com/user/johnsironsanctuary/media/Stanley%20Tools/DSCN3109_zps41f64457.jpg.html)
(http://i1202.photobucket.com/albums/bb373/johnsironsanctuary/Stanley%20Tools/DSCN3108_zps895ba863.jpg) (http://s1202.photobucket.com/user/johnsironsanctuary/media/Stanley%20Tools/DSCN3108_zps895ba863.jpg.html)
(http://i1202.photobucket.com/albums/bb373/johnsironsanctuary/Stanley%20Tools/DSCN3106_zps10fa078d.jpg) (http://s1202.photobucket.com/user/johnsironsanctuary/media/Stanley%20Tools/DSCN3106_zps10fa078d.jpg.html)
John,
Thanks for posting a few photos of your Craftsman rabbet plane. It looks to be in great condition. After looking at some of its features, to include the little horn/handle at the front of the main casting, I'd have to say that your plane was most likely made by Sargent. Your plane is VERY similar in appearance to the Sargent #79, which was produced between 1910 and 1953. Unfortunately, I do not have an example to show you, but if you do a little research, I'm sure you can find out more about the Sargent #79 and possibly more about your plane. I do know that when Sargent initially started producing the #79, it did not have the little horn on the front of the casting. The little horn showed up on much later versions of the plane.
Jim C.
-
>After looking at some of its features, to include the little horn/handle at the front of the main casting, I'd have to say that your plane was most likely made by Sargent. Your plane is VERY similar in appearance to the Sargent #79, which was produced between 1910 and 1953.
I have one of each, and they are identical. The bar for the side stop of the Craftsman fits the Sargent, pretty sure. I'll have to check again. My Craftsman has a little surface rust, but is otherwise in the same condition. Alas, though it has the bar, the stop and the depth stop are missing.
-
>After looking at some of its features, to include the little horn/handle at the front of the main casting, I'd have to say that your plane was most likely made by Sargent. Your plane is VERY similar in appearance to the Sargent #79, which was produced between 1910 and 1953.
I have one of each, and they are identical. The bar for the side stop of the Craftsman fits the Sargent, pretty sure. I'll have to check again. My Craftsman has a little surface rust, but is otherwise in the same condition. Alas, though it has the bar, the stop and the depth stop are missing.
Hey Branson, thanks for the confirmation. I kind of thought that John's Craftsman plane was actually a Sargent product in disguise, but it's always best to see the planes up close, and hold them in your hands for more accurate comparisons. A few pictures of your Sargent and Craftsman planes side by side might be nice if you have the time to post a few. Thanks again.
Jim C.
-
I noticed earlier today that I was coming up on my 100th post to this web site, so I thought I might commemorate the occasion with something a little out of the ordinary. Many years ago, when I discovered that using hand planes in my woodworking was at times easier, more accurate, and more enjoyable than just using power tools, I bought a Stanley #1. It came from the estate of a man who had recently passed away. The man's son worked with my wife and knew I was a woodworker (of sorts). Anyway, I went to the man's house with my wife's co-worker, and ended up bringing home a pretty good collection of older, well used woodworking/hand tools. Among the tools were a few planes to include this Stanley #1. As you can see, it has some nice patina on it, and it has been fairly well used but not abused during it's lifetime. Believe it or not, I still USE this plane.
Stanley #1:
This is one of Stanley's more collectible planes. It's relatively rare, although it was produced for several decades between 1867 and 1943. The example below was probably manufactured in the early 1920s. I think it's miniature size has something to do with its collectibility. It's technically a "bench plane" just like its more common, and larger, siblings (#2 though #8). If you ever run across one, know what you're looking at! These little guys can be pricey and buying one that's damaged, non factory altered, or an outright forgery, can be an expensive mistake. Here's a few things to keep an eye out for:
1. All Stanley bench planes had their respective model numbers cast into the main body of the plane themselves. The #1 never had it's model cast onto it anywhere.... ever.
2. The #1 never had a lateral cutting iron adjusting lever.
3. The #1 was only produced with a smooth sole. It never came with factory installed corrugations milled into its sole.
4. The #1 is 5 25/32" long and 1 17/32" wide. Measure it using a ruler with graduations as fine as 1/32". Don't try to "eyeball it."
5. Do your homework before buying.
Jim C. (100th post)
-
Gorgeous #1 Jim! A sweetheart!!
The Sargent made Crafty is probably slightly lesser quality than a standard Sargent marked plane of the same time period.
Many companies made planes for Sears over time. But Sears demanded such a low wholesale buying price that corners were invariably cut to meet the demand.
I had a Millers Falls made Craftsman that was major lesser quality. While riding by on a fast horse it wasn't so bad.
But on closer inspection, to say nothing of actual utility, that plane was an embarrassment to the great Millers Falls company!
I have another Craftsman marked Millers plane, that is --much-- higher quality, and in fact is my go to "rough out" jack plane, and has been for 30 years and thensome. It was a gift from a friend and has local history. It has one of the first totes I ever carved on it too.
Hardware chain marked tools are like that a lot of times. Some will be bad, some will be good and some will be outstanding. Montgomery Wards' Lakeside brand is one of the most variable. I have seen some completely dismal tools with the Lakeside brand and I have a few chisels I swear were made by Whitherby. As good as it gets.
Keen Kutter, HS&B's OVB line, Stiletto, and Vaughan & Bushnell marked goods are always top quality in my experience. Some hardware chains sold only the best.
Sears, Monkey Wards, LF&C, Bellnap, Western Auto, in later days JC Penny.........
These are all a serious crap shoot.
yours Scott
-
Thanks for the additional info Scott. You know, I have noticed that rebranded planes do occasionally have some quality control issues, or that they're not exactly like the original. It makes sense that Sears demanded a lower buying price (because it could) and consequently caused the manufacturer (Sargent) to make up the difference somewhere else such as in materials, finish, packaging, and overall quality control. I wonder how the prices compared between the original and the rebranded planes. Using John's Craftsman rabbet plane as an example, which would have had the higher retail price? The original Sargent #79, or the rebranded Craftsman?
Jim C.
-
An original Sargent would have never sold as cheap as Sears sold their model.
It is my understanding that Sears was the "fall back" buyer when a company needed money in the worst way. When regular sales were in a slump, they could sell to Sears for practically the price of materials.
No profit would be made but they could live to fight another day.
A few companies just set their sights on Sears as a market, and made marginal quality goods from the get go. Sears was not too picky, as long as the item was barely adequate, and cheap.
On the other hand, I have never had any item marked OBV (Our Very Best, from Hibbard Spencer and Bartlett) that was not at the pinnacle of production for the time.
Its one of the things to look for when looking for tools and such.
Most seasoned collectors are leery of any hardware marked goods for the reasons we are talking about. (except Keen Kutter or Winchester and this is just all about the name)
They overlook all hardware brands, dismissing them as inferior at a glance.
OVB was one you should never overlook.
yours Scott
PS Vaughan and Bushnell is another. Tip top goods is why Vaughan is still in business, (mostly hammers), even today.
PPS The picture is of celluloid backed giveaway pocket mirrors, in case you don't recognize them offhand. These were very popular in the early 1900's with some going longer. Not sure how many girls wanted a purse mirror advertizing tools or laxative. But I guess that is why they are rare.
-
Thanks Scott! Like I said earlier, a lot to do with collecting old tools, or anything for that matter, is getting an education and some experience. A person can never have enough of either one.
Jim C.
-
Some of the most overlooked bench planes are the Keen Kutters that are marked K3 thru K8(there may have been a K2). Unless you have had one apart, you won't know that these are the same as the early Stanley Bed Rocks with the round sides but without the Bed Rock price. Do not make the mistake of buying the ones marked KK and thinking they are the same as the K's because they aren't. They are the same as the common Stanley bench planes but with a different lateral adjusting lever. These are nice planes!
Mike
-
Some of the most overlooked bench planes are the Keen Kutters that are marked K3 thru K8(there may have been a K2). Unless you have had one apart, you won't know that these are the same as the early Stanley Bed Rocks with the round sides but without the Bed Rock price. Do not make the mistake of buying the ones marked KK and thinking they are the same as the K's because they aren't. They are the same as the common Stanley bench planes but with a different lateral adjusting lever. These are nice planes!
Mike
Have any pictures Mike? I don't know too much about Keen Kutter planes. I'd like to see them and learn more, particularly if they're like old Bedrocks.
Jim C.
-
Finding Keen Kutters of any kind cheap, is not easy anymore.
More people (as in swap meet, junk shop and antique dealers) know the name Keen Kutter more than they do the name Bedrock.
As far as I know, the K-number planes -are- actual Stanley roundside bedrocks.
But marked round side Bedrocks already sell for considerably less than square side Bedrocks anyway.
yours Scott
-
I have two 45 combination planes. Both are clearly Stanleys, but one is from Sears and the other is from Wards. One came to me with a leatherette carrying case and a full set of blades in their wooden holder. Quality of materials, fit and finish are just as good as a Stanley (I used to have one Stanley as well). Once I had to t&g a bunch of boards, so I set the Sears for tongue, and the Wards for groove. Perfect.
The Craftsman duplex seems to be equal in quality to the Sargent, and both seem as good as my old Stanley, and my English made Stanley. (I don't know how I ended up with several of these.) The English job had been dropped and the handle was cleanly broken off -- JB Weld seems to have fixed it just fine for a worker. It came with all the bells and whistles. I suspect it got dropped before the PO had a chance to use it even once.
I'll see what I can do about getting pics of the Craftsman and the Sargent.
Yeah, there's the crap-shoot factor. But so far I've been lucky. Except that years ago I bought a new Kunz spokeshave that was bad to the bone straight out of the box. I thought about throwing it across the shop, but gave it away instead. Replaced it with an old, used Stanley.
-
Yes, I like hand planes. I use them, I collect them, and I enjoy learning about them. To those who already know the utility and pleasure of using planes out in the shop, then I hope you'll join in the conversation.
Joining in. Planes are one of my favorite tools, and I have a lot of them. The smallest ones are those little finger planes, the largest is a wooden jointer. I've got a bunch of wooden molding planes, slightly fewer skew rabbet planes, and one set of small carriage makers planes that weren't completed. More block planes than is probably sane...
Yes, the do their jobs, and a lot of times do the job better than power tools. For quick fixes, they do the job faster as well.
I like the way you can feel the work happening as the plane passes over the wood. And the sound of a sharp plane at work is just music! Ah, and wonderfully quiet.
-
Finding Keen Kutters of any kind cheap, is not easy anymore.
More people (as in swap meet, junk shop and antique dealers) know the name Keen Kutter more than they do the name Bedrock.
As far as I know, the K-number planes -are- actual Stanley roundside bedrocks.
But marked round side Bedrocks already sell for considerably less than square side Bedrocks anyway.
yours Scott
I've got this Stanley #605 1/2 smooth sole Bedrock that is one of my ALL TIME favorite planes to use. It's a great plane. It's just one of those few planes that only needed its iron sharpened and it was ready to go. It cuts beautifully, all of its parts fit perfectly, and it's just the right size for a lot of the work I like to do. Maybe I'll feature that one next. That one plane alone inspires me to want to go out in the shop right now and start making something!
Jim C.
-
Yes, I like hand planes. I use them, I collect them, and I enjoy learning about them. To those who already know the utility and pleasure of using planes out in the shop, then I hope you'll join in the conversation.
Joining in.........
Thanks for making it official, but honestly, I had already counted you in as an "official member" of the thread way back at Reply #6. Thanks for joining!
Jim C.
-
Dave Heckel's book on the Stanley 45 came yesterday. WOW! He sure did a great job researching it. From what I have read so far, mine is a Type 8 from 1907-08. There are a few pieces missing and the box, that I paid dearly for, is not a Stanley 45 box. I am missing the beading cam, the slitting tool and the rosewood strip on the fence. It looks like all of the missing stuff is on ebay. I am bidding on a fence currently. Plating is only about 50%, but after a hundred and some years, I would say it looks normal and well cared for. I need to sharpen a few blades a see how it works. I plan on making a new drawer for my Star Tool Chest that has one missing. It will bead the top of the drawer front and cut the rabbets on the drawer front after I cut the half blind dovetails. If I can find some chestnut wood, I might make a repro box for it. The mind boggles at what this tool can do.
I got a chance to fondle a couple of very old core box plane this last week. I'll post about that later.
-
Dave Heckel's book on the Stanley 45 came yesterday. WOW! He sure did a great job researching it. From what I have read so far, mine is a Type 8 from 1907-08. There are a few pieces missing and the box, that I paid dearly for, is not a Stanley 45 box. I am missing the beading cam, the slitting tool and the rosewood strip on the fence. It looks like all of the missing stuff is on ebay. I am bidding on a fence currently. Plating is only about 50%, but after a hundred and some years, I would say it looks normal and well cared for. I need to sharpen a few blades a see how it works. I plan on making a new drawer for my Star Tool Chest that has one missing. It will bead the top of the drawer front and cut the rabbets on the drawer front after I cut the half blind dovetails. If I can find some chestnut wood, I might make a repro box for it. The mind boggles at what this tool can do.
I got a chance to fondle a couple of very old core box plane this last week. I'll post about that later.
Hey John,
I kind of thought that if you liked old Stanley combination planes, you'd like Dave Heckel's book. He did do a fantastic job researching it and presenting the information. That book is the last word when it comes to the #45. Dave is an extremely active member of the Mid West Tool Collectors Association and is great to talk to about not only Stanley #45 planes, but also old Sargent planes, and many other old hand tools. He's a very knowledgeable guy, who's friendly and approachable. Earlier in the thread, I suggested that people who are interested in old planes should educate themselves. Well, Dave is one of the people I turn to for education.
Jim C.
-
Back at Reply #32, I mentioned finding New Old Stock (NOS) planes, and being conflicted about using them because they're NOS only once. After sharpening the iron, tuning them up, and using them, they obviously start to lose their "factory fresh" appearance and original characteristics. From a user's point of view, it's a brand new tool ready to go to work, just like any other. From a collector's standpoint, it's the ultimate find, that should be preserved in its original factory state forever.
In future posts, I'll feature some planes that are in amazing condition for their age, but aren't in NOS condition. Some of those planes I use, and some I don't for various reasons. In this post, I'll show you an NOS plane. Identifying a NOS plane is pretty easy. It will look brand new and its finishes will be 99% unblemished. Often their bare cast iron soles and sides may have some staining from sitting untouched for decades. They frequently have original brochures, retailer price tags, sales receipts, and other original packaging in their boxes. (Notice the Stanley logo tag still tied to the tote.) The cutting irons still have their factory grinds on them. The rosewood knob and tote have no dents, chips or cracks, and their glossy finishes haven't been dulled by a workman's hands upon them.
If you ever come across a plane like this, even if it's a run of the mill, common model, before you take it home and start using it, take just a second to reconsider that urge. The plane will only be in factory condition once. The opportunity to study it and compare it to other planes of its era, and eras that came before and after its manufacture can be invaluable to users and collectors alike. Clean, unquestioned, unaltered, unused factory examples of tools that are many decades old are in short supply. For the most part, well cared for user quality tools are still readily available for work in your shop. Any old NOS tool should be preserved in its original state. Looking beyond its premium monetary value, it should be preserved for its historic and educational merits.
Stanley #6C:
Stanley manufactured the #6C beginning in 1898, and continued with its production well into the 1980s. The "C" in the model designation stands for corrugated sole. The plane itself is identical to the Stanley #6 in every way, except for its sole corrugations. The #6 size bench plane is technically considered to be a "fore" plane. It's a little longer than a #5 "jack" plane (14" to 15" long) , but shorter than the #7 and #8 jointers (22" to 24" long). Fore planes usually run about 16" to 18" long. Many consider them to be an odd size. Actually, I think their size may have been well suited to the craftsmen of old who carried their tools with them from job to job. At 18" long, the fore plane could fit into a portable tool box and still function as a short jointer without the extra weight, length, and bulk of a larger, more traditional jointer like the #7 or #8. The plane depicted below is an early Type 16, manufactured by Stanley between 1933 and 1941. This is a true NOS plane. As much as I'd like to sharpen the iron and test it out..... I don't dare!!
Jim C.
-
Thanks Jim C. I do love hand planes, and this thread has been quite an education for me. Ralph
-
Thank you for doing this thread Jim C. My dad started collecting tools and planes and especially planes when I was young, well younger anyways (I'm 18). I've always had a special fascination with the planes. This thread is a good education and an opportunity to see examples of the rare planes that never found their way up here to northern Alberta. I just started my own collection this summer with a matched pair of D. Malloch and Son hollow and round.
-
Thanks Jim C. I do love hand planes, and this thread has been quite an education for me. Ralph
Thanks Ralph, but I'd have to say that we are all learning something from you. What you're doing with tools is fascinating! I've been enjoying your thread immensely!
Jim C.
-
Thank you for doing this thread Jim C. My dad started collecting tools and planes and especially planes when I was young, well younger anyways (I'm 18). I've always had a special fascination with the planes. This thread is a good education and an opportunity to see examples of the rare planes that never found their way up here to northern Alberta. I just started my own collection this summer with a matched pair of D. Malloch and Son hollow and round.
I'm glad you're enjoying the thread. If you and/or your dad have planes, we'd all like to see them. Post a few pictures if you get a chance. It's good hear that a younger guy is getting into old hand tools. I got interested in hand planes after I discovered how useful they could be. I read about them, bought a few at garage sales, and asked a lot of questions at tool club meets. The more I used them, the more I wanted to grow my collection. Over time, my focus turned from user planes to collector quality planes. I met a few gentlemen who really mentored me early on, and they helped me develop and refine my collection. I made some mistakes along the way, but that's part of the learning process. Not knowing how to use a plane correctly can cause a poor work product and thus, wasted wood. Not knowing what you're doing as a collector can be expensive! Take your time, read, research, and ask questions. Using and collecting antique hand tools can be a lifetime endeavor. You're off to a great start. I hope you'll be checking in often. I'll try to keep things moving and current. Still, don't be afraid to post pictures of planes that YOU have, or may be using on a project. My true intent for starting the thread was actually an attempt to lure others out of the "wood work" so that I could see and read about THEIR hand planes. I'm just using mine as bait.
Jim C.
-
Back at Reply #32, I mentioned finding New Old Stock (NOS) planes, and being conflicted about using them because they're NOS only once. After sharpening the iron, tuning them up, and using them, they obviously start to lose their "factory fresh" appearance and original characteristics. From a users point of view, it's a brand new tool ready to go to work, just like any other. From a collector's standpoint, it's the ultimate find, that should be preserved in its original factory state forever.
In future posts, I'll feature some planes that are in amazing condition for their age, but aren't in NOS condition. Some of those planes I use, and some I don't for various reasons. In this post, I'll show you an NOS plane. Identifying a NOS plane is pretty easy. It will look brand new and its finishes will be 99% unblemished. Often their bare cast iron soles and sides may have some staining from sitting untouched for decades. They frequently have original brochures, retailer price tags, sales receipts, and other original packaging in their boxes. (Notice the Stanley logo tag still tied to the tote.) The cutting irons still have their factory grinds on them. The rosewood knob and tote have no dents, chips or cracks, and their glossy finishes haven't been dulled by a workman's hands upon them.
If you ever come across a plane like this, even if it's a run of the mill, common model, before you take it home and start using it, take just a second to reconsider that urge. The plane will only be in factory condition once. The opportunity to study it and compare it to other planes of its era, and eras that came before and after its manufacture can be invaluable to users and collectors alike. Clean, unquestioned, unaltered, unused factory examples of tools that are many decades old are in short supply. For the most part, well cared for user quality tools are still readily available for work in your shop. Any old NOS tool should be preserved in its original state. Looking beyond its premium monetary value, it should be preserved for its historic and educational merits.
Recently I picked this up. The box is tore, a corner is ripped inside, and there are small spill or other marks on it.
The plane has not been trued up at all, but the plane has stroked some pine (it seems like just to test, not much.)
How far from NOS is this with the damaged box.
-
More pictures... not sure what happened. ?..
I'm sure I'll get the gang of this soon.
-
Chillylulu,
That looks like an NOS plane if I ever saw one. Just running it over a piece of pine a few times really doesn't devalue the plane from a collector's standpoint. If the iron still has the original factory grind on it, pristine unaltered finishes are present over 99% of the plane, and it retains all of its original parts, the plane is still NOS in my book.
As for the box, well, you saw the box that came with the #6C I posted above. It was a little beat up, but still mostly intact. Mint condition boxes certainly add to the value of an old tool. More often than not however, the box, while damaged, is probably the main reason for the tool's amazing condition many decades later. It takes the abuse while protecting the tool inside. I have fair number of planes in their original boxes, but only a handful of those boxes are truly gem mint examples. Paper and cardboard boxes containing relatively heavy items, in a shop environment, usually don't hold up too well over a long period of years, unless there was a conscious decision by the tool's owner to handle the box with care. If a tool was used frequently, in and out of the box, over time, the boxes usually self destructed. When looking for old planes, even user quality planes, I'm always drawn to those in a box. I always hope to open the box and find a tool that was never used. Usually that's not the case. Still, the very existence of the box tells me that the prior owner valued the tool, and consequently thought enough of the tool to protect it in its box. Based on my experience, a "user" tool in a box is usually in better condition than the same tool from the same era that was not stored in a box. Maybe we'll talk more about boxes in a future post.
That's a great looking, NOS, collector quality plane. Thanks for the pictures!
Jim C.
-
A lot of discussions I've read have not nice things to say about the Handyman planes. I think, though, they're just a bit too fussy. I'm putting a Handyman smooth plane back in order for a friend, and while it doesn't have all the bells and whistles of a Stanley #4 it seems to be a decent tool, and much of it uses good Stanley parts. I'm sure he'll get good use out of it. I'm to the point of sharpening the blade now.
The end of the cap iron of this plane is painted red -- when was this done on Handymans? Anybody know?
-
A lot of discussions I've read have not nice things to say about the Handyman planes. I think, though, they're just a bit too fussy. I'm putting a Handyman smooth plane back in order for a friend, and while it doesn't have all the bells and whistles of a Stanley #4 it seems to be a decent tool, and much of it uses good Stanley parts. I'm sure he'll get good use out of it. I'm to the point of sharpening the blade now.
The end of the cap iron of this plane is painted red -- when was this done on Handymans? Anybody know?
Hey Branson,
You're right about the Handyman planes. They were an economy line of planes offered by Stanley marketed directly to........ "The Home Handyman." Hence the name of the line of planes I guess. Stanley was famous for trying to fill EVERY niche in the marketplace, real or imagined. Still, Chillylulu's plane is in amazing condition for its age, and most certainly considered collector quality. It's a nice plane just for its historic value alone. As for the red paint on the cap iron, well, I don't know the answer to that one. I'll do a little checking to see if I can find out.
Jim C.
-
I wasn't sure if I was overpaying $20.00 + 3.00 commission. I liked it so I got it.
My first plane that I bought was an old Stanley 4C. I have a friend who owns a blade sharpening business. He trued the plane up the first time for me. Its been smooth as silk ever since. The plane was used, I think I paid $45 for it 20 yrs ago. It was a lot less than new at the time.
It seems to me that plane prices have come down from where they were 15 yrs ago. Is that at all accurate, or was I just looking in all the wrong places?
Chilly
-
The antiques and collectible world is filled to the brim with people making up their own rules and price structures from the seat of their pants.
Sometimes its very good for us.
Sometimes its part of our "education".
And nobody gets an education completely for free.
I once saw a large shelf full of planes at an antique shop. All were priced at $25 each.
All were complete dogs, except one.
Sheltons and unmarked and lowest grade hardware brands. Recently manufactured planes and missing parts planes and rusted to bits planes. Broken and missing wood handles planes. All the usual things that make a plane a true dog.
But sitting there in the middle of the shelf was a Stanley #85 scraper plane in very near mint condition. All were priced the same.
I was shaking as I reached for it. I picked it up ever so softly and hugged it to my chest, cradling it like it was a newborn child, and began moving deliberately toward the front of the store with a razor sharp eye to my footing. Locked down concentration until I knew for sure it was safe.
Want to know how many dogs I bought before I knew that 85 was special?
Want to see my "boneyard" of foolish decisions and well meaning gifts from others?
Education takes time. It takes work and experience.
There is nothing wrong with a Handyman plane in superb condition as a collectible. Especially with a decent box. Better a shelf queen though. While you can make a lesser plane work, with labor, it will never perform as well as an example from the best periods of plane manufacture.
The more you know the better you will be able to separate the wheat from the chaff at a glance.
I scored a near mint Millers Falls #4 from the golden period of Millers (2 part lever cap) for a 10 spot this summer at a yard sale.
I left three other planes priced at even less, where they sat, on the table.
Education takes time and work and study. Nobody gets it overnight for free. We pay up front.
yours Scott
-
^^^^^^ Pretty much what Scott says. I'd say that's right on point.^^^^^^^
-
Merry Christmas!!
Jim C.
-
Merry Christmas to all! A special Thank You to Jimc for starting this thread. I have learned a bit about planes and enjoyed it thoroughly. Thanks again Jim.
-
Merry Christmas to all! A special Thank You to Jimc for starting this thread. I have learned a bit about planes and enjoyed it thoroughly. Thanks again Jim.
I appreciate your kind words John. Thank you. I'll keep looking for interesting hand plane content to post here.
Jim C.
-
Thank you, Jim C. This is a perfect example of the content that keeps me addicted to this forum. My hat is off to you for your commitment to tools, the yearn for knowledge, and the desire to share!
-
Thank you, Jim C. This is a perfect example of the content that keeps me addicted to this forum. My hat is off to you for your commitment to tools, the yearn for knowledge, and the desire to share!
You know, when I add posts to this thread, I frequently ask myself a few questions like, "I wonder if anyone is reading this stuff, and if so, is it having any impact on them? Is it interesting? Is it informative? Does it make sense? Is the information accurate?" Well, I'm very appreciative for receiving positive feedback, so thank you! It makes me think that I must be hitting the mark at least some of the time. I'll try to keep you coming back for more.
Jim C.
-
Well with 970 some views and 72 replies you must be getting somebodies interest, including me.
-
Well with 970 some views and 72 replies you must be getting somebodies interest, including me.
The numbers may be a little misleading. Of the 970 some views here, about 900 of them are probably just me looking to see if anyone is reading this stuff!! Anyway, I'm already planning my next "featured hand plane" post, so check back in. Thanks.
Jim C.
-
The numbers may be a little misleading. Of the 970 some views here, about 900 of them are probably just me looking to see if anyone is reading this stuff!! Anyway, I'm already planning my next "featured hand plane" post, so check back in. Thanks.
Jim C.
Well, some of them are me, checking them out again (and again). Those count. Your posts are worth revisiting! Now waiting for the next installment.
-
I've been following the amazing "Miniature Tools" thread by Art Rafael and was inspired to find something "miniature" to add to this thread. Ralph's work is proof that good things do come in small packages. With that in mind, I decided to do a post featuring Stanley's smallest plane. There are times when I've added a small piece of molding or trim to a project and wanted to use more than just glue to attach it. The options are limited, and for me, driving a nail or brad through the face of the wood, and then using wood putty to fill it is not one of my favorite choices. It’s actually my least favorite. On those occasions, a better idea might be to attach the molding with "blind nails." This is simply a trick whereby a small shaving of wood on the molding is peeled back using a VERY SHARP chisel. As the shaving is peeled back, one must be careful not to break it off from the work piece itself. Once the shaving is peeled back, a brad can then be nailed into place and set slightly below the surface of the wood. When the brad is set, the shaving can be pressed back into place and held down with a dab of glue. This process is certainly nothing new, but Stanley came up with a little chisel plane (also called a chisel gauge) to help accomplish the task. Stanley being Stanley, it was never a company to miss an opportunity to fill a perceived niche, so it came up with this:
Stanley #96:
As you can see, this little plane is about 2 ¼” long. It’s useless without a chisel, while a chisel functions absolutely fine without the #96. Still, it’s an interesting little gizmo that actually does work well with a sharp ¼” chisel installed. The #96 was produced by Stanley between 1888 and 1922. Those manufactured with a patent date, 4/10/1888, stamped onto their side (like the example below), are Type 1 models, produced between 1888 and 1906. Unlike most of Stanley’s planes that were made from cast iron, the main body of #96 is nothing more that a piece of stamped steel that was bent into shape (much like the Stanley #118 block plane). The lever cap holding the knurled slotted head screw is cast iron. To be honest, I’ve never seen one of these little chisel planes at a garage sale or flea market. They’re relatively scarce, and could very easily be lost at the bottom of a long forgotten toolbox, or buried in the drawer of “grandpa’s old workbench.” I suspect that grandpa’s relatives have indeed found these and wondered what the heck they were and/or what they were used for. Even their age alone could make them difficult to find. They haven’t been manufactured in nearly ninety two years. If you ever come across one of these I’d encourage you to buy it if the price is right. Mint condition examples can be very pricey. If you like the idea of using the blind nail technique on some of your projects, just remember that the #96 is not necessary to do so. The same little shaving can be peeled back with nothing more than a sharp chisel and steady hands. Like I said earlier, the #96 needs the ¼” chisel, however, the chisel does not need the #96. This one might be better left to the collectors.
Jim C.
-
I wasn't sure if I was overpaying $20.00 + 3.00 commission. I liked it so I got it.
My first plane that I bought was an old Stanley 4C. I have a friend who owns a blade sharpening business. He trued the plane up the first time for me. Its been smooth as silk ever since. The plane was used, I think I paid $45 for it 20 yrs ago. It was a lot less than new at the time.
It seems to me that plane prices have come down from where they were 15 yrs ago. Is that at all accurate, or was I just looking in all the wrong places?
Chilly
Generally speaking, I think that the prices of antique planes have dipped some in the last few years. I guess that's just a sign of the economic times we have been living in. Antique planes, like any collectible, are basically luxury items. When times are tough, people stop buying and the demand for certain items drops and so do their prices. Still, with that being said, I have found that top quality, mint condition planes have generally held their value even through the tough times. When I buy a plane for my collection, I go for the VERY BEST one I can find, and rarely settle for anything short of NOS. I'll pay more for that plane because I expect it to hold its value, but I'm not a dealer, and I don't buy them strictly as investments. I've made the mistake of buying high quality "user" planes with the self imposed belief that I was buying "collector" quality planes. When I encountered true collector quality planes, I quickly realized the error of my ways. Most people know a "user" when they see one. It's those planes that are in really good condition, but not NOS condition, that can fool you. Those are usually the ones I've overpaid for. Now days, I buy mostly NOS quality planes for the enjoyment of building a specific collection that's as close to factory fresh as possible. I still buy "users" too, but now I'm a little more savvy, and I know that the prices of planes that are less than 98% perfect will fluctuate more than those that are factory NOS examples.
Jim C. (sorry for the long winded answer)
-
OK! finally figured out what "NOS" was.. "(New Old Stock")
(too many different meaning listed in "Acronym Definition; NOS: Not Otherwise Specified: NOS: Network Operating System: NOS: National Ocean Service (NOAA) NOS: National Occupational Standards (UK) NOS") etc. etc...
-
OK! finally figured out what "NOS" was.. "(New Old Stock")
(too many different meaning listed in "Acronym Definition; NOS: Not Otherwise Specified: NOS: Network Operating System: NOS: National Ocean Service (NOAA) NOS: National Occupational Standards (UK) NOS") etc. etc...
Thanks for the feedback. Like I said earlier, after I write this stuff, one of the things I wonder is if what I wrote is clear to the reader. Well, now I know that I need to do a better job and a little more editing prior to posting. Enjoy the planes and I hope you'll forgive the writer!
Jim C. (learning as I go)
-
OK! finally figured out what "NOS" was.. "(New Old Stock")
(too many different meaning listed in "Acronym Definition; NOS: Not Otherwise Specified: NOS: Network Operating System: NOS: National Ocean Service (NOAA) NOS: National Occupational Standards (UK) NOS") etc. etc...
We have a acronym dictionary on this forum to assist in the context of tools and our members:
http://www.papawswrench.com/vboard/index.php?topic=4357.msg28524#msg28524
-
Jim, although I hear and believe what you are saying, for most of us, it is a moot point. My monthly cash flow does not have room for dozens if not hundreds of $500 or $1000 dust catchers. My tool collection is not worthy of you guys who have the means to have a whole bunch of Cabinet Queens for tools. I first looked at a Donnelly auction and was amazed at both the high prices and the fact that most of the tools were fresh from the hardware store around a hundred years ago. I try for the best condition at a price that I can afford. When I am in tool fondling mode, one of the things that gives me pleasure, is knowing that far more expert hands than mine used the tool before I got it. I seek to preserve, reverse abuse and undo neglect. Each of us has different motives, but as for me, I am content restoring my Model A Ford and have no desire for a Duesenberg with only 11 miles on it.
-
Jim, although I hear and believe what you are saying, for most of us, it is a moot point. My monthly cash flow does not have room for dozens if not hundreds of $500 or $1000 dust catchers. My tool collection is not worthy of you guys who have the means to have a whole bunch of Cabinet Queens for tools. I first looked at a Donnelly auction and was amazed at both the high prices and the fact that most of the tools were fresh from the hardware store around a hundred years ago. I try for the best condition at a price that I can afford. When I am in tool fondling mode, one of the things that gives me pleasure, is knowing that far more expert hands than mine used the tool before I got it. I seek to preserve, reverse abuse and undo neglect. Each of us has different motives, but as for me, I am content restoring my Model A Ford and have no desire for a Duesenberg with only 11 miles on it.
Hi John,
I think you have the right idea. "Collecting" does have a different meaning for everyone. The first two planes I ever bought were brand spanking new because I needed them for a project that I was working on. They were much cheaper than the machine I "thought" I needed. As I started getting the hang of using the planes, and seeing the results I could get with practice, I was highly motivated to buy more planes. I started doing more research to see what planes were out there and of what use they could be to me on future projects. I very quickly learned that a 1930 Stanley #4 in user condition was significantly less expensive than a new Lie-Nielsen #4. I started buying old Stanley's because they were plentiful and I liked the idea of using old American made tools from decades past. I joined a tool enthusiast organization and learned a lot more about planes from a few gentlemen who knew a lot more about planes than I did. Over time, I struck up a friendship with a man who had one of the BEST collections of Stanley planes in the country. Seriously. He had them all, and most were NOS in their original boxes. An amazing collection to say the least. Well, he really educated me on collecting. After having acquired a respectable array of planes that saw (and still see) regular use in my shop, I had sort of "hit the wall." How many user block planes and bench planes does one really need? Well, with the help and encouragement of my friend, that's when I started drifting into the "dust collector cabinet queen" arena of hand plane collecting. That was at least a dozen years ago, and I'm still at it today. I just love old planes. If I see a great "user" I'll still buy it, but I admit that over the years my tastes have changed and with it, the contents of my collection. Anyway, I sincerely hope that those who visit here don't come away thinking that it's just a thread for mint condition Stanley planes. I started the thread purely for the love of ANY old hand planes in ANY condition, commonly seen, or otherwise. Finally, I hope that the planes I post here will stimulate conversation, as well as encourage hand plane use, preservation, education, and collection.
Jim C.
-
Collector value is a funny thing.
Nearly all collectors are "factory collectors".
This means if Michaelangelo and Leonardo Da Vinci collaborated on a tool, it would have no value at all to them, unless they ran a tool factory at the time.
Marked --factory production-- goods are all they want.
They are mostly paint collectors as well.
100% factory paint?
High value. There are so many who want this, the value can become astronomical.
And yes it is the only value that holds up in a depression.
All other tool values crash with the stock market, except factory paint.
95% factory paint? 1/3 value and not an easy sell at that.
90% factory paint? Zero value to the serious collector.
Its all or nothing for the paint collectors. Factory paint is everything!!
A lot of this originally came from eastern seaboard guys who could go to any random swap meet on any random Saturday and fill 2 wheelbarrows with Stanley #4's, without even trying. Common tools were so easy to get, they had very little worth.
So tools with a chip in the paint became completely worthless.
They used to pile and burn transitional planes for fun, because nobody wanted them.
It spiraled away from all reason after that.
My tools are basically worthless on the collector market. I don't even have any respect for factory paint. They were merely assembly line dunked in a tank of paint and baked in the first place. Not like careful hand work and fancy pinstripe work or whatever.
Just unceremoniously dunked and baked, at pennies per hour, non-union, sweatshop labor. Some was even prison labor where men were forced to work at gunpoint, for nothing at all.
And yet nearly all of collector value is attached to original paint or varnish.
Or as well known tool dealer Mike Urness (the ratman) once said to me........
Please leave a note in your shop that when you die, for the love of God, make sure your relatives ---Do Not--- call me!!
The good news is that this means that the rest of us have almost a clear field!
We can have truly great tools for dirt cheap, if we hunt.
yours Scott
-
Collector value is a funny thing.
Nearly all collectors are "factory collectors".
This means if Michaelangelo and Leonardo Da Vinci collaborated on a tool, it would have no value at all to them, unless they ran a tool factory at the time.
Marked --factory production-- goods are all they want.
They are mostly paint collectors as well.
100% factory paint?
High value. There are so many who want this, the value can become astronomical.
And yes it is the only value that holds up in a depression.
All other tool values crash with the stock market, except factory paint.
95% factory paint? 1/3 value and not an easy sell at that.
90% factory paint? Zero value to the serious collector.
Its all or nothing for the paint collectors. Factory paint is everything!!
A lot of this originally came from eastern seaboard guys who could go to any random swap meet on any random Saturday and fill 2 wheelbarrows with Stanley #4's, without even trying. Common tools were so easy to get, they had very little worth.
So tools with a chip in the paint became completely worthless.
They used to pile and burn transitional planes for fun, because nobody wanted them.
It spiraled away from all reason after that.
My tools are basically worthless on the collector market. I don't even have any respect for factory paint. They were merely assembly line dunked in a tank of paint and baked in the first place. Not like careful hand work and fancy pinstripe work or whatever.
Just unceremoniously dunked and baked, at pennies per hour, non-union, sweatshop labor. Some was even prison labor where men were forced to work at gunpoint, for nothing at all.
And yet nearly all of collector value is attached to original paint or varnish.
Or as well known tool dealer Mike Urness (the ratman) once said to me........
Please leave a note in your shop that when you die, for the love of God, make sure your relatives ---Do Not--- call me!!
The good news is that this means that the rest of us have almost a clear field!
We can have truly great tools for dirt cheap, if we hunt.
yours Scott
Okay Scott..... everyone is entitled to his/her opinion. 6 15
Jim C.
-
I've enjoyed the thread insofar, and hope that I might continue to do so.
-
I've enjoyed the thread insofar, and hope that I might continue to do so.
Have no fear "Mr. Rascal." I intend to keep posting here about hand planes. I'm glad that you've been enjoying the thread thus far. I know that I can't please everyone all the time, but I'll keep trying to post interesting content. Stay tuned......
Jim C.
-
Have no fear "Mr. Rascal." I intend to keep posting here about hand planes. I'm glad that you've been enjoying the thread thus far. I know that I can't please everyone all the time, but I'll keep trying to post interesting content. Stay tuned......
Jim C.
Well, you've pleased me all the time. I think Scott was on about the sort of collector values virginity more than usability, who views a good, used and usable tool with a certain amount of disdain. Me, I'm certainly not going to pay collector price for a Stanley 96. But if I find one that is remotely usable at a flea market or such, I'm sure to snatch it up. Will I ever use this highly specialized tool? Probably not really, but I'd like to try it out. And there's enough of the collector in me to want to be the first kid on the block to get the whole set. It's just that I like the potential use of old tools, and I don't care if they're virgins. My 5 1/2 C has been broken and brazed back together and the tote has been replaced at some time with a post-war hardwood tote. It works fine, and is one of my most used planes. Zero collector interest, but 100% user. My 7 C and one #5 came from yard sales at a dollar apiece.
So? I get to use them without guilt, and with great pleasure.
-
Hey Branson,
Thanks for the encouragement. Like I said earlier, I know that I can’t please everyone, and I believe that everyone is entitled to their opinion. That’s the beauty of a public forum. Comments and differing perspectives are often rooted in a diverse range of life experiences, circumstances and values. We all have our likes and dislikes. I still encourage everyone to post any hand plane content here as they see fit. I’ll continue to do the same with the simple understanding that not everyone will always like what I put out there. I have plenty of user quality planes that I value for exactly that reason..... They're sound, useful tools. Still, for purposes of this thread, I like to post photos of clean, complete, unaltered, original planes. I believe that seeing such tools in this manner lends clarity to those reading along, and hopefully provides others with less experience a better understanding of hand planes, their uses, and their history. With that being said, I’d still like to see your planes regardless of their condition, age, etc. I’m actually interested in seeing how you repaired your #5 ½. For those who like rust and crust, I thought I’d do a post just for you.
Stanley #41 Miller’s Patent Adjustable Plow Plane:
Versions of this plane were produced between 1871 and 1897. In its original untouched form, it’s probably one of Stanley’s most beautiful creations and highly prized by collectors and users alike. As one might suspect, pristine examples command high prices. It would have been finished with black japanning and brass trimmings. It may be a little hard to imagine how pretty this plane was when it was new because the particular (partial) example depicted below is missing nearly all of its finishes, its fillister bed, nine of ten boxed cutters, and several other small parts that add to its aesthetics and utility. As you can see, it has incurred some damage from abuse and most of its moving parts are frozen solid with rust. A few of its remaining thumb screws have been distorted by a prior owner who thought that pliers, or some type of gripping tool with teeth, was an appropriate way to tighten and loosen them. An unfortunate end to what was once a classic tool. Perhaps in a future post, I could show you a complete #41 that’s in better condition. If some would rather see more battered, used and abused, incomplete planes like this one, just give me a shout. Thanks.
Jim C.
-
It looks like one I might afford to pick up. I see hours and hours of fun making it usable to at least some degree.
Love the beauty of the casting. I once had a 45 with that floral pattern -- I think it was the second pattern of 45 -- not complete. In a rash moment, I traded it for something I can't remember.
Sometimes one does have to resort to pliers, but when I do, a scrap of leather between the jaws and the thumb screw keeps the pliers from messing it up.
-
Branson above +1. A beautiful tool that needs a lot of TLC. I guess I should start photographing and posting the three Stanley 45's that I have acquired in the past month. Thank you for pressing on in spite of my tool snob rant.
-
Hi Branson,
So you were able to see the hidden beauty of that old #41. You have a good eye! Stanley made a series of similar floral casting plow planes (#41, #42, #43, #44) between 1871 and 1897. For some reason, the #42 was last produced in 1892. Each came with nine or ten (depending on the model) boxed interchangeable cutters. The #43 is identical to the #41, however it did not come with a fillister bed and one could not be attached to it. Usually whenever I see these old Stanley plow planes in less than good condition, like the one I posted above, that fillister bed is missing in action. Trying to piece one of these planes together is tough because of that part alone. Earlier model fillister beds don't fit later model planes, so one would need to know approximately what Type (age, era) his/her plane was before trying to match a fillister bed to it. I've seen several of these planes in "complete" condition with a main casting and fillister bed that were correctly matched, but clearly from two different planes, based on visual clues like wear, patina, remaining japanning, etc. The fillister bed alone can be extremely expensive, and easily run a couple hundred dollars apiece..... if you can find one! Like most multi-cutter planes, if the cutting irons don't remain in their original boxes with the plane, they're frequently long gone. The planes usually retain the one cutter that was left in it that last time it was used. Such is the case with the plane depicted above. If you look closely, notice the one cutter still rusted in place. Again, those cutters are tough to find and they're expensive to buy. They're usually around twenty five dollars apiece give or take.
These early Stanley plow planes, and others, were the precursors to the Stanley #45 Combination Plane, manufactured from 1883 well into the 1960s. As you mentioned, the early #45s were also produced with a distinctive floral casting that changed throughout their production. The floral casting was eliminated somewhere around 1908 with the Type 8 planes. We could probably start an entirely new thread dedicated to the #45. What an amazing contraption, but when properly set up, and with a little practice, one can actually produce some very good results with it. I know that somewhere earlier in the thread, I mentioned something about David Heckel's book, entitled The Stanley "Forty Five" Combination Plane. If you're really interested knowing everything there is to know about the #45, that book is the final word. Period. If you're interested in using a combination plane, I'd go with a #45 because they're fairly available, their parts are mostly interchangeable, and they're generally much less expensive than the earlier #41 - #44 plows. The #45 did have some options and attachments available to it that can be expensive, however, none of those are necessary to operate the plane as it was initially meant to be used. If you're going to buy one of these planes for your collection, do your homework!! There's many little parts, different Types came with different cutters, etc., etc. Know what you're looking at. Even buying a user quality plane requires some knowledge. Missing parts, etc., will detract from the plane's utility, and ultimately your enjoyment, not to mention costing you more money and time to find the part(s). I can honestly say that I've never used a #45 on an actual project, but I have often gone out into my shop and just set one up to play with. If you're ever inclined to just spend an hour or so tinkering out in the shop, spend it with a #45.
Jim C. (who hopefully did not bore you to sleep)
-
Branson above +1. A beautiful tool that needs a lot of TLC. I guess I should start photographing and posting the three Stanley 45's that I have acquired in the past month. Thank you for pressing on in spite of my tool snob rant.
John,
Yes, Branson to the rescue!! I was a little worried that we'd lost you there for a minute. Again, everyone's opinion is welcome. In the many years of collecting hand planes, I HAVE encountered several "tool snobs." Once identified, I have avoided them like the plague. Too bad because they probably have a lot to offer in terms of knowledge and experience. On the other hand, I've met MANY, MANY others who have fantastic collections and are true gentlemen, with a passion for the tools, and wealth of knowledge that they share with humility, and respect.
I admit that I am at a point in my collecting habits where I like, and look for, NOS (New Old Stock) planes. Twenty years ago, I was a hand plane "discoverer" and strictly a user out of circumstantial necessity. I discovered the utility and cost effectiveness of hand planes which I still appreciate today. When I see a quality "user", I still can't resist buying it (even though I probably don't need it), and then taking it out into the shop for a little "tune up" and then a few test passes over some different scraps of wood. I try to figure out what that particular plane cuts best, and it goes into my "user arsenal." (I actually take notes on each plane and try to set them up for specific repetitive tasks.) Anyway, over a period of several years, my circumstances changed and my love of planes grew along with my collection and the nature of its contents. The purpose of this thread, at least from my perspective, is to help others "discover", or rediscover, what I found out twenty years ago. Where each individual goes with his/her collection isn't for me to judge. I'm just glad that they're on the path and enjoying hand planes as they see fit. I hope you'll keep checking back here from time to time.
Jim C. (who's looking forward to seeing those #45s)
-
Happy New Year!!
Jim C.
-
And a Happy New Year back at you.
I do speak pretty fluent Stanley 45. The reasons I traded the old floral 45 were that it was quite incomplete, and I also had two of the later 45s. Neither is marked Stanley. The first I found is marked Wards. The second I acquired is marked Sears, and came with everything except the screwdriver. It's in a leatherette carrying case, has both sets of bars for the fence, and all the original blades -- in their wooden box.
Back in '86 I got a commission to build six chests for Fort Ross. I needed to make sides wider than I could get boards, and the result had to look like they were made well before 1841, when Sutter bought Fort Ross. So I decided on tongue and groove to join the boards. I set one of my 45s for the groove, and the other for the matching tongue and went to work. They worked easily and perfectly. The profit covered the cost of both planes and then some.
-
And a Happy New Year back at you.
I do speak pretty fluent Stanley 45. The reasons I traded the old floral 45 were that it was quite incomplete, and I also had two of the later 45s. Neither is marked Stanley. The first I found is marked Wards. The second I acquired is marked Sears, and came with everything except the screwdriver. It's in a leatherette carrying case, has both sets of bars for the fence, and all the original blades -- in their wooden box.
Back in '86 I got a commission to build six chests for Fort Ross. I needed to make sides wider than I could get boards, and the result had to look like they were made well before 1841, when Sutter bought Fort Ross. So I decided on tongue and groove to join the boards. I set one of my 45s for the groove, and the other for the matching tongue and went to work. They worked easily and perfectly. The profit covered the cost of both planes and then some.
Hi Branson,
You definitely know your #45s! I'm not really familiar with the Wards and Sears versions of the #45, and I'm certainly not an expert on the Stanley versions either, particularly because there were several little changes and improvements made to the plane throughout the decades that it was manufactured. I wonder if your Wards and/or Sears #45s were made by Sargent. The Sargent model #1080 was very similar in appearance and function to the Stanley #45. For a brief time, during the late 1940s into the early 1950s, Stanley actually made #45s for Sargent. In a perfect world it would be great to compare and contrast the Wards, Sears, Sargent and Stanley #45s. I could easily spend an entire afternoon in the shop with all four spread out on my bench studying every little detail..... I guess I need to get out more..... Anyway, that's exactly why I like complete planes that are in as close to original condition as possible. It really cuts down on the guess work. Original packaging, brochures, and boxes are bonus because they also provide clues about a plane's age, manufacturer, etc. Is there any chance that you could post some pictures of your Wards and Sears #45s? Maybe you could do a separate post on each. I'd really like to see those planes!! I don't think I've ever seen a complete Sears version.
You also did a nice job of all too BRIEFLY highlighting the chests you made for Fort Ross. That's it? I'd like MORE details (and pictures if possible) of the project. What is Fort Ross? How did you land the commission? What kind of wood did you use to make the chests, etc., etc.? Did you use any other planes during the project? I noticed that you made the chests in 1986, so you've had those #45s for almost thirty years (or more)! Have you used the #45s before or since? It sounds like it was a great project! You're holding out on us.
Jim C. (who needs more info from Branson)
-
Sorry to interupt the discussion of Stanley 45's. I'll get back to it tomorrow.
I took a trip to Ron Bertrand's prototype shop. He is a longtime pattern maker. He is casting some more of the big Papaws Wrenches for me. While I was at his shop, he showed me some core box planes from at least a hundred years ago. Fascinating! These planes were used to shape a U shaped trough in a block of wood. When you put two of the blocks together, you had a mold for making a sand core. The core is a sand 'casting' that is placed in a mold to prevent metal from filling an area of the mold. Typically these were used in wheel and pulley casting molds so that the casting had a rough bore through it. Because core boxes were made often and they are very simple, most of the time, inventors a hundred years ago, were trying to speed up the process with patented gadgets. Here are photos of two of those specialty planes along with the patent for the Wm Bayley plane. This plane was only made in 1904 and 05. It was not successful.
http://www.datamp.org/patents/displayPatent.php?id=12656
(http://i1202.photobucket.com/albums/bb373/johnsironsanctuary/DSCN3078_zps8f0c6ba1.jpg) (http://s1202.photobucket.com/user/johnsironsanctuary/media/DSCN3078_zps8f0c6ba1.jpg.html)
(http://i1202.photobucket.com/albums/bb373/johnsironsanctuary/DSCN3080_zpse95d2124.jpg) (http://s1202.photobucket.com/user/johnsironsanctuary/media/DSCN3080_zpse95d2124.jpg.html)
(http://i1202.photobucket.com/albums/bb373/johnsironsanctuary/DSCN3081_zpscd8d4a1b.jpg) (http://s1202.photobucket.com/user/johnsironsanctuary/media/DSCN3081_zpscd8d4a1b.jpg.html)
(http://i1202.photobucket.com/albums/bb373/johnsironsanctuary/DSCN3082_zps69bfd662.jpg) (http://s1202.photobucket.com/user/johnsironsanctuary/media/DSCN3082_zps69bfd662.jpg.html)
(http://i1202.photobucket.com/albums/bb373/johnsironsanctuary/DSCN3086_zps486e598a.jpg) (http://s1202.photobucket.com/user/johnsironsanctuary/media/DSCN3086_zps486e598a.jpg.html)
(http://i1202.photobucket.com/albums/bb373/johnsironsanctuary/DSCN3089_zpse7c1c501.jpg) (http://s1202.photobucket.com/user/johnsironsanctuary/media/DSCN3089_zpse7c1c501.jpg.html)
The second plane is also a core box plane, an all wood one. Stanley made a metal version of this for a long time. A previous owner removed one or more of the braces. You can see the screw holes in the wood. I could not make out the makers mark, but you can see the shape of it in the photo. I hope I can get some help on this one.
-
Odd planes, the core boxes. Wish I had been more flush in November because there was a metal core box on eBay that sold, second time around, for $19.95. I have no idea what I would have done with it, but they're curious and not common. The eBay core box wasn't a Stanley, and the seller didn't mention a manufacturer. Didn't have the slightest idea what it was, either -- said it was for planing corners...
That wooden one is really nice!
-
Here is the Stanley 57. There is a smaller 56 that doesn't have wings. Quite a contraption.
(http://i1202.photobucket.com/albums/bb373/johnsironsanctuary/Stanley%20Tools/561_zps950d9037.jpg) (http://s1202.photobucket.com/user/johnsironsanctuary/media/Stanley%20Tools/561_zps950d9037.jpg.html)
(http://i1202.photobucket.com/albums/bb373/johnsironsanctuary/Stanley%20Tools/526_zpseccbb5f0.jpg) (http://s1202.photobucket.com/user/johnsironsanctuary/media/Stanley%20Tools/526_zpseccbb5f0.jpg.html)
-
WOW!! Gizmocity!
-
Hey John! Now that's what I'm talking about! What better way to start the morning.... A cup of coffee and a GREAT writeup on core box planes, complete with pictures and a link. Nicely done, and never worry about jumping into the #45 discussion. There's so much information on #45s that we could get on and off that topic a dozen times and still have a lot more ground to cover. I'm really impressed that Mr. Bertrand had the planes and was still using them in his shop. I don't know much about pattern making. Is the core box plane still the accepted and most common way to make the the U trough in the block of wood, or are there more modern/mechanized procedures for accomplishing the task? I'd like to think that using a specialized hand tool such as a core box plane is still commonly applied even in a production setting, but I'm guessing that probably isn't the case. The nostalgic part of me envisions 100 year old core box planes being used in a one or two man shop where "old school" traditional pattern making is practiced. Is that true? The Bayley cast iron version looks like an ingenious contraption! Did Mr. Bertrand demonstrate it for you? I'd love to get my hands on that and give it a try! What really gets me thinking is the wooden version. It appears to be a craftsman made tool that evokes an air of self sufficiency. It makes me wonder if someone made it out of necessity and/or possibly with the attitude that "I can make my own and make it better than one I could buy." Very nice writeup John. Thanks for jumping in with some A+ content! I'll try to post a few pictures of Stanley's versions of the core box plane.
Jim C.
-
>I wonder if your Wards and/or Sears #45s were made by Sargent. The Sargent model #1080 was very similar in appearance and function to the Stanley #45.
No, they're Stanleys. No Stanley mark, but the 45 is still in the casting. At the time I got them, one of the fellows I worked with had a really great 45 that came with its original chestnut box. It was identical to my Wards in every way except for the Stanley mark. The Sears is identical to the Wards.
>Anyway, that's exactly why I like complete planes that are in as close to original condition as possible. It really cuts down on the guess work.
Amen! Guess work is only briefly entertaining.
> Is there any chance that you could post some pictures of your Wards and Sears #45s? Maybe you could do a separate post on each. I'd really like to see those planes!! I don't think I've ever seen a complete Sears version.
Not real soon. They're somewhere in storage, and I'm just not sure where, possibly close to my Stanley #10, wherever that is. I'm still trying to get the most important stuff into my newly built workshop -- get it in and still have room to work.
Fort Ross is a California State Historical Park. It was the southern most Russian settlement in California, established by the Russian American Trade Company. As the fur trade dwindled to a halt, the Russians abandoned it and sold it, and its contents to Sutter -- 1841. (It turns out that among the stuff Sutter bought were the cooper tools -- no specifics in his inventory, just "cooper's tools"). He even bought "threshing floors" at least one of which met with disaster. He floated it down the coastline towards San Francisco Bay, and it sank somewhere around the entrance to the bay.
I landed the commission because two of the State Parks people were also active docents at Sutter's Fort, and a refugee program I ran (carpentry and blacksmithing) had already produced four Russian pattern axes for Fort Ross. When the plan for six chests was funded, they asked me if I could make them. They are very simple chests with rabbeted and cut nailed corners, and hide glue. I made them all of clear pine. The handles I had made by a blacksmith from drawings of original Russian chest handles. Those took a long time to get, and I had to send the chests up to Ross without them. I have some snap shots of the time when I took the finished hardware to Fort Ross, in period costume, with period tools, and installed them on the chests, which had already been painted and adorned with Russian folk art.
> Did you use any other planes during the project?
Yes, I did. Every surface of the chests was hand planed, and all the planes I used were wooden planes. Jacks for the interiors, smooth planes for the exterior. In another commission, for Sutter's Fort some years later, I did the same surface treatment. Kept two smoothing planes sharp and used both for all the visible surfaces, but I used a nice wooden quirk and bead plane to dress up the sides of the T&G boards used. That commission came when I submitted the lowest bid for the project to State Parks.
>I noticed that you made the chests in 1986, so you've had those #45s for almost thirty years (or more)!
I've had the Wards since about '75. The Sears, if I remember right, came to me around '77 or'78. I was excited to get the Sears because it had everything with it (except the screwdriver) and came in its original case.
>Have you used the #45s before or since?
Not since I packed them up in the late '80s. But I have used them for rabbets and dados. I probably ought to tune up the sash molding blades and give that a go. Thing is, I have picked up 20 or 30 wooden molding planes since then which I have used -- some other tools waiting in storage until I can make room in the shop for them.
-
> Is the core box plane still the accepted and most common way to make the the U trough in the block of wood, or are there more modern/mechanized procedures for accomplishing the task?
Jim C.
There's a way that still isn't modern, but faster. Run a fence diagonally across a table saw, and push your board along the diagonal fence. De Cristoforo shows this in his Power Tools for Everyone, featuring the ShopSmith 10ER
-
Thanks Jim. Ron doesn't use the old planes. He uses a CNC mill, but does have an impressive bench full of traditional tools. While I was talking to him he grabbed a beautiful goose neck pattern chisel and trimmed a lug in a mold. Many of the machines in his shop are in the century old category. Big band saw, big wood lathe, his vertical mill is pre WWII. Except for the CNC horizontal and the sand machines, most everything is antique. He also builds and repairs furniture. Fun for me was seeing the Cheese Head foam molds that he was reworking for a customer.
-
Here is the Stanley 57. There is a smaller 56 that doesn't have wings. Quite a contraption.
(http://i1202.photobucket.com/albums/bb373/johnsironsanctuary/Stanley%20Tools/561_zps950d9037.jpg) (http://s1202.photobucket.com/user/johnsironsanctuary/media/Stanley%20Tools/561_zps950d9037.jpg.html)
(http://i1202.photobucket.com/albums/bb373/johnsironsanctuary/Stanley%20Tools/526_zpseccbb5f0.jpg) (http://s1202.photobucket.com/user/johnsironsanctuary/media/Stanley%20Tools/526_zpseccbb5f0.jpg.html)
John,
Please tell me those two Stanley #57s are in your collection! Those are amazing examples! Most #57s were commonly nickel plated but some were also japanned. They were produced by Stanley between 1896 and 1943. It could be that like many of Stanley's traditionally nickel plated planes, most were japanned during WWII, in an effort to conserve nickel strictly for war materials production. I believe that as many as three sets of extensions could be added to the Stanley model. One set of extensions would allow the user to make up to a 5" semi circle, while two sets would allow for up to a 7 1/2" semi circle, and three sets for up to a 10" semi circle. By that point, it would seem that the plane would be almost too heavy and unruly to comfortably use. Maybe that partially answers my earlier question about the wooden version you posted in the picture above. Perhaps it was lighter and therefore more easily used than a similarly sized cast iron version. From a collector's perspective, the #57 is much like any other plane with several little parts and pieces. Those things are frequently missing and not always easy to replace. As always, do your homework before bidding or buying. Thanks again John. Great stuff!!
Jim C.
-
>I wonder if your Wards and/or Sears #45s were made by Sargent. The Sargent model #1080 was very similar in appearance and function to the Stanley #45.
No, they're Stanleys. No Stanley mark, but the 45 is still in the casting. At the time I got them, one of the fellows I worked with had a really great 45 that came with its original chestnut box. It was identical to my Wards in every way except for the Stanley mark. The Sears is identical to the Wards.
>Anyway, that's exactly why I like complete planes that are in as close to original condition as possible. It really cuts down on the guess work.
Amen! Guess work is only briefly entertaining.
> Is there any chance that you could post some pictures of your Wards and Sears #45s? Maybe you could do a separate post on each. I'd really like to see those planes!! I don't think I've ever seen a complete Sears version.
Not real soon. They're somewhere in storage, and I'm just not sure where, possibly close to my Stanley #10, wherever that is. I'm still trying to get the most important stuff into my newly built workshop -- get it in and still have room to work.
Fort Ross is a California State Historical Park. It was the southern most Russian settlement in California, established by the Russian American Trade Company. As the fur trade dwindled to a halt, the Russians abandoned it and sold it, and its contents to Sutter -- 1841. (It turns out that among the stuff Sutter bought were the cooper tools -- no specifics in his inventory, just "cooper's tools"). He even bought "threshing floors" at least one of which met with disaster. He floated it down the coastline towards San Francisco Bay, and it sank somewhere around the entrance to the bay.
I landed the commission because two of the State Parks people were also active docents at Sutter's Fort, and a refugee program I ran (carpentry and blacksmithing) had already produced four Russian pattern axes for Fort Ross. When the plan for six chests was funded, they asked me if I could make them. They are very simple chests with rabbeted and cut nailed corners, and hide glue. I made them all of clear pine. The handles I had made by a blacksmith from drawings of original Russian chest handles. Those took a long time to get, and I had to send the chests up to Ross without them. I have some snap shots of the time when I took the finished hardware to Fort Ross, in period costume, with period tools, and installed them on the chests, which had already been painted and adorned with Russian folk art.
> Did you use any other planes during the project?
Yes, I did. Every surface of the chests was hand planed, and all the planes I used were wooden planes. Jacks for the interiors, smooth planes for the exterior. In another commission, for Sutter's Fort some years later, I did the same surface treatment. Kept two smoothing planes sharp and used both for all the visible surfaces, but I used a nice wooden quirk and bead plane to dress up the sides of the T&G boards used. That commission came when I submitted the lowest bid for the project to State Parks.
>I noticed that you made the chests in 1986, so you've had those #45s for almost thirty years (or more)!
I've had the Wards since about '75. The Sears, if I remember right, came to me around '77 or'78. I was excited to get the Sears because it had everything with it (except the screwdriver) and came in its original case.
>Have you used the #45s before or since?
Not since I packed them up in the late '80s. But I have used them for rabbets and dados. I probably ought to tune up the sash molding blades and give that a go. Thing is, I have picked up 20 or 30 wooden molding planes since then which I have used -- some other tools waiting in storage until I can make room in the shop for them.
Branson,
Thank you for the detailed answers! But you know that's just going to spark our interest even more. If you ever find the time, I think we'd all like to see those chests. It sounds like it was a great project! If you can find the pictures and post them here, that would be fantastic, and when the planes come out of storage we'll be waiting to see those too!
Jim C.
-
Thanks Jim. Ron doesn't use the old planes. He uses a CNC mill, but does have an impressive bench full of traditional tools. While I was talking to him he grabbed a beautiful goose neck pattern chisel and trimmed a lug in a mold. Many of the machines in his shop are in the century old category. Big band saw, big wood lathe, his vertical mill is pre WWII. Except for the CNC horizontal and the sand machines, most everything is antique. He also builds and repairs furniture. Fun for me was seeing the Cheese Head foam molds that he was reworking for a customer.
John,
Still a couple great write-ups! Thanks for chipping in.
Jim C.
-
I continue to watch - read this string with great interest. Never a dull moment. I'd love to be a collector of "factory paint" planes - now that I know what that means - but lack the resources to find, afford or store even old rust beauties. Those were among the primary reasons that I started to build my miniatures. The interaction about the #45 has been of particular interest, it being among the few full size planes that I do have. Though I have no practical use for it (does anyone really any more?), I do enjoy looking at it, appreciating its fine lines, great design and its beautifully proud and pleasing floral designs, as I imagine an old carpenter (my grandpa) using it with great care, skill and pride. It might not be worth much to a paint collector with some of the nickle worn off where my grandpa's hands touched it, but just looking at it takes me back to him as I keep it prominently and proudly displayed in my living room; it's only a glance away and keeps my dear old grandpa ever near. I wouldn't trade this old plane for "new paint" with no personal history or memories. To me, this is what collecting is all about, and I hope that some day my grand children will smile in remembrance of me when they hold some of the miniatures that they have helped (watched) me build despite the value that history applies to me or my creations. Such must be the case with many of you as you imagine the future of your children and your tools. Ralph
-
Hi Ralph,
I think you have EXACTLY the right outlook on old tools, and there's absolutely no reason for anyone to have to justify the motivation, nature, or content of their "collections" here. As far as I know, there's no right or wrong way to enjoy antique tools. It's the simple love of old tools, in this case hand planes, in any condition, that will hopefully keep the discussion going in a positive direction. I've never really heard the term "paint collector" either, until very recently. I can't say that I necessarily agree with its use nor the seemingly negative light that it casts on a certain segment of those who also enjoy old tools, but again, everyone is entitled to his/her opinion.
I think your work is amazing and your grandchildren will treasure your creations for all time. I'd also hang onto your grandfather's #45. Whether you ever use it or not, doesn't matter. Its sentimental value and direct connection to your past is priceless. I still contend that it's nice to see old tools as they looked brand new. From an academic perspective, they're wonderful to study in that condition. Still, as old as they may be, they all lack the decades of character that only honest use can bring to them. You have it right..... You're interested in old hand planes and tools for your own reasons. I'm a fan of your work and I'll keep watching.
Jim C.
-
I'll have to find the photos from Fort Ross. The chests were already painted when I got there. Meanwhile, here's a pic of the old trade store at Sutter's Fort, a later project. The shelves on the back wall with the drawers in the bottom were amusing to do. They're 20 inches deep, and the side boards and the top are single planks of pine. I had found a source for 8/4+ pine, had them resawn, and with the hand planing they're a full 7/8 thick. The counter is random width planks, T&G with a 1/4 inch bead worked in -- boxed wooden plane for that. The apothecary drawers on the side wall -- yes, I did them all, and fitted them individually, so each drawer has a number corresponding to the slot it fits into. An old wooden nosing plane edged the counter top.
-
I'll have to find the photos from Fort Ross. The chests were already painted when I got there. Meanwhile, here's a pic of the old trade store at Sutter's Fort, a later project. The shelves on the back wall with the drawers in the bottom were amusing to do. They're 20 inches deep, and the side boards and the top are single planks of pine. I had found a source for 8/4+ pine, had them resawn, and with the hand planing they're a full 7/8 thick. The counter is random width planks, T&G with a 1/4 inch bead worked in -- boxed wooden plane for that. The apothecary drawers on the side wall -- yes, I did them all, and fitted them individually, so each drawer has a number corresponding to the slot it fits into. An old wooden nosing plane edged the counter top.
Wow! Nice job Branson! Wow! Did I say "Wow" already? That's a lot of hand planing to thickness, and when you get wood like that for a project, you certainly must do things right the first time. You called the project "amusing." I'd call it an "enjoyable challenge." Well done. What kind of shape were the planks in when you got them? Did you use winding sticks to get them flat?
Jim C.
-
While we're still sort of close to the topic of core box planes, here's the Stanley #56:
Produced between 1906 and 1923, this plane can make semi circle arcs between 9/16" and 2". In order to get the plane started in a block of wood, the user had to first cut a small groove the length of the core blank in order to create a track for the "V" sole of the plane to ride along during the first few passes. The #56 was always finished with black japanning, unlike its larger sibling, the #57 (see above), which was usually (but not always) finished with nickel plating. I don't believe the #56 was an overly successful product for Stanley. It was so specialized for a particular type of work, that it really wasn't a plane that the masses wanted or needed, so they didn't sell, and production was limited at best. As a result, they're relatively rare in any condition.
Jim C.
-
Wow! Nice job Branson! Wow! Did I say "Wow" already? That's a lot of hand planing to thickness, and when you get wood like that for a project, you certainly must do things right the first time. You called the project "amusing." I'd call it an "enjoyable challenge." Well done. What kind of shape were the planks in when you got them? Did you use winding sticks to get them flat?
Jim C.
the amusing part came when I pointed out that all 20 inches were a single plank, one board. People didn't think trees came that wide any more or something. Had the resaw split the 8/4 in half, making the planks very close to 1 inch net, so the planing was only surfacing. Still it was a lot of pine, since there were two step back hutches and a gun rack. More amusement -- the sides of the step backs were also single planks, and 24 inches wide.
I used a lumber broker who insisted on excellent woods, so the 8/4 was straight, and not case hardened so the 1 inch resaw planks were dead on. All I had to do was give them a good hand planed surface.
-
Branson,
Nice work and some nice planing too! It took me a while to figure out that working with wide planks required hand planes. Even narrow planks can be more easily dimensioned with the right planes. Not everyone has a 20"+ planer in their shop. Even having a machine like that won't take the twist or cupping out of a board without the assistance of some planes and winding sticks. Good job!
Jim C.
-
Wow!! that is beautiful work!!! The talent in this forum amazes me...
-
> Not everyone has a 20"+ planer in their shop. Even having a machine like that won't take the twist or cupping out of a board without the assistance of some planes and winding sticks. Good job!
Jim C.
LOL! At that time we had two 30 inch planers in the shop. Monsters that would take off a half inch at a time, and would open to 18 inches. 25 horse motors that ran at 65 amps, 75 amp start up. But our jointers were only 16 inches wide... Nothing like tossing 2000 board feet of rough lumber through those planers.
-
I like the hinges on the gate. Did you have a hand in those?
-
> Not everyone has a 20"+ planer in their shop. Even having a machine like that won't take the twist or cupping out of a board without the assistance of some planes and winding sticks. Good job!
Jim C.
LOL! At that time we had two 30 inch planers in the shop. Monsters that would take off a half inch at a time, and would open to 18 inches. 25 horse motors that ran at 65 amps, 75 amp start up. But our jointers were only 16 inches wide... Nothing like tossing 2000 board feet of rough lumber through those planers.
Hey Branson,
I could have used one of those planers! My first real life experience with hand planes came from "last ditch effort" necessity. When I was a young, over confident, and an unknowingly ill prepared woodworker (of sorts), I promised my wife that I'd make an island for our kitchen. She didn't want a box, she wanted something that looked a little more like furniture. So, I took some measurements and made some drawings. I had access to a pretty good supply of rough sawn Michigan lumber so we decided that the top of the island should be a dark accent color. Walnut. A couple weeks later, six 8/4 planks were sitting in my shop. Each was roughly seven or eight inches wide and eight feet long. The planks were twisted and in the rawest of condition. I wanted to get them down to an 1 1/2" thick, 5" wide and 65" long. The plan was to edge join them together for the island top. Well, the only way to remove stock, so I thought, was to break out my little Delta 12" bench top planer. To make a long story short, as I fed the first plank into the machine, taking a VERY light pass, I soon realized that my little planer was no match for the walnut and would probably not survive the project. Not to mention the fact that the plank came out the other end of the machine just as twisted as it was but only a little bit thinner. All I remember thinking was, "#@#%&!!!!! Now what am I gonna do?" I couldn't afford a heavy duty planer, and I realized that even with a better planer, the stock was still going to be twisted if I didn't flatten out one side of it before it went into the planer.
I pondered the predicament I was in and suddenly realized that years ago, most woodworkers didn't have a mechanical planer, yet they still managed to make amazing things with "HAND TOOLS!!!!" The heavens opened, angels were singing, and rays of sunlight shown upon my little shop. I needed a hand plane. At the time I hand a very dull, seldom used Sears block plane and that was it. Once I knew what I needed, I did some research, made some telephone calls and eventually concluded that I needed a scrub plane and a low angle jack plane for starters. With those two planes, I would be able to flatten the planks. Again, making a long story short, I bought the planes, learned how to sharpen their irons, and practiced with them on scrap wood for a few days. It was a life changing experience out in the shop. To finish the island top, I eventually bought a #4 1/2 smoother. I've been hooked on hand planes ever since.
Jim C.
-
Branson, I know that you were a bunch younger then, but that much hand planing had to mean some sore shoulders the next morning. Kudos for the woodwork! It is beautiful. Can we see photos of your new shed? Last I knew, it was still an idea and a fist fight with the zoning committee.
WOW Table top Jim. That too is a bunch of hand work.
-
I like the hinges on the gate. Did you have a hand in those?
Nah. The State bought those from a blacksmith in North Carolina.
-
Branson, I know that you were a bunch younger then, but that much hand planing had to mean some sore shoulders the next morning. Kudos for the woodwork! It is beautiful. Can we see photos of your new shed? Last I knew, it was still an idea and a fist fight with the zoning committee.
Been thinking about the new shop pics, but the inside is still a nightmare. Outside looks good, though.
Honestly, I don't remember sore shoulders from all the planing, but then, I was doing a lot of hand planing at the time. What I remember vividly was the time I spent 7 hours a day for 14 1/2 days hand adzing beams. Carried an Arkansas stone in my hip pocket to keep the adz sharp. Lost two inches around my waist and added two inches across my shoulders with that bit of work. Haven't done it since.
-
Jim, that walnut top is just a master piece! Kudos.
-
Jim, that walnut top is just a master piece! Kudos.
Thanks Branson. It was a rough start but I got there. In my previous write up, I mentioned using a scrub plane and a low angle jack plane to initially flatten the walnut planks. At the time, knowing almost nothing about hand planes, and feeling the pressure to get the project started and completed, I did do some research and discovered Lie-Nielsen planes. I learned that they were manufactured in Maine and from what I had read, they were quality tools. I gave them a call and spoke to a man (I don't remember his name) who patiently listened to my "island" predicament. After I went through the facts and circumstances with him, and having a very general idea of what I needed to do to get the project off the ground, he told me that he understood exactly what the problem was and then recommended that I consider buying a scrub plane and a jack plane to flatten the planks. He explained the planing process in detail and answered all my questions. After that twenty minute conversation, I felt confident that I could get the job done, so I bought the planes. They weren't cheap, but they most definitely lived up to my expectations, and they put me on the hand plane path for life. Over the years, I bought a couple more Lie-Nielsens and received a few as gifts. They're great tools.
The scrub plane (in the background) is modeled from the Stanley #40 1/2. Stanley also made a slightly smaller, and more common version, the #40. The low angle jack plane (in the fore ground) is modeled from the Stanley #62. An original Stanley low angle jack is a wonderful tool that functions more like a block plane. Unfortunately, their throats are prone to cracking very easily. At some point, I'll add a couple posts on the Stanley scrub planes and the Stanley low angle jack plane. I'd also like to do a few posts on the Lie-Nielsens as well. Thanks again.
Jim C.
-
Now these are my kind of planes. But I'm eager to hear what you have to say about the Lie-Nielsen scrapers, the 212 and the112 -- and others. Ralph
-
Now these are my kind of planes. But I'm eager to hear what you have to say about the Lie-Nielsen scrapers, the 212 and the112 -- and others. Ralph
Ralph,
The Lie-Nielsen (LN) planes are really nice tools! I really can't say anything bad about them. When I initially bought the two depicted above, I must admit that I was kind of shocked at how expensive they were, but they were still less than any machine and they were also the right tools for the job at hand. Unfortunately I don't have the LN #112 or the LN #212, so I can't comment on how they cut, etc. If they're anything like the other LN planes that I do have, then I would bet that they will not disappoint and produce great results right out of the box, doing nothing more than honing their irons. I do have both Stanley versions and can say that the #112 scraper is extremely useful and worthy of a spot on any woodworker's bench. It took a few tries to get the burr right on the iron, but once I figured it out, and set the angle of the iron correctly, it was "smooth" sailing. The #212 operates exactly like the #112, only on a smaller scale. I'll have to say however, that due to the nature of the #212's scarcity, I don't really use it.
Shortly after I bought those two LN planes, I discovered the merits of user quality antique hand planes. Not only could they be made to produce some very nice results, but the more common Stanley bench and block planes in user condition, were generally much less expensive than the LN versions. A perfect example would be a Stanley #4 bench plane versus the LN #4. A user Stanley #4 is much cheaper. As for the rarer Stanleys, like the #212 for instance, then the LNs are much more affordable. In some cases, an antique Stanley, in good user condition, is about the same price as a new LN. A good example of this is the Stanley #62 and the LN #62 low angle jack planes. I'm definitely a fan of LN planes, but I don't have many. As much as I like them, and as much as I believe the LNs are generally worth the cost, I'm still drawn to the old Stanleys.
Jim C.
-
I'm struggling by with my Stanley 40 1/2 -- the one I found in the bottom of an old tool chest -- and my Stanley 12.
I've looked somewhat longingly at the low angle jack planes, but haven't found one in my (low) price range.
-
I'm struggling by with my Stanley 40 1/2 -- the one I found in the bottom of an old tool chest -- and my Stanley 12.
I've looked somewhat longingly at the low angle jack planes, but haven't found one in my (low) price range.
Hi Branson,
When you say you're struggling with your scrub plane, what do you mean? Are you having trouble using it, sharpening the iron, what exactly? Can you be more specific? If it's a problem using it, I considered trying to describe that process to you, but did a little poking around on the web, and came across this ten minute video on the Lie-Nielsen (LN) site. The instructor in the video does a first rate job of demonstrating the scrub plane's applications and the various techniques for using it. The process the instructor goes through is exactly the same process that was described to me several years ago on the telephone. Who knows, that may have been the same man that I spoke to back then. If the link doesn't work (because I'm a computer novice and don't know how to post links), follow these steps to the video: Go to the LN site, click on hand tools, then click hand planes, then click special purpose tools, then click scrub plane. Below a photo of the scrub plane is a link to the video that says "here" in blue.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6osskqppymU&feature=youtu.be&noredirect=1 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6osskqppymU&feature=youtu.be&noredirect=1)
If you're having trouble sharpening the iron, I can probably help you with that. The same goes for your Stanley #12 scraper. Are you having trouble getting a burr on the iron? I can describe the process and/or point you in the direction of an existing writeup on that procedure. It takes a little practice, but it's well worth the effort to get it right and it's a couple hours out in the shop tinkering. That's never a bad thing. It sounds like you have two nice old planes that need to get back to work. Even if you don't currently have a specific project in mind for them, just learning a new skill using old tools is rewarding all by itself.
Low angle jack planes are very useful tools to say the least. They're easy to use, having no frog or lateral adjustment. They're really just big block planes that are versatile in so many ways. With the iron bedded at a low angle and with the adjustable throat set for a light pass, they're great on working end grain. Their length makes them wonderful to use on larger surfaces with irregular grain, particularly during the stock flattening process, and they're not bad as short jointers either. The immediate problem with low angle jack planes is their cost. This is a situation where buying an old Stanley #62, or opting for a currently manufactured LN #62 (modeled after the Stanley) gets you to about the same place when the time comes to pay for one or the other.
The big problem with the Stanley #62 is its throat. The section of the sole, immediately behind the cutting iron is VERY thin. If one is aggressively planing stock and a thick shaving, or several shavings get jammed behind the cutting edge protruding through the throat and the sole of the plane itself, a good chunk of that sole just behind the iron will crack out and the plane is done! I've seen several Stanley #62s in this condition. Consequently, they're moderately scarce even in user condition, and can easily cost $200 or more. NOS (New Old Stock) examples are significantly more. Sargent also made a low angle jack plane, the #514, that's equally fragile for the same reasons I described, and it's equally as scarce, again, making it costly. Under most circumstances, I'd like to use antique planes when possible. When it comes to the low angle jack plane, however, the LN is the better choice. It's heftier than the original Stanley, and is made to withstand aggressive planing. For around $250, the LN will deliver great results, and pretty much eliminate the apprehension of using, and possibly damaging an antique Stanley.
Jim C.
-
I fixed the link for you. You left out the bracket ([) before the /url .
-
I fixed the link for you. You left out the bracket ([) before the /url .
Thank you sir!
-
Really nice island Jim. Especially for a newbie at the time, just outstanding!
Mike you need an 80.
If you are messing with a #12 scraper? This is mostly overkill in my experience. The #112 too. They are good tools.
I even designed and built a semi infill scraper plane with tilting tote.
(http://users.snowcrest.net/kitty/sgrandstaff/images/hometools/infillscraper.jpg)
But I don't use my scraping planes so much.
The #80, on the other hand, is the undisputed worlds champion best selling scraper of all time!! They are cheap, simple and soooooo effective. And you can just lop up old handsaws for blades. For the daily grind wear and tear there is no equal.
(well except the Sargent or Stearns clones)
I won't be without at least 2 of them operating at all times.
Beside whatever wood needed it, including a hardwood floor one time, I have scraped things that no scraper was ever designed to scrape with them too. Industrial things.
Some tools, the Stanley #4 and the 5 and the 80?? These are foundation woodwork tools. They didn't outsell anything else ever made on planet earth for nothing.
yours Scott
-
Thanks Scott. No doubt that the Stanley #80 is a tried and true worker. It got the job done and in comparison to other Stanley scrapers available in its time, the #80 was probably the least expensive to own. There was a lot of bang for the buck. The same is true even now. The #80 is still widely available in almost any condition, easy to use, and extremely versatile. Still, every now and then a scraper shaped more like a traditional bench plane, like the #112, is the right tool (or maybe the more fun) tool for the job, particularly on large flat surfaces. Your custom made gem is proof of that!
Jim C.
-
>When you say you're struggling with your scrub plane, what do you mean? Are you having trouble using it, sharpening the iron, what exactly? Can you be more specific?
Just joking around, Jim -- my perverse sense of humor at work. I have no idea where or when I got the #12 (some time in the '70s or early '80s, and the
#80 1/2... A friend wanted a Bohmer hinge for the door between his kitchen and the dining room. One of the guys I worked with had a NOS Bohmer and I got that for my friend for 20 bucks. I installed it as a favor, but he kept nagging me about my charge for installation. He was showing me around this house he had just bought, and in the basement was one of the old carpenter's tool chests that had been left by the seller. He asked me again how much I wanted, so I said, "How about that tool chest?" Sure! That's when I discovered it wasn't empty. I pulled out five old Stanley planes, a bunch of wrenches and some other odds and ends.
Thinking about the cost of new Lee Valley equivalents versus the probably less than $10 I have in the 12 and the 80 1/2 put my tongue firmly in my cheek. That's all. The scrub works like a dream, and hogs off wood like a bulldozer. One of my best ever acquisitions.
-
>When you say you're struggling with your scrub plane, what do you mean? Are you having trouble using it, sharpening the iron, what exactly? Can you be more specific?
Just joking around, Jim -- my perverse sense of humor at work. I have no idea where or when I got the #12 (some time in the '70s or early '80s, and the
#80 1/2... A friend wanted a Bohmer hinge for the door between his kitchen and the dining room. One of the guys I worked with had a NOS Bohmer and I got that for my friend for 20 bucks. I installed it as a favor, but he kept nagging me about my charge for installation. He was showing me around this house he had just bought, and in the basement was one of the old carpenter's tool chests that had been left by the seller. He asked me again how much I wanted, so I said, "How about that tool chest?" Sure! That's when I discovered it wasn't empty. I pulled out five old Stanley planes, a bunch of wrenches and some other odds and ends.
Thinking about the cost of new Lee Valley equivalents versus the probably less than $10 I have in the 12 and the 80 1/2 put my tongue firmly in my cheek. That's all. The scrub works like a dream, and hogs off wood like a bulldozer. One of my best ever acquisitions.
Good one Branson! That's the trouble with texting, emails, and thread posting......sometimes the intended meaning is lost without the tone of a person's voice, inflections, facial expressions, etc. When I initially read your post, I have to admit that at one point I thought to myself, "How the heck can this guy make these beautiful cabinets for a museum using hand planes and not know how to use a scrub plane?" It didn't make sense, but one never knows for sure. I figured I'd give you a straight answer and go from there. Next time you claim to have a problem with a plane, I'll be more cautious about my answer!! You got me this time!!! I've come to the conclusion that telling you about hand planes is like telling a fish how to swim. I think you owe me a picture of that scrub plane!!
Jim C.
-
It's in a chest at the bottom of a stack in storage at the moment, and I have to make room in my workshop before I can bring in anything else. But when I do, expect a photo. I think I have a wooden scrub as well -- in the chest next to the one with the Stanley -- a horn plane maybe...
-
A "horn plane"? I don't think that I've ever met one. I'd love to see some pictures. Ralph
-
Something like this probably.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Vintage-Antique-German-Horn-Style-Plane-10-Buck-Bros-Warranted-Cast-Steel-/331099923648?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item4d1717e4c0
-
Oh. That is nice. I'm tempted to bid on that one -- we'll see. There are enough pictures that I could probably build a miniature from that. Ralph
-
Oh. That is nice. I'm tempted to bid on that one -- we'll see. There are enough pictures that I could probably build a miniature from that. Ralph
I'll most certainly be looking forward to seeing it Ralph!!
Jim C.
-
I have a miniature horn plane that was on a dollar table. About 4 inches long. The horn is missing. Gotta find it now. Hmmmm.........I know it's here somewhere.
-
I'd love to see it -- from every angle. Ralph
-
Something like this probably.
Exactly like this. Uses a "horn" rather than a knob.
-
Here is a better listing of a horn plane Ralph
The classier planes have a little "ducks butt" to catch the crotch of your thumb, to push against.
And the horn is not really straight. It curls around your hand a little.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/A-outstanding-ULMIA-GERMAN-GERMANY-horn-plane-45mm-scrub-dovetail-/201013890228?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item2ecd5c8cb4 (http://www.ebay.com/itm/A-outstanding-ULMIA-GERMAN-GERMANY-horn-plane-45mm-scrub-dovetail-/201013890228?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item2ecd5c8cb4)
yours Scott
-
Oh nice. Thanks Scott. I can see that there is no set standard for wood type, and even body style can vary some. That will give me some freedom to give one my own artistic flair (within reason).
Ralph
-
I found this interesting. I did not know that you pulled the plane.
http://pfollansbee.wordpress.com/tag/scrub-plane/ (http://pfollansbee.wordpress.com/tag/scrub-plane/)
-
OK Ralph, here is my little horn plane. It is not really a miniature, it's more the size of a block plane. The poor little guy has had a rough life. I think that the wood is beech. There is no sign of a makers mark, but for a shop built tool, it was done by a craftsman. The blade is forge welded and there is a little decorative groove down each side. The steel sole is nailed on. I may kill a bladeless molding plane and make him a new little horn. The crack can be epoxied and he may get a brass bolt through the toe. Scottg, how would osage orange work and look as a horn?
(http://i1202.photobucket.com/albums/bb373/johnsironsanctuary/Stanley%20Tools/DSCN3131_zpsa611cbb9.jpg) (http://s1202.photobucket.com/user/johnsironsanctuary/media/Stanley%20Tools/DSCN3131_zpsa611cbb9.jpg.html)
(http://i1202.photobucket.com/albums/bb373/johnsironsanctuary/Stanley%20Tools/DSCN3135_zps998681ce.jpg) (http://s1202.photobucket.com/user/johnsironsanctuary/media/Stanley%20Tools/DSCN3135_zps998681ce.jpg.html)
(http://i1202.photobucket.com/albums/bb373/johnsironsanctuary/Stanley%20Tools/DSCN3134_zpsb6751a39.jpg) (http://s1202.photobucket.com/user/johnsironsanctuary/media/Stanley%20Tools/DSCN3134_zpsb6751a39.jpg.html)
(http://i1202.photobucket.com/albums/bb373/johnsironsanctuary/Stanley%20Tools/DSCN3133_zpsb7353cdc.jpg) (http://s1202.photobucket.com/user/johnsironsanctuary/media/Stanley%20Tools/DSCN3133_zpsb7353cdc.jpg.html)
(http://i1202.photobucket.com/albums/bb373/johnsironsanctuary/Stanley%20Tools/DSCN3136_zpsea677d74.jpg) (http://s1202.photobucket.com/user/johnsironsanctuary/media/Stanley%20Tools/DSCN3136_zpsea677d74.jpg.html)
(http://i1202.photobucket.com/albums/bb373/johnsironsanctuary/Stanley%20Tools/DSCN3137_zpsc1efa1f4.jpg) (http://s1202.photobucket.com/user/johnsironsanctuary/media/Stanley%20Tools/DSCN3137_zpsc1efa1f4.jpg.html)
(http://i1202.photobucket.com/albums/bb373/johnsironsanctuary/Stanley%20Tools/DSCN3138_zps98a6bd1f.jpg) (http://s1202.photobucket.com/user/johnsironsanctuary/media/Stanley%20Tools/DSCN3138_zps98a6bd1f.jpg.html)
(http://i1202.photobucket.com/albums/bb373/johnsironsanctuary/Stanley%20Tools/DSCN3141_zps5042f454.jpg) (http://s1202.photobucket.com/user/johnsironsanctuary/media/Stanley%20Tools/DSCN3141_zps5042f454.jpg.html)
(http://i1202.photobucket.com/albums/bb373/johnsironsanctuary/Stanley%20Tools/DSCN3143_zps602d6a7b.jpg) (http://s1202.photobucket.com/user/johnsironsanctuary/media/Stanley%20Tools/DSCN3143_zps602d6a7b.jpg.html)
-
Wow John! What do you think caused that crack? It looks like a nice weekend project in the shop bringing that plane back to life. If you decide to invest some time into fixing it, can you post a few more pictures of the finished product? Thanks.
Jim C.
-
I suspect that the wedge is just a little too wide and the stress from the horn dovetail teamed up to cause the crack. The size of the plane is also a factor. Less area = less strength.
-
I suspect that the wedge is just a little too wide and the stress from the horn dovetail teamed up to cause the crack. The size of the plane is also a factor. Less area = less strength.
That makes sense John. I know I asked for pictures of the "finished product" if you decide to fix the plane. If it's not too much to ask, maybe you could add a post with a little writeup and a few pictures, showing the process you went through to fix it. I'd be interested and I think others would be too.
Jim C.
-
I found this interesting. I did not know that you pulled the plane.
Well, you *can* pull it -- just like you *can* pull a Stanley #5 or a block plane. And sometimes you have to pull the things. But the only planes that are *designed * to be pulled are the Japanese planes. And tat isn't for some mystical reason -- traditionally, Japanese carpenters did not work at a bench, but worked sitting on the floor. All the horn planes I've played with are bench planes, and the older ones have horns that twist slightly to the left for the left hand to wrap around nicely while pushing.
-
Wow John! What do you think caused that crack?
Jim C.
There's the crack at the front, and another crack at the rear, and the wood body is fitted with a metal sole. Both cracks look like the wood shrank back from the metal sole to me. What I think caused these cracks was making the body out of pretty near to green wood, which shrank considerably as it finally dried. If the wedge were tight enough to do that kind of damage, the fellow who made it (and it's definitely shop made) would have trimmed it to fit immediately as it wouldn't have gone in at all.
-
WOW!!! really, John. That is a Beauty.
It reflects pride and character just as it is, demonstrating, like an old carpenter, miles and miles and years and years of service.
I see that the iron blade has had a sliver of harder steel forge welded to form the cutting edge; that is ancient.
And the metal sole may have been added as a repair or as a preventative measure to keep it from falling into further disrepair so that this old man could render another 100k miles.
This plane demonstrates, in a most literally Romantic way, the essence of carpentry and the timeless nature of creativity.
It is a real relic and trophy as it is and deserves to be not stashed away but prominently and proudly displayed without cosmetic intervention that would conceal the story that it now tells.
If I could build one that looked as great as this one now does , it would take another 100 years of fine work.
Some old tools can and should be restored for continued service. But this old man's beauty is in the story that the lines across it's face tell.
I refer you to the song by Brandi Carlile for The story.
http://youtu.be/o8pQLtHTPaI
-
Wow John! What do you think caused that crack?
Jim C.
There's the crack at the front, and another crack at the rear, and the wood body is fitted with a metal sole. Both cracks look like the wood shrank back from the metal sole to me. What I think caused these cracks was making the body out of pretty near to green wood, which shrank considerably as it finally dried. If the wedge were tight enough to do that kind of damage, the fellow who made it (and it's definitely shop made) would have trimmed it to fit immediately as it wouldn't have gone in at all.
An interesting theory Branson. I kind of wondered if the metal sole and green wood caused the crack. I also thought that perhaps a drastic climate change like moving it from a heated shop to an unheated garage, etc. may have contributed to the problem. Any chance the metal sole was added later in an effort to stop the crack from getting worse? I'm also very interested in the iron. I've never seen one with visible layers. John, do you know the history of the plane?
Jim C.
-
I don't know the history. I picked it up on the last day of an estate sale last summer.
-
I hope that my message didn't get lost at the bottom of page 10. Ralph
-
It didn't get lost Ralph. I just dozed off while I was designing a shadow box in my head.
-
Hey John
I suspect your plane got soaking wet for years at one point. Left on the back porch in the rain. When it dried back out it shrank and the combination of the pins in the base and the blade and wedge cause the cracking.
I suspect this is what caused the blade to look separated too. The different metals corroding away at different rates.
If I wanted to repair the little plane I would remove the sole plate. Soon as you do, you should try to dry clamp to see if the cracks will close at all. They may not.
If they will, then carefully clean the cracks. (not easy, you have to use little picks and a solvent like paint thinner or acetone, and time.)
When they are good n clean, you can glue it up and clamp.
I usually use compressed air to blow the glue in, but a soda straw will work.
I expect you will be drilling new holes for the sole plate but I would definitely put it back.
Carving a new horn you will do mostly by hand, the slow way. You can rough it out by power and maybe use rotary rasps in a drill press, but from there it'll be hand rasps/files scrapers and sandpaper.
Last you will have to refit the wedge and probably the blade as well.
Oh, osage orange will contrast quite a bit with old beech. Lately I have using African mahogany (I don't see any relation to any other mahogany myself, but that is what they call it in the trades.)
Its not expensive to buy, its very sturdy and it looks pretty close!
yours Scott
-
>I haven't pulled off the sole yet, but if it was straight grained, wouldn't it crack at the nails first?
Not necessarily. Think about green fence boards and how they crack if the nails are too far apart on, say an 8 inch board. There are quite a few of these in the fence that came with my property. Most are split near the center.
> If it was made from green stock, drying on the tight wedge would crack it both fore and aft.
There is a split aft as well as fore, just doesn't go all the way through. If the wood in the wedge was just as green, it would have shrunk too, and wouldn't have been able to crack the body.
-
An intereting theory Branson. I kind of wondered if the metal sole and green wood caused the crack. I also thought that perhaps a drastic climate change like moving it from a heated shop to an unheated garage, etc. may have contributed to the problem. Any chance the metal sole was added later in an effort to stop the crack from getting worse? I'm also very interested in the iron. I've never seen one with visible layers. John, do you know the history of the plane?
Jim C.
Looking closer, I notice the side up at the front of the plane spreads over the sole. So that makes me think the crack was something the wood wanted to do, like green wood sometimes does. Drastic climate change would have affected the wedge as well, so I don't think that's the answer. I also doubt that plane in its youth ever saw a garage or a much heated shop. It's definitely got some age on it.
The metal soles I've seen were added as wear plates rather than mending plates, and I think that's its original purpose. The steel on the iron looks like a quick blacksmith job -- I have an adze that was re-steeled like that. I believe that it just wasn't refined, and definitely not factory made. It doesn't even appear to be tapered back from the cutting edge.
-
The real question is, why would someone experienced enough to make a plane from scratch be dumb enough to use green stock. I like Scott's back porch theory. The guy that made the plane wasn't the one that screwed it up. It happened several owners later. It probably happened after the plane had outlived it's usefulness and was in a pile of stuff on the back porch or in a shed that needed a roof. It wasn't wet for long, because the finish is still there and the wood looks old, but not water damaged. I don't think that the sole was ever rusty, but the iron sure is.
-
The real question is, why would someone experienced enough to make a plane from scratch be dumb enough to use green stock. I like Scott's back porch theory. The guy that made the plane wasn't the one that screwed it up. It happened several owners later. It probably happened after the plane had outlived it's usefulness and was in a pile of stuff on the back porch or in a shed that needed a roof. It wasn't wet for long, because the finish is still there and the wood looks old, but not water damaged. I don't think that the sole was ever rusty, but the iron sure is.
So are you thinking about fixing it up?
-
Jim, that was where I was going ever since I bought it. There is some logic in wife naming my shop
'The Iron Sanctuary'. Tools are safe from the scrapper once I own them. At the bottom of page 10, Ralph suggested that maybe proudly preserving the little guy might be ahead of restoration. If I do restore him, he will be pretty far down on a long list for this winter. I am pondering.
-
Jim, that was where I was going ever since I bought it. There is some logic in wife naming my shop
'The Iron Sanctuary'. Tools are safe from the scrapper once I own them. At the bottom of page 10, Ralph suggested that maybe proudly preserving the little guy might be ahead of restoration. If I do restore him, he will be pretty far down on a long list for this winter. I am pondering.
Well if you do get to it, please keep us in the loop! Also, I'm glad that "The Iron Sanctuary" exists. There needs to be more of those places.
Jim C.
-
I’ll admit that I’m partial to Stanley hand planes above those made by other manufacturers. Still, that in no way should lead anyone to believe that planes made by other companies were any less useful, or valuable (if you’re a collector). One of Stanley’s biggest competitors was Sargent. Although many of Sargent’s plane designs were suspiciously similar to Stanley products, Sargent had a few originals to call their own. I’m extremely fond of Sargent’s Autoset series of bench planes and their “ladybug” rabbet planes. Still, there’s one more Sargent plane that I absolutely had to have for its utility value alone……
Sargent #507:
I’ve always been a sucker for block planes. I have a few more than my share but I’ve always got room for one more. The more unusual they are, the more I want them. I bought a Sargent #507 several years ago thinking that it might be handy to use on a project that involved making some large mortise and tenon joints. With its rabbet sides, it seemed to be the perfect plane to get right into the corner of a tenon cheek and shoulder. I was actually right about that! With a super sharp iron and set up for a light pass, this plane can fine tune a large tenon as well as any plane, if not better. The #507 was produced by Sargent from 1913 to 1943. As one could imagine, its arched sides proved to be relatively fragile, and dropping one of these planes on the floor most likely meant its end. I’ve seen several with cracked and repaired arches. Although it can function as most any other block plane can, I really think that it is best suited to creating larger, perfect fitting tenons. Its fixed, non-adjustable throat, does cause some limitations that other more traditional block planes overcome. Stressing a #507, as one might with a normal block plane, could cause it to break along its arches. It is fragile, but so useful, that I’d still recommend it for certain tasks. I suspect that the plane depicted below was one of Sargent’s earlier examples. If you take a look at the photo of the iron, notice that it is stamped with “VBM.” That stands for Very Best Made and was on most Sargent irons produced between 1910 and 1918. This plane isn’t too uncommon, but still less so than the average looking block plane. Interestingly, for all the rabbet plane patterns that Stanley made, it never produced a block plane that looked like the Sargent #507.
Jim C.
-
Stanley Bedrock Bench Planes:
At some point between 1898 and 1900, Stanley started manufacturing a premium line of bench planes called “Bedrocks.” They were offered in just about every size as one could find in the standard series of bench planes, #1 - #8, with the exception of the #1 size. By 1935, Stanley had dropped most Bedrock models from its product line, however a few lasted until 1943. At a quick glance, most Bedrock bench planes can be identified by their flat top sides, however, earlier versions, made prior to 1911, had rounded sides just like the standard Stanley bench planes that we're all familiar with. Bedrocks can also be identified by their model numbers. Where standard bench planes were numbered 1 – 8, Bedrocks were numbered 602 – 608. The very earliest Bedrocks retained the standard 2 – 8 numbering system (1898 – 1899). By 1900, they were numbered in the 600 series. Like the standard bench planes, the Bedrocks could also be had in ¼ and ½ sizes (ie. #604 ½, etc.) In terms of being collectable Bedrocks are no different than any other series of planes. Some are more valuable than others, and now, decades later, some are highly prized by collectors for their rarity. Two of the more desirable examples are the #602C (1900 – 1918) and the #605 ¼ (1925 – 1943). It should be noted that Stanley also made versions of the Bedrock planes for Keen Kutter, marked with a K and plane size (ie. K2 – K8) and Winchester, marked with a W and plane size (ie. W2 – W8). As always, condition plays a big part in the tool’s ultimate value.
What makes the Bedrock bench plane different from its standard counter part, is the unique way in which the frog and bed are designed, milled, and mated together within extremely close tolerances. The frog and bed on most standard bench planes contact each other on the front and back of both parts. The area in between does not touch, leaving significant air space between the parts, which are connected together via two slotted head screws passing through the frog into the bed. The bearing surfaces are very small in comparison to the full contact surfaces of the Bedrock models. The Bedrock frog and bed are in full contact with each other across their entire length and width as a result of carefully milling both parts. To accomplish the union, the two parts are connected via two pins that pass through the frog into the bed. Then screws with tapered ends, running at a perpendicular angle through the back of the bed, go into tapered dimples in the pins. The pins are drawn downward by the tapered ends of the screws going into the pin dimples, pulling the frog and the bed together to form a solid union, hence their name, Bedrock.
In theory, it would seem that the Bedrocks would produce significantly better results because of their precise construction and close tolerances. With the exception of their frog and bed construction/connection, Bedrocks were equipped with the same cutting iron, chip breaker, lever cap, knob and tote, and hardware that were found on the standard bench planes of their time. They may have been slightly heavier too, but not appreciably so as to produce better results than a standard bench plane outfitted with a sharp iron and proper tuning. I guess it will be up to you to decide for sure. I have a few Bedrocks, and I must say that I’m drawn to their hype, real or perceived. Today because of their reputation, they are highly sought after by users and collectors alike. Of all my bench planes, my most favorite to use is my #605 ½. For some reason, everything about that plane is perfect, and the results prove it. We’ll talk more about that particular plane in a future post.
Below, I have included a few pictures of a Stanley #604 Bedrock, Type 8, manufactured between 1927 and 1930. (See pictures 1 - 6) For comparison purposes to a standard bench plane from the same era, I have also included a few pictures of the frog and bed design of a Stanley #4 ½, Type 14, manufactured between 1929 and 1930. (See pictures 7 - 10) Both planes are of the same vintage, yet notice the differences between their frog and bed designs, as well as the manner in which they fit together. As you can see, their construction is very different from each other. Did that construction translate to the Bedrock out performing the standard bench plane? ????? Some say yes, some say no.
Jim C.
-
I thought I’d spend a little time today hitting on a few topics that we discussed in the past, and expanding on a few others. If all goes well, I’ll introduce another Stanley block plane, point out some of its features, add in a little more WWII production information, and compare and contrast the construction of three Stanley block planes from three consecutive decades, 1930s through 1950s.
Stanley #9 ½:
This block plane has got to be one of Stanley’s all time best sellers. Stanley probably sold millions of them. It’s very similar to the #9 ¼ discussed earlier in the thread (check out the thread index to find the #9 ¼ ). The major difference is its adjustable throat (photo #5 below). Being able to control the thickness of the shaving passing through the throat of the plane just adds more versatility to its overall utility. With a really sharp cutting iron and the throat set for a fine shaving, this plane will do a better than satisfactory job when trimming end grain and a great job on straight grain. The #9 ½ was a part of Stanley’s product line from 1872 well into the 1980s. It was as basic and easy to use as any block plane ever produced. Any casual home DIYer would have this plane for the occasional trimming job. Even today, they’re very commonly found online, at garage sales, flea markets, antique shops, grandpa’s old tool box, etc., etc. The good thing about them is that they’re also extremely affordable, so be a little picky if you decide to buy one for use or for your collection. Although parts are easy to find, get one that’s intact, undamaged and ready to work. There are plenty to be had in almost any condition.
Now, let’s go back and take a quick look at original packaging again. See the picture with the two boxes (photo #2 below)? The box on the left came with the #9 ½ depicted below (photo #3). Compare that box to the one on the right, which came with the #9 ¼ discussed earlier in the thread. What do you see? Based on our previous discussion (page 2, reply 29), can you tell me which box was most likely produced during WWII? If you picked the drab olive colored box on the left, you’d be correct. But again, boxes don’t always tell the entire story when approximating the age of the plane inside. If you notice the label on the box, it has Stanley’s Sweet Hart logo on it (photo #1 below), and that pre-dates WWII by at least a decade or so. Also remember that Stanley used everything until it was gone. So we have a late 1920s – early 1930s logo on the box, and a mid 1940s box. Approximately how old is the plane? We better take a look at the plane itself. What’s interesting about many WWII era block planes is the way in which they were constructed. There are some characteristics that were commonly found, or not, on block planes that were manufactured between late 1942 and 1946.
If you take a look at the main castings of the three planes stacked one above the other (photo #6 below), you’ll see the #9 ¼ (Type 23, 1956 – 1959) on top, the #9 ½ (Type 20, 1943- 1946) in the middle, and a #19 (Type 14, 1930 – 1935) on the bottom. There are basically three common Stanley block planes from three consecutive decades depicted. The first thing that one notices (or not) on the #9 ½ is the fact that it’s missing the little finger holds milled into its sides. Stanley coined the term “Hand-y” to designate the finger holds, and patented the feature somewhere around 1897. As a result, virtually every conventional looking block plane manufactured by Stanley after 1897 had the Hand-y holds…… except for those manufactured during WWII. For some reason, many of the Stanley block planes from that period were produced without them. Take a look at the photo depicting the three main castings side by side (photo #7 below). The #19 is on the left, the #9 ½ is in the center, and the #9 ¼ is on the right. Take specific note of the castings themselves. See how the #9 ½ casting is much thicker than the other two? WWII castings were typically thicker than the castings of planes produced before and after the war. For those of you who are really interested in the details, get to know the trimmings on each plane. Often planes with normally nickel plated parts, or brass parts, were substituted with steel parts during WWII production. We’ll talk more about block planes in future posts. Stanley made dozens of block plane models, so we’ve still got a lot of ground to cover.
Jim C.
-
In a few prior posts, I’ve mentioned Lie Nielsen (LN) planes. Years ago I was only vaguely familiar with LN tools and mostly viewed them as a little too expensive for my needs. At the time, I was a hardcore disciple of power tools, and never thought I’d get my money’s worth out of a hand plane, let alone a LN hand plane. If you recall from an earlier post, I admitted not knowing much about planes, but encountered a project (kitchen island top) that forced me to learn more about them as quickly as possible. That realization eventually lead me to LN. At the time it was the only place I knew of that had the customer support and tools for the job at hand. I hadn’t even considered going the “used tool” route, and even if I had, I don’t think I would have because I needed the tools “now” and I had no real leads on where to find good used planes. On top of that, I really didn’t know anything at all about getting an old plane back in working order.
After buying, and successfully using the LN planes to make the island in my kitchen, I became a life long LN fan. I was added to the LN mailing list and routinely received their catalogs, post cards, and other mailed sales materials. I saved them all (going back to 1999) only because I really enjoyed looking at the nice photographs and reading about high quality tools. I wanted them but I really couldn't afford them. I slowly started drifting into the world of more affordable user antique planes, but I remained loyal to LN even to this day. I have only a few LN tools, but greatly appreciate them for their American made quality and the amazing results they can produce practically right out of the box. Once per year, LN representatives demonstrate their tools at a local custom furniture maker’s shop. I look forward to attending that event every Spring. I don’t normally buy anything, but I do enjoy trying out the tools and holding them in my hands.
Lie Nielsen #97 ½:
I received this plane several years ago as a gift from a very good friend. As you can see, it’s a chisel plane. Although it’s a generally mass produced tool, like all LN tools, it has the look and feel of being a custom made one of a kind item. The fit, finish, and attention to quality is clearly apparent. The plane is really heavy for its size and is fitted with a 3/16” thick cutting iron. It’s a very nice tool. While I’ve owned this plane for more than a decade, I really can’t say that I use it too often. It’s really best suited to tasks like cleaning and trimming into the corners of various joints. I suppose it can be handy, but I've found that ordinary chisels can accomplish the same tasks just as easily and for a lot less money most likely. If you go back and take a look at the Stanley #90, you’ll remember that it can be converted into a small chisel plane just by removing its top casting (page 2, reply 25). LN also makes a larger version of the chisel plane directly modeled after the Stanley #97 chisel plane that was produced from 1905 to 1943. Stanley originally marketed the #97 as a “piano makers” plane. I can’t tell you why, because I’ve never made a piano, but I’ve seen old Stanley sales materials touting the plane’s utility in the piano and cabinet making trades. Original Stanleys are almost ten inches long, as is the larger LN version. At that length, I can’t imagine them getting into tight spots or being very handy for anything other than trimming tasks with plenty of room to maneuver. With that in mind, LN created a smaller chisel plane, the #97 ½ , which is approximately 6 ½” long. While the plane depicted below is a beautiful and functional tool, it’s hard to say that it really earns its keep in my shop.....but it is a beautiful tool and I really do enjoy just holding it in my hand. While I would NEVER dissuade any one from splurging a little and buying a new LN tool, I’d place the chisel plane (LN, Stanley or otherwise) lower on my “must have” list. If you are considering a LN chisel plane, I’d get the small one. The full size #97 version is really too big in my opinion, and I believe that its size diminishes its versatility. We’ll talk more about the Stanley #97 in a future post.
Jim C.
-
Now that is a beauty. I think that I need one of those - miniature, of course. Ralph
-
Now that is a beauty. I think that I need one of those - miniature, of course. Ralph
That would be really awesome to see Ralph, and you're just the man to make it happen! If you need actual dimensions to get the scale correct, just let me know.
Jim C.
-
Thanks, Jim. I think that I've almost got it from the pics you've posted. But knowing the width and seeing the bottom of the blade would help. I assume that the blade has a notch or two on the under side to allow for adjusting? Not sure how to do that. I'll study it some. Ralph
-
Hi Ralph,
I took a few more pictures of the cutting iron adjustment detail and a few more measurements. The overall length of the plane is 6 3/8". The width is 1 3/4". The actual length of the blade is 3 11/16". The blade has only been honed and rarely used, so that's pretty much its original length. The length of the cutting iron bed/ramp is 3 1/16". Any other details/measurements you need don't hesitate to ask. I'm not sure how much information you want, so just let me know.
Jim C.
-
Thanks, Jim. Got it. Now I just need to get to it. Ralph
-
I've got a good start on the miniature chisel plane, but have been bogged down several times. This sweet little plane has some features that I have not encountered before, and trial and much error have prevailed. The body was difficult enough with that 12 degree angle swoop which complicated the installation of the adjusting knob threaded shaft AND the placement of the lever cap bolt. But creating a blade was a project all its own. I cut steel strips from an old used circular saw blade with an industrial grinder and suspected immediately that cutting the key hole and the notch on the under side was going to be a trick. Nothing I have would drill through nor even mark it. The notch was all but impossible. After I annealed it, drilling and cutting a notch became possible, yet difficult. Next the lever cap and knob. Then hardening and sharpening the blade, and smooth filing, sanding, buffing and polishing all around. Ralph
(http://i1050.photobucket.com/albums/s405/flyingtractors1/Chiselplane002_zpsf938d082.jpg)
(http://i1050.photobucket.com/albums/s405/flyingtractors1/Chiselplane001_zps340a40ce.jpg)
-
Typical hardness of saw blade steel is around 60, titanium drill bits around 63.....chuckle...
Looking good ....
-
I've got a good start on the miniature chisel plane, but have been bogged down several times. This sweet little plane has some features that I have not encountered before, and trial and much error have prevailed. The body was difficult enough with that 12 degree angle swoop which complicated the installation of the adjusting knob threaded shaft AND the placement of the lever cap bolt. But creating a blade was a project all its own. I cut steel strips from an old used circular saw blade with an industrial grinder and suspected immediately that cutting the key hole and the notch on the under side was going to be a trick. Nothing I have would drill through nor even mark it. The notch was all but impossible. After I annealed it, drilling and cutting a notch became possible, yet difficult. Next the lever cap and knob. Then hardening and sharpening the blade, and smooth filing, sanding, buffing and polishing all around. Ralph
(http://i1050.photobucket.com/albums/s405/flyingtractors1/Chiselplane002_zpsf938d082.jpg)
(http://i1050.photobucket.com/albums/s405/flyingtractors1/Chiselplane001_zps340a40ce.jpg)
Looking really good Ralph!! You're right on track and doing some amazing work as usual!! If you need more photos or measurements, just let me know. I'm very happy to help you in any way that I can.
Jim C.
-
Thanks, Rusty. If I had known that it couldn't be done ( with the tools and equipment I have), I wouldn't have tried. Sometimes my ignorant tenacious disposition allows me to do things that I didn't know were impossible.
Thanks again Jim C. I'm well on the way. Ralph
-
Jim C., I did not mean to hijack your string, but that's where I got the idea for my latest project. The chisel plane may not be all that useful in the shop, but the miniature made for a nice model. Ralph
(http://i1050.photobucket.com/albums/s405/flyingtractors1/Chisleplane3004_zpscbf89be0.jpg)
(http://i1050.photobucket.com/albums/s405/flyingtractors1/Chisleplane2001_zps8964f587.jpg)
-
Another little master piece. Great job as usual Ralph.
-
Jim C., I did not mean to hijack your string, but that's where I got the idea for my latest project. The chisel plane may not be all that useful in the shop, but the miniature made for a nice model. Ralph
(http://i1050.photobucket.com/albums/s405/flyingtractors1/Chisleplane3004_zpscbf89be0.jpg)
(http://i1050.photobucket.com/albums/s405/flyingtractors1/Chisleplane2001_zps8964f587.jpg)
Hi Ralph! Your miniature model of the chisel plane turned out FANTASTIC to say the least! No problem jumping into the thread. It's not just limited to MY enjoyment of hand planes. I really started the thread to talk about EVERYONE's enjoyment of these particular woodworking tools.... Old, new, large, small, mass produced, one of a kind, wood, metal... whatever!! I think it's GREAT to see shop made planes by the members of this site. As a matter of fact, I'm very happy that you included your latest creation in this thread. I think everyone who comes to this forum appreciates your work and your artistry. Well done! As for the usefulness of chisel planes in general, they have their place in the shop. To date, I haven't found that one task that it, and only it, can accomplish..... but one never knows. Anyway, amazing work Ralph! Thanks for featuring your chisel plane in this thread.
Jim C.
-
Ralph,
Is that sterling also?
Larry
-
Thanks, Jim C. for giving me the idea and for appreciating my work. The first thing you wrote in this thread was, "I like hand planes." It appealed to me instantly and to many others as evidenced by the response to the thread. I too like planes and have learned much from this publication. Ralph
-
Thanks Ralph. I'm glad that you were inspired. Somewhere along the way, I said I'd try to keep the thread interesting too. Well, your work is always VERY interesting every time! As for the content I occasionally add, well, it's a little more hit or miss. I can't always tell if the posts are good reading or just blah, blah, blah. I still have more hand planes to add to the thread so hopefully there will be something that will also ignite someone else's interest for whatever reason. I'm really glad that the Lie-Nielsen #97 1/2 chisel plane post motivated you. I have a few more Lie-Nielsen planes coming, so stay tuned.
Jim C.
-
Hi, Larry.
No - The chisel plane is brass. If I'd had some bronze stock I would have more closely emulated the Lie Nielson line, but it's hard to find in the dimensions I like to use. Brass is easy to find and to work with. Would rather work with silver, but . . . Yet some things actually look better done in brass.
Ralph
-
Hi, Jim C. Your posts do make interesting and informative reading. I'm with you on this trek. And I am glad that you and Papaw have cataloged the posts. This has become a great documented resource. Ralph
-
As I’ve mentioned several times before, Stanley made MANY different patterns of block planes over the years. Most actually worked very well and filled some real needs in the market place, while others were probably not as useful. Stanley wanted to fill every niche.
Stanley #118:
I’m not sure if this his particular block plane filled a real niche in the market place or not, but Stanley produced it for at least five decades, beginning in 1933 and going well into the 1980s. So, it must have achieved some level of success, otherwise Stanley would have dropped it from its product line. When examining the #118 closely, one will see that it does look a little different than other block planes featured earlier in the thread. One of the major differences is that its body and pressure cap are made of steel versus the more traditional cast iron. The reason being that if the plane was ever dropped or abused, it would not readily crack like a cast iron model. This is where the “niche” factor comes into play. Stanley marketed the plane as being unbreakable, and perfect for use by school age boys. Basically, it could “take a lickin’ and keep on tickin’.” The construction of the #118 was very similar to the body of the chisel gauge mentioned above (page 6, reply 75) in the thread. Both are stamped from steel and then bent into shape. I’m trying to imagine the presses and machines that created these planes. Watch your fingers!!!!
Some real thinking went into this plane. In keeping with the “boy proof” design, one will see that the plane can only be disassembled into three parts; the main body, the pressure cap assembly and the cutting iron. The parts that were normally held together with small screws and threaded knobs, etc. are fixed in place and would require an intentionally destructive force (possibly a young woodworker to be) to get them apart. The other reason all the small parts are fixed is to minimize their loss. Young kids have a habit of losing things. Notice how the thumbscrew on the pressure cap has a fixed washer on it to prevent its removal from the cap itself. Also notice how the cutting iron adjustment screw at the rear of the plane has a heavy duty “C” clip on it to keep it in place and prevent its removal. Even the traditional screw usually found holding the cutting iron and pressure cap to the body of the plane has been replaced with a fixed, non threaded post. (It's a little hard to see because it's finished in black and blends in with the body of the plane and the pressure cap.) Finally, the little knob at the front of the plane is fixed in place and cannot be unscrewed.
I suspect that Stanley made a fair amount of these planes. As I mentioned earlier, they were in production for at least half a century. I do see them from time to time in various states of condition. The earliest models usually have embossed raised letters at the front of the plane that say “Stanley No. 118” and are highlighted in a reddish/orange color. I cannot think of any other plane that Stanley ever produced where the Stanley name and/or model number was highlighted in a contrasting color. It’s certainly an interesting little plane purely for its unusual construction and the reasoning behind its production.
Jim C.
-
Yep, boy-proof. These saw a lot of school use because they wouldn't break when dropped, and parts were hard to lose. I picked one up at a flea market a couple of years ago (I'm a sucker for low angle block planes), along with another similarly made version by Sargent. A little negotiating and the seller accepted $15 for both. Satisfying little planes to use, and great for clumsy days in the shop.
-
Yep, boy-proof. These saw a lot of school use because they wouldn't break when dropped, and parts were hard to lose. I picked one up at a flea market a couple of years ago (I'm a sucker for low angle block planes), along with another similarly made version by Sargent. A little negotiating and the seller accepted $15 for both. Satisfying little planes to use, and great for clumsy days in the shop.
Hi Branson,
Thanks for checking in. I think the Sargent version of the all steel "unbreakable" block plane was their model #4206. It's not a plane that one sees too often, as it was only manufactured by Sargent between 1913 and 1918. It's kind of rare, so you're lucky to have an example in your collection. I don't have one. Could you post a picture of yours? I'd really like to see it. Thanks.
Jim C.
-
Here you go. These pictures were taken the day I found the planes. First is the Sargent by itself, the other two show both planes for comparison.
-
Hey Branson,
Thanks for posting a few pictures! That Sargent #4206 isn't one I've seen too often. It's always nice to get a look at a rare old plane.
Jim C.
-
I really like the looks of those planes. Thanks for posting. Ralph
-
I liked the looks of them, too. The price sold me on them, but I'm a sucker for block planes. I appreciate knowing the production dates for the Sargent!
-
Being, as I said, a sucker for block planes, I just picked this one up on eBay. No marks on it other than Made in USA, no mark on the blade. (It appears to be painted black, not Japanned, so I might strip it and repaint.) There's no adjustment mechanism, so it was probably inexpensive, but a corrugated block plane? Just had to have it.
Any idea who might have made it?
-
Hi Branson,
I think you've got a relatively unusual little block plane. One does not see block planes too often with corrugated soles. That's certainly not the norm. My initial guess is that your plane may have been manufactured by Union Tools, but I'm really not 100% sure about that. I'll have to do a liitle more research. Sometimes the cutting irons on old planes are so heavy with decades of layered age/patina, that their respective manufacturer's stamp has been obscured to the point of being almost undistinguished. I'd hate to see the plane be over cleaned and lose it's well aged characteristics, but take one more look at the cutting iron for a manufacturer's stamp. I've gotten to the point where I now occasionally need a magnifying glass to make out some of the details on old tools. When I get home, I'll try to do a little more research and maybe determine who made that plane. Thanks for posting the pictures. I love a good mystery.
Jim C.
-
It's the first corrugated block plane I've seen. Now that you mention it, Union Tools sounds likely. The iron has little rust and even with the magnifying glass I cannot find even the vestige of a mark.
I don't know that the corrugated sole planes actually work better, but they're cool. And now I have a low angle block to join my other Cs.
-
This is just bizarrely unusual!
Its kind of a semi low angle isn't it?
Not quite as low as a 60 1/2, but lower than a #9 1/2??
Then, no adjuster on a 6" + plane, with no wooden knob in front? Made in USA.....
And corrugated?????
I wonder if that is the original lever cap? Looks like a Stanley at first glance. If its correct to the plane that would be a clue.
Could be Auburn, could be Union, could even be Ohio??
Definitely cool whose-ever it is!
If they were common we'd have all seen plenty of them.
yours Scott
-
This is just bizarrely unusual!
Its kind of a semi low angle isn't it?
Not quite as low as a 60 1/2, but lower than a #9 1/2??
Then, no adjuster on a 6" + plane, with no wooden knob in front? Made in USA.....
And corrugated?????
I wonder if that is the original lever cap? Looks like a Stanley at first glance. If its correct to the plane that would be a clue.
Could be Auburn, could be Union, could even be Ohio??
Definitely cool whose-ever it is!
If they were common we'd have all seen plenty of them.
yours Scott
I have to agree with Scott on this one. The pressure cap initially made me think of Stanley, but it also resembles Union caps that I've seen. Stanley never made a block plane with a corrugated sole...at least I can't think of one. I'm not 100% sure, but I think Stanley bought Union at some point. Maybe that accounts for the "Stanley like" cap. I haven't had a chance to check some reference materials, but I will. Block planes with corrugated soles are definitely not the norm.
Jim C.
-
There are so many different tools that can be used to shape, contour, and add some design to wood. Stanley, like many other companies, manufactured several such tools to include spoke shaves, draw knives, and hand beaders. All were created to take the square corners, flat surfaces and sharp edges of a project and turn them into something more than just a utilitarian object. Sometimes less is more. Simple, well executed joints are an art form in and of themselves. I’m still trying to master them. However, there are times when a curve that was hand made with a spoke shave, or a detail that was added with carving tools, can really be the difference between an object and an heirloom. In an effort to try and stay within the hand plane parameters of the thread, I thought it might be interesting to highlight a tool that functions and looks somewhat like a spoke shave, yet can bring a little flair to a flat wooden surface. I’m referring to a hand beader, sometimes called a scratch stock. These simple tools hold a small piece of spring steel that can be ground and/or filed into almost any shape imaginable. With a fence or some sort of adjustable standard, the shaped piece of steel can be dragged across the flat surface of a piece of wood, using the perpendicular face of the wood as a guide. The steel cutter then scribes the desired design into the wood. As the cutter scratches down into the surface, it can occasionally be adjusted to cut deeper, finally reaching a depth where the beads, reeds, and flutes are complete. The beauty of the hand beader is its utility, simplicity, and the infinite number of shapes that can be created from spring steel blanks. I’ve seen many steel blanks that started out as pieces of old hand saw blades. Although a router setup in a table, or a shaper with various cutters will produce very nice results and a similar look, there is no questioning the craftsmanship when the same detail was made using a hand tool. The slight imperfections and characteristics of being hand made are what set the cherished “heirloom" apart from the ordinary "object."
Stanley #66 hand beader:
Manufactured by Stanley from 1886 to 1941, the #66 was supplied with a straight fence for straight work, and a curved fence for projects with some contours. The very earliest models were finished with black japanning (1886 to 1898), and were cast with the 2/9/1886 patent date on the right handle. They also employed an extra tall brass screw to hold the guide fences in place. Initially, the #66 included seven double ended cutters, to include a double ended router type cutter. (see the last picture, far right cutter with little hooks on its ends) The Stanley supplied cutters included shapes that allowed the user the ability to produce beads, reeds and flutes. Later models of the #66 were nickel plated, and included one extra blank cutter that could be shaped by the final consumer. The blank cutter was added as a standard feature in 1909. (see last picture, second from the right, with the double square edges) The #66 below is complete as it would have been sold between 1886 and 1898. The double ended blank was included in the picture for reference purposes only and would not have been included with earlier examples. The #66 can be had in nearly any condition, as it isn’t overly rare. Still, like any tool with multiple cutters, screws, fences, etc. finding a complete example with age appropriate parts is a little more difficult. When I bought the #66 depicted below, it was missing its double ended router cutter. I had to do a little searching to find one. It’s also not unusual to find a #66 that’s missing one of its two fences. One is usually attached to the tool and the other one lost in the bottom of a long forgotten toolbox, or just plain gone forever. The same goes for the cutters. One is usually mounted in the tool and the others are ????? The #66 is really a fun tool to use. If one ever comes your way, and the price is right, buy it just for the “fun factor” alone. Original cutters are a little scarce, but there are vendors out there who are making current replacements. As stated earlier, the cutters can also be made from scrap spring steel that might just be collecting dust in your shop.
Jim C.
-
That's a cool tool, Jim!! I have never used one since my carpentry skills are poor to say the least, but I remember my father using one years ago.
-
That's a cool tool, Jim!! I have never used one since my carpentry skills are poor to say the least, but I remember my father using one years ago.
Hey Papaw,
Thanks for checking in. The hand beader is practically fool proof to use. Secure the work to your bench, then set the fence on the tool to the desired distance away from the edge of the workpiece. Mount the cutter into the tool and initially set it for a light pass. Be mindful of keeping the fence up against the edge of the workpiece and just start pulling the tool. Keep downward pressure on the tool and the cutter will start scratching into the wood. Occasionally lower the cutter until you've scratched your way to the bottom of the cut, which is usually the lowest section of the cutter's profile. You can do it!!
Jim C.
-
Hi Branson,
I think you've got a relatively unusual little block plane. One does not see block planes too often with corrugated soles. That's certainly not the norm. My initial guess is that your plane may have been manufactured by Union Tools, but I'm really not 100% sure about that. I'll have to do a liitle more research. Sometimes the cutting irons on old planes are so heavy with decades of layered age/patina, that their respective manufacturer's stamp has been obscured to the point of being almost undistinguished. I'd hate to see the plane be over cleaned and lose it's well aged characteristics, but take one more look at the cutting iron for a manufacturer's stamp. I've gotten to the point where I now occasionally need a magnifying glass to make out some of the details on old tools. When I get home, I'll try to do a little more research and maybe determine who made that plane. Thanks for posting the pictures. I love a good mystery.
Jim C.
I saw one of these in an antique shop in NY and I'm 99% sure it was marked Union. Still not sure why I didn't buy it.
Mike
-
Being, as I said, a sucker for block planes, I just picked this one up on eBay. No marks on it other than Made in USA, no mark on the blade. (It appears to be painted black, not Japanned, so I might strip it and repaint.) There's no adjustment mechanism, so it was probably inexpensive, but a corrugated block plane? Just had to have it.
Any idea who might have made it?
Hi Branson,
Although I'm still not 100% sure about who may have manufactured your corrugated sole block plane, I'm starting to lean toward it having possibly been made by O. R. Chaplin. The pressure cap on your plane is still throwing me off because it does resemble the type of cap that was characteristic of something manufactured by Stanley (or possibly Union???). That being said, I'm fairly certain that Stanley never made a corrugated sole block plane. Perhaps the pressure cap is not original to the plane. I do know that Chaplin made a fairly large corrugated sole block plane with a fixed throat, that was approximately seven inches long with a two inch wide cutting iron. I believe that it was model #420. Regardless, it's still a really unusual and unique plane. I'm really glad that you posted a couple pictures of it.
Jim C.
-
Scratch stocks are the bomb! Need to duplicate a molding on a chest you're repairing, to match the rest of the molding that is intact? The scratch stock is the answer! I have one I made, a rough thing of scrap wood that I used to duplicate the molded skirt on a table leaf, and later to match the molding on a mid-1800s blanket chest. Another is shop made by some English cabinet maker, nicely turned, but unloved on eBay.
I found, years ago, one of the nickel plated #66 Stanleys. It came with the straight fence and no blades. Later, I ran across one of the curved fences that got lost at the bottom of some tool chest. Still no blades, though. Checking the bottoms of old tool chests....
-
Scratch stocks are the bomb! Need to duplicate a molding on a chest you're repairing, to match the rest of the molding that is intact? The scratch stock is the answer! I have one I made, a rough thing of scrap wood that I used to duplicate the molded skirt on a table leaf, and later to match the molding on a mid-1800s blanket chest. Another is shop made by some English cabinet maker, nicely turned, but unloved on eBay.
I found, years ago, one of the nickel plated #66 Stanleys. It came with the straight fence and no blades. Later, I ran across one of the curved fences that got lost at the bottom of some tool chest. Still no blades, though. Checking the bottoms of old tool chests....
Hey Branson,
Could you please post a few pictures of the scratch stock that you made? I think it would really add a lot to the discussion if others could see how simply these tools can be made in the shop and then used. Thanks.
Jim C.
-
[Hey Branson,
Could you please post a few pictures of the scratch stock that you made? I think it would really add a lot to the discussion if others could see how simply these tools can be made in the shop and then used. Thanks.
Don't know that I can find it for a while, probably a long while. It's a very simple thing, made like a marking gauge. It has a 1" square bar that
goes through a wedged fence. The bar is slit lengthwise with a simple saw kerf just wide enough to slip in a piece of old saw blade snugly, perpendicular to the bottom of the bar. Once the blade is cut to the profile of the molding (no angles to worry about as you would in making a molding plane) it is slipped into the saw kerf and held tightly in place with a screw on either side. You can pay a bunch of money for one from Lee Valley, or make one yourself from scrap.
-
Hey Branson,
Thanks a ton for posting those craftsman made scratch stock pictures! I think it's always helpful to see the tools being described, particularly when someone isn't completely familiar with the topic. One of my hopes for this thread was to ensure that it was educational without being too technical and potentially boring. Pictures help a lot! What I like about the photos and the brief writeup you included, is that they clearly depict shop made tools that can be constructed relatively easily and then used successfully. Thanks again for taking the time to add that information to the thread.
Jim C.
-
How many times have I said that Stanley manufactured several different block plane patterns? If you’ve been reading along in the thread, you know that I’ve said it many times because it’s true. Stanley made a lot of block planes! I could feature traditional looking block planes for weeks to come, but I want to try to keep things interesting. With that being said, a good many block planes were extremely useful, very handy, and well conceived. While a handful of Stanley block planes filled niches that didn’t really exist (at least in my mind), some were right on target. I believe that Stanley’s edge trimming block plane hit the bull’s eye. Although it seems a bit unusual, almost “contraption like” in appearance, and doesn’t fit the mold of the traditional looking block plane, this thing works…… and it works very well.
Stanley #95:
The edge trimming block plane was manufactured by Stanley between 1911 and 1961. Early models had the Stanley name cast in script lettering on the body of the plane, while later models produced after 1922, were cast with block lettering. Like the name says, the plane was designed to trim the edges of wood so that the face and perpendicular edges of the wood formed ninety degree angles to each other. One will immediately notice that the sole of the plane is cast with a permanent fence on its side that holds the cutting iron. The fence is cast at ninety degrees to the sole of the plane. With sole riding along the face of the wood (and assuming that the face is flat), the fence holding the iron at ninety degrees to the sole will remove stock from the perpendicular edge leaving a ninety degree angle where the face and edge meet. With a super sharp iron, the plane does a better than average job on end grain too. The iron is bedded at a low angle, producing a slicing type of cut; a characteristic that’s associated with common looking low angle block planes. The only real difference is that the cutting iron on the #95 is mounted in the permanent fence, versus in the main body of the plane and protruding through the plane’s sole. The throat on the #95 can also be adjusted via a very unique adjuster that protrudes through the hollow palm rest. By pushing or pulling the little adjusting lever that engages milled slots in the back of the cutting iron, the user is able to set the throat for a very fine pass (which I prefer), or one that’s more aggressive depending on the work at hand. Also notice that the sole has two little holes drilled in it. Normally, I’d say that such holes were drilled after the plane left the factory, and from a pure collector’s point of view, that’s not what one would want to see. In this case however, they were part of the original design. The little holes allowed the user to attach a strip of wood (that’s hopefully strait and flat) to the plane’s sole with screws, thus adding to the sole’s length and ability to trim longer stock more accurately.
Based on a few clues that the plane’s box gives me, the logo on the cutting iron, and the plane’s casting marks, I’d estimate that the #95 depicted below was manufactured during the mid to late 1930s. This particular block plane pattern delivers. The tool is very easy to use and it’s accurate. I still see them online, in antique shops, and at well attended tool shows/auctions. It doesn’t seem to show up as often at garage sales or low end flea markets. Perhaps that’s because the plane’s appearance was misleading to the average consumer who might have opted for the more traditional looking block plane. It’s a little bit scarce, but hardly unobtainable at reasonable prices depending on condition. Just remember, for as well as the #95 performs its intended trimming and/or squaring functions, it is limited to creating ninety degree angles between the faces and edges of small pieces of stock. The #95 does not replace a good low angle block plane, but it does allow the user a relatively foolproof option for quickly squaring up small stock.
Jim C.
-
Thanks a ton for posting those craftsman made scratch stock pictures! I think it's always helpful to see the tools being described, particularly when someone isn't completely familiar with the topic. One of my hopes for this thread was to ensure that it was educational without being too technical and potentially boring. Pictures help a lot! What I like about the photos and the brief writeup you included, is that they clearly depict shop made tools that can be constructed relatively easily and then used successfully. Thanks again for taking the time to add that information to the thread.
Quite a few years ago I bought an English book on antique restoration. It showed tools that one seldom sees on this side of the pond. Lots of excellent information as well. It described using a scratch stock, but the scratch stock, probably made by Preston, was a cast iron beauty capable of holding wide blades or holding blades up to, maybe 8 inches from the fence. I thought it was wonderful, but unavailable. Then I took on a project making table top inserts for an antique table, and the skirt had to precisely match the existing skirt on the table. Then I found that none of my round and hollow planes matched the contours... Remembering that scratch stock, I thought I could make something, if crude, that would do the job. So was born my first scratch stock -- long bar and adjustable fence. I was prepared to find the job tedious and maybe troublesome, but the field expedient scratch stock worked quickly and very, very well, which was fortunate! The customer was a passed journeyman cabinet maker from Scotland, but was a building contractor here. Nervous I was! I used the tool for a couple of other projects that required duplication of moldings and
it never failed. No tool is better for reproducing obscure moldings.
-
Branson,
Thanks for the follow up details. I think it's good to see and hear about the practical uses of hand tools that may not be as commonly recognizable as some others. As I progress further into the thread, I'm still trying to determine what the readers will find interesting. I'm starting to lean toward featuring more tools that are truly useful and relatively obtainable, versus those that may be more likely categorized as purely "collectable." With that, I'll still try to feature the very best examples that I've got on hand for purposes of clarity, completeness, and factory originality. Certainly ALL the tools featured here can be used, but in reality, some are much more user friendly, affordable, available and functional. The scratch stock is definitely one of those tools that scores high marks in all those categories. The content you added really pulled together and explained the value of having a scratch stock in the shop. Good stuff! Thanks.
Jim C.
-
And the horn is not really straight. It curls around your hand a little.
And, at least from some makers, it's shaped to fit one side or the other - left or right hand. I once considered buying an ECE plane at a junk shop until I picked it up as I would normally use it, with right hand at the horn (yep, I'm left handed). It was so uncomfortable I put it down right away; like putting a shoe on the wrong foot. Too bad; if it had been a leftie plane, I might have haggled some to get the price down.
-
This will probably not come as anything new to those of you who have been reading along so far. If you’re absolutely honest with yourself, some of what I’ll say may even strike a few chords with you. I’ve been a “collector” since childhood. I don’t know why or what influenced me to be one, but I’m a “collector” to the bone. There must be some sort of obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD) in my DNA that drives me to collect. Ever since I was a young kid, my goal was to “collect the complete set”, and to “have one of every example.” It started with baseball cards in the 1960s and when I stopped collecting them in the 1990s, I literally had Hall of Fame worthy collection. The hunt for the rare card, completing the set, finding the variations, were always on my mind. Educating myself and learning history, facts, figures and anything to do with baseball cards fascinated me.
I’ve never gotten into anything that I didn’t throw myself into 100%. As a teenager I got interested in old cars and woodworking and those “hobbies” have stuck with me for decades. Over the years, a “hobby within the hobby” took hold, and my OCD kicked into overdrive. As much as I love driving and tinkering with old cars, and making projects out in the shop, I found that I really loved the tools for working on the cars and for making things from wood. That’s how I eventually took an interest in hand planes. As you know, I started out using them, but that eventually morphed into collecting them. Me being me, it was almost unavoidable. As my knowledge, and experience grew, so did my collecting habits. I can’t resist complete, clean examples of old planes. I simply can’t walk away from those pristine tools that still retain their original boxes, pamphlets, instructions, etc. I guess it’s a sickness. Maybe some of you can relate to that. Maybe some of you collect things for reasons that only you can understand. I’ve been collecting planes for several years now with no end in sight. The old tool bug has bitten me so hard that in the last couple years, I’ve started actively collecting Sears Craftsman mechanics tools from the 1950s and 1960s. Maybe you’ve seen the Craftsman =V= Tools thread I started on this site?
Anyway, you’re probably wondering where I’m going with this. If you look back in this thread to Page 2, Reply 16, you’ll remember that we were discussing razor plane planes. I had a couple that I received from my dad and grandfather, so I featured them in the thread. I thought they would be interesting. Remember? If you take a little time to review that prior post, I stated that I really don’t collect razor blade planes and didn’t really think they delivered on actual performance. During the post, I mentioned that I was missing the curved sole “Little Giant.” At the time I wrote that, I didn’t see myself ever buying that little plane, nor even looking for it………. but then I came across this. As soon as I saw it, I knew I was doomed. Still, I tried to resist it, and I tried to tell myself that it was outside of my collection’s primary focus. But who was I kidding? It hit EVERY aspect of collecting that I hold near and dear to my OCD riddled heart. It’s a complete, never used set of planes with original packaging, sales pamphlets, and instructions. From a rational tool user’s standpoint, I really view them almost as toys, and I know that I’m NEVER going to use these planes!!! As some of you know, and may be willing to admit, the rational tool user in you, and the tool collector in you can be in conflict. In my case, the “collector” usually wins the argument.
Jim C.
-
nice!! did you try them out? must have been a pretty penny for that one?
-
nice!! did you try them out? must have been a pretty penny for that one?
Hey oldtools,
No, I will most probably not ever try them out. Part of my OCD collector mentality would never allow me to actually use an antique tool that's not been used prior to it coming into my possession. They're safe until I'm gone from this earth. Then who knows? Maybe the next guy will try them out. Like I mentioned in an earlier post, I do have a couple razor blade planes that I received from my dad and grandfather. I have used them and wasn't really impressed. Anything more than balsa wood or some really soft pine would probably be too much for these little guys to handle. As I tried to explain earlier today, the collector part of me couldn't pass them up. If the planes and their associated materials had been anything less than in NOS condition, I would have, and could have easily passed on them. But as you can see, they're in great condition for being about fifty years old.
As for the price, I usually don't like to disclose what I paid for a tool, because that can only be determined between a buyer and seller. A tool that has little or no monetary value to me, might be the one tool someone else needs to complete a set, or simply finsh a project. Suddenly that tool takes on a value that might seem unreasonable to the rest of us. Vintage razor blade planes are generally not very collectible. Even in mint condition, they're still not sought after, so in this instance, I'll break my own rule. I paid about $13 for the set. For me, it wasn't about the money spent, it was about finding, preserving, and observing an antique tool in its most original, untouched form.
Jim C.
-
I think it's good that you broke your rule this time. At that price the set could have been picked up by any one. I, for one, am glad that you bought those tools. I think they work well with, or at least along side of, the planes you have shared with us from your collection.
Sometimes the side roads are dead ends, and sometimes they are the most memorable part of the journey. You can't know unless you try a few.
Chilly
-
Well stated Chilly. The tool is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it. Knowing what I paid for the razor blade planes only gives you an idea of what they were worth given the circumstances in which I found them. If there had been a room full of collectors bidding at an auction, they may have gone for more, though I doubt much more. Still, others might think I overpaid. My motivation wasn't the rarity of the tools themselves. I don't think the planes are very scarce at all. I was drawn to the rarity of their physical condition, and the inclusion of their original box and paperwork.
Jim C.
-
To use or to preserve... Quite a dilemma. I would almost have to try them once. My initial reason for buying old tools was to understand their use, the way they felt in the hands of those who worked with them, to understand something of their lives and the ways they made things and made their livelihood with these tools. I had the opportunity to pick up and handle some of James Marshall's tools. I could see where he held them in use, see how they felt in his hands. Somewhere I have stashed drawings, rubbings and measurements of the dividers he built and used to build the saw mill where gold was discovered. I'll make a replica of these when I find the drawings again.
Of the tools I've accumulated over the many years now, the only one I haven't used is a neolithic stone ax.
That first reason is still important to me; I want to know how a tool works in use. I don't like the idea of a tool not allowed to do its job. But the museum nerd in me understands that these things are only virgins once, that using a pristine, virgin tool prevents later generations from seeing the thing as it first existed. So now, should I find a tool in the condition you found these little planes, I, regretfully, would not try them out. I'd look for another that had seen use and play with it.
-
To use or to preserve... Quite a dilemma. I would almost have to try them once. My initial reason for buying old tools was to understand their use, the way they felt in the hands of those who worked with them, to understand something of their lives and the ways they made things and made their livelihood with these tools. I had the opportunity to pick up and handle some of James Marshall's tools. I could see where he held them in use, see how they felt in his hands. Somewhere I have stashed drawings, rubbings and measurements of the dividers he built and used to build the saw mill where gold was discovered. I'll make a replica of these when I find the drawings again.
Of the tools I've accumulated over the many years now, the only one I haven't used is a neolithic stone ax.
That first reason is still important to me; I want to know how a tool works in use. I don't like the idea of a tool not allowed to do its job. But the museum nerd in me understands that these things are only virgins once, that using a pristine, virgin tool prevents later generations from seeing the thing as it first existed. So now, should I find a tool in the condition you found these little planes, I, regretfully, would not try them out. I'd look for another that had seen use and play with it.
Hi Branson,
I think you're right. I do like trying out old tools and I have tried out some that were really close to being NOS quality. I admit that I use those sparingly. The urge to try them is still very tempting. If you recall, I did have a chance to try out a couple razor blade planes that were passed on to me by my dad and grandfather. The results were less than impressive. As for these two little NOS planes, the urge to use them isn't that strong. Having had some very limited experience with the others, and knowing what kind of results they'll deliver, I think I'll just leave the NOS planes as is.
You know, about a year ago however, I needed a router plane for a small project that I was working on. It was the perfect and the most efficient tool for the job at hand. My "user" was at my parents house, so I actually broke out a NOS Stanley #71 1/2 and finished the cut. It worked great and was no worse off than when I started. It was probably the first and only time the plane had ever touched wood. In a pinch I'll use almost any tool, provided it's the "right" tool, and regardless of its condition. Still, with that being said, I'll go to great lengths to keep a NOS tool in NOS condition while it's in my possession. I usually follow up by taking your approach...... I go find a "user" to have fun with.
Below are the two Stanley #71 1/2 router planes I mentioned above. The plane in the upper left section of the picture is the NOS plane I used to finish a cut so I could keep my project moving along. Routers were traditionally nickel plated, but notice that it's JAPANNED. For those of you reading along.... that's a clue to it's approximate age! I hope you're thinking WWII. The router in the lower right section of the photo is my "user." Although it looks dark, that's just decades of patina, as it was manufactured with nickel plating from the factory. Traces of nickel plating remain here and there, but it's mostly gone. It's a Type 4, and was produced from 1911 - 1924. The japanned version is a Type 7, that was manufactured from 1942 - 1945.
Jim C.
-
I won't tell anyone you used that NOS. Weren't some of the very earliest of these also japaned? I picked up a 71 1/2 many years ago and have used it
many a time. Great for setting hinges. I was so impressed with its performance that when I ran across a 271 a couple of years later, I snapped it up. As luck would have it, it was NOS, in box, with the paper work. The blade had never been sharpened. I thought I'd get around to sharpening it an putting the tool to use. But I didn't, and now I won't. Last year I ran across a 71 for about no money (missing all the front end stuff) so I picked that one up. I've fitted it up with a mahogany sole -- still needs some attention. Always good to have a back up, eh? Then I found a bronze coachmaker's router that I found irresistible on eBay (but nobody else liked it enough to put in a bid). I don't know a lot about this one, but another came up that obviously came out of the same mold. Still working on that one to bring it up to snuff.
-
Love that router Mike!! Yowza, nobody fought you for that?
Honestly, pattern shop bronze tools are just plain hard to finish out. No way to sugar coat that. The casting pits and sand cast unevenness are tough to deal with.
It takes skill and time, believe me.
So hardly anyone goes after them.
Wonderful for us though!!
Polish that girl up and put her to work!!
yours Scott
-
Nope, not a single bid other than mine -- $4.25. Couldn't believe it. I thought it was a one-off until I ran across another one that had a fence as well. But then, I got a brass rabbet spokshave on another single bid, and a couple of other nice things on very cheap single bids (early pad saw $.99 cleaned up fine!). There's no figuring this. It seems to help if the item is oxidized and/or grimy. Some weeks I guess collectors are asleep at the wheel.
Just got some miracle brass and copper polish (no longer legal in California) and she's gonna brighten up a lot. That screw that holds the blade is going to get replaced with a brass thumb screw, too. There's a little unevenness in one spot, but no visible voids at all. Gloat. The blade is blacksmith made, so I can build me a set of different blades.
-
Hi Branson. That really is one nice old router, and it's a big one too! 14 inches!! I'm definitely interested. How heavy do you think it is? Do you think it's USA made or possibly British? Are there any makers marks on it? What size cutter does it have? Have you had a chance to test it out? Thanks for posting the picture. Tell us more.
Jim C.
Branson,
Looks like we posted at almost the same time and you did answer a couple of my questions. I'm really looking forward to seeing it all cleaned up. Please keep us updated on this one!!
-
Naa its not going to brighten up much no matter what potion you rub it with. Even a heavy wire brush will only take you so far. Its sand cast. That means little lumps overall.
Here is a tip. Get yourself a sanding mop. This is narrow strips of belt sander belt ganged up on an arbor. Klingspor makes them, but you can make your own if you find some cheap belts somewhere.
These are flexible and will follow a curve real nice.
And flexible rubber backup sanding pads to mount into a drill.
These do a lot of work for me,....... a lot. Standard 5" pads, but you want the older natural rubber ones )not the new vinyl kind uck)
No sweat though, they are always at the swap meet. And usually disks too. But Enco is your real friend 3 or 4 times a year. They sell the better adhesive backs disks and have them "on sale" several times a year as a general rule.
The heavy paper 3M disks you find everywhere are good in the heavier grits, but useless at 240. Enco will sell you 100 240's in a roll (box) for a price you can live with. OK barely live with but its worth it.
Here is my patternmaker sand cast Stanley 80. The first shot is after heavy wire brushing. No help.
Full finish takes abrasives.
yours Scott
-
Nice looking tool Scott and good info on getting them shined up too!!
Jim C.
-
In an effort to feature planes that are truly useful in the shop, I thought I’d highlight a plane that’s known by a few different names to include duplex, rabbet, and fillister. The plane featured below has two seats (cutting iron locations), thus allowing the user to position the cutting iron near the center of the plane, or closer to the front of the plane in the bull nose position (photos 5 and 6). Hence the name “duplex plane.” It’s a tool with two identical parts (or seats in this case) within one framework, each of which can operate alone and independent from the other. It’s also been called a “rabbet plane.” Just a quick glance at this plane clearly shows that it was made to cut rabbet joints. There’s probably not too much more explanation needed for that particular moniker being attached to the plane. It cuts rabbet joints so it’s a rabbet plane. Still, I’ve also heard this plane referred to as “fillister plane.” I believe there may be a part of traditional window sash called the fillister. As I understand it, that’s the rabbet shaped section of the sash that holds the glass and putty in place, so the term fillister makes sense. Somewhere along the line, I recall that a fillister plane was one that included attachments such as a fence, and/or depth stop, and/or nicker, also called a “spur” (photo 4). Regardless, I think one could call this plane any of the three names (Duplex Plane, Rabbet Plane, Fillister Plane) and be correct.
This plane combines several elements that make it easy to use. The cutting iron in the aft position is adjustable for a fine pass via a small toothed lever that engages grooves on the back of the cutting iron itself. In the forward (bull nose) position, the same adjustment must be made by hand or by administering a few light taps with small brass hammer on the top edge of the cutting iron. The plane also employs an adjustable fence that rides along the edge of the work piece, thus controlling the width of the rabbet. On the opposite side of the plane’s main body, a depth stop can be adjusted up and down, and is held in place with a thumb screw, thus controlling the final height of the rabbet’s shoulder. Rabbet joints are not always cut in the direction of the wood’s grain. Occasionally they must be cut across the grain. In an effort to minimize tear out at the shoulder of the rabbet joint, a nicker (or spur) can be set to lightly score across the grain ahead of the cutting iron. The nicker sits flush with the side of the plane and scores the grain leaving the shoulder smooth and the cut clean. By loosening the small screw holding the nicker to the side of the plane, the nicker can be employed or retracted just by rotating it in and out of the milled recess on the plane’s body.
Like any tool with a cutting edge, the sharper the cutting edge is, the better the tool will perform. I find myself frequently cutting rabbet joints to assemble various projects. There’s a number of different ways to create a rabbet joint with powered mechanical equipment such as a router/router table, table saw with dado blade setup, or even on a jointer. Those methods are perfectly acceptable and usually provide great results. I’ve used them many times myself. That being said, for those small one of a kind, easy to clamp to the bench projects, I reach for the duplex/rabbet/fillister plane depicted below.
Stanley #78:
This plane was one of the most successful tools Stanley ever produced! It was manufactured from 1884 well into the 1980s and possibly longer. The #78 depicted below is a Type 13, manufactured between 1925 and 1935. Stanley manufactured the #78 under several brand names, and saw its basic style copied by other manufacturers as well. When production finally ended in the USA, Stanley continued making the #78 in England. For versatility’s sake, the fence and fence rod can be mounted on either side of the plane. It should also be noted that the cutting iron depth adjustment lever was added in 1925 and was retained as a feature on all subsequent versions of the plane. To the best of my knowledge, the plane has always been finished with black japanning and nickel plated trimmings. There was a time (1925 – 1935) when Stanley manufactured an aluminum version of this plane, the #A78. The body of the plane was cast with model number “A78” and it was left unfinished with a natural aluminum color. The #A78’s attachments (fence, depth stop) were also made of cast aluminum. Those two parts are extremely difficult to find separately. Interestingly, the lever cap was still made of cast iron. If you’re ever unsure about the parts on a #A78, just test them with a magnet. It won’t stick to the aluminum. While the #A78 is a relatively scarce tool, the #78 is not. They’re practically everywhere and sell for very reasonable prices even in top condition. Be picky if you decide to buy a #78 for your shop. Get one in complete condition. Parts are readily available, but individually, they can add up. This might not be one of the first “user” planes on your want list, but it should probably be in your top twelve.
Jim C.
-
I could not agree more that the 78 is among the most useful planes.
Of course I really like all of the solid iron rabbet planes.
Hardly anyone else does, but I use them all the time. The 78, the 180 series and the 190 series too.
These are all very simple and practically bulletproof planes.
The era of the plane matters to me though. The later they get, the lesser the construction. The balance in your hand changes dramatically. A lot of difference to me.
For me the presence of a bottom spur on the tote is the cutoff point. While a few of the later models are better than the newest ones, its not as easy to tell the "good" ones at a glance.
Its come up before, so I already had a picture. If you look closely at this picture, you will see three different eras of the same kind of plane.
The top one is the first model. The first model has scrolls on the handle.
Notice the spur on the bottom of the tote, but also see the shape of the tote itself. Its serpentine shaped. Its connected to the plane by fairly long attachments both top and bottom.
Now look and the bottom plane in the picture. Its the newest model in the picture.
See the tote? It has all the shape of a billy club, and its connected to the plane by short attachments that not only change the angle of the tote in relation to the plane, but they limit the space for your hand inside.
Either of the top two models is a world better, to me.
yours Scott
-
^^^^^ Nice followup Scottg!!!! I'm always interested in getting into the details. I'm glad you jumped in on this one. That little spur on the handle is an early feature that was part of the plane from its inception in the 1880s to about 1910, then, for some reason, the handle's design was changed. Perhaps because the handle was easier to manufacture without it, and/or because that little spur was fragile and may have been prone to cracking off?? I really don't know the answer to that question. From a pure aesthetics perspective, the earlier models are much more stylish.
As for the very similar looking Stanley #180 and #190 models, I'll try to feature those at some point down the road. Now that I know you have a few on hand, I'll expect more pictures!!!
Jim C.
-
>I believe there may be a part of traditional window sash called the fillister.
Yep. Fillister is the name of the rabbet that holds the glass.
-
Thanks for the confirmation Branson. Nice to know that you guys are reading this stuff and checking my facts and figures for accuracy. I really do appreciate that.
Jim C.
-
I can’t think of too many tools, accessories, or attachments that Stanley made to enhance the versatility and/or utility of its hand planes. With the exception of the hollow and round soles that were not included with the basic Stanley #45 combination plane but could be purchased separately, and the various additional cutter sets that could be added to the #45 and #55 combination planes, most Stanley planes came with everything one needed to use the tool to the extent that it was designed. The only other plane that comes to mind would be the Stanley #51 chute board plane. It could be combined with the Stanley chute board, to create the model #52 chute board and plane. There may have also been a few weather strip planes (for window sash) that came with a single width cutter but were also capable of using other widths that had to be purchased separately. Anyway, we’ll talk about some of those down the road. Having mentioned those exceptions (and there could be a few more that I missed), Stanley and most other manufacturer’s were pretty good about including cutters, fences, stops, etc. with their basic plane offerings. Most of the time, the user had what he/she needed just by purchasing the plane and its respective parts. There was however, one other accessory that made jointing longer stock a little easier and potentially more accurate, but it was sold separately.
Stanley #386 Jointer Gauge:
At first glance, this tool may look like a “contraption” of sorts. If you’re not familiar with it, it’s a jointer gauge. The #386 was designed to clamp to the side walls of longer bench planes (between sizes 5 and 8) for purposes of aiding in the accuracy of jointing long stock. It’s actually a well thought out tool. As you can see, the clamping mechanisms were fairly simple and could be adjusted up and down by means of a knurled screw at each end. Those screws sit on top of the plane’s arched side wall and allowed the #386 to be attached to almost any point and still follow the side wall’s contour. The screws were then adjusted to keep the #386 an equal distance from the plane’s sole at the front and back. Studying the photos below, it’s easy to see how the #386’s fence could be adjusted to produce different angles along the edge of a work piece. I believe the fence had a working range between 30 degrees and 90 degrees. With the use of a reliable machinists square, setting the #386’s fence at a right angle to the sole of the plane is pretty easy. Still, it’s not foolproof. If your cutting iron is slightly askew in the plane itself, then the results of your first few passes will probably not be a 90 degree corner between the face and edge of the work piece. You might need to make some little adjustments using the plane’s lateral adjustment lever. If you’re trying to make an angle that is something other than 90 degrees, then keep checking your results with an accurate measuring tool after every few passes. The best way to really see what I’m talking about is to use the #386 on a plane. Hands on experience is really going to be the best teacher in this case. I’d also recommend picking a specific plane and dedicating it to jointing work. Square the plane’s iron to the bottom of the plane’s sole with the lateral adjusting lever, set it for a light pass, and then attach the #386 gauge to the plane’s side wall. Use a square to adjust the fence and make a few passes on some scrap stock. If you’re happy with the results, then you’re ready to start jointing stock. It will take a little tinkering to get everything set up just right, but once you have it, leave the #386 mounted on the plane and use that as your “go to” jointer.
I use the set up depicted below to make one last pass over stock that I’ve run across my mechanical/powered jointer. A super sharp hand plane equipped with the #386 eliminates the microscopic scalloping on the surface of the machined edge and leaves it perfectly smooth. If you were wondering, I use a Stanley #7C with my #386 jointer gauge. For some reason, that particular plane, when outfitted with the #386, seems to give me great results every time. I’ve tried others, but I like THAT plane, so I’ve dedicated it as my go to jointer. It seems to be the right size, weight and length for me. The iron is ground and set perfectly for jointing. Others may like using a longer plane like the #8, or something a little shorter like a #6. Whatever works best for each individual is the “right” plane.
The #386 was manufactured between 1911 and 1947. They were usually nickel plated, but like many from the WWII era, they can occasionally be found with a black japanned finish. The rosewood knob can be installed on either end of the #386 so that the tool itself can be mounted on either side of the plane. The #386’s fence also has factory installed holes in it for mounting a longer auxiliary wooden fence for added accuracy and for using against the face of a finished surface. I see these at tool shows and at auctions all the time. They’re relatively common in various states of condition. If you decide to buy a #386, make absolutely sure that the clamping mechanisms are complete and free from damage. If it can’t easily be attached to the plane, it’s worthless. The #386 is a “try it and see” tool in my book. It’s not essential for accurately jointing the edges of boards. Good technique, the properly adjusted plane, and practice eliminate the need for the #386. On the other hand, it’s fun to use, and once it’s set and installed on a plane, it speeds up the jointing process and delivers very good, easily repeatable results.
Jim C.
-
I couldn't add all the pictures in the previous post, but I wanted to include a few more of the #386's clamping mechanism.
Jim C. (who was a little long winded and camera crazy today)
-
Thanks, Jim.
This adds to the research documentation which would be incomplete without your dissertations. "Long winded" ? No. Much and much more can, I'm sure, and should be said if the whole story be told. And "camera crazy"? You know how we love and thrive on pictures. We want more. Please continue sharing your research.
Ralph
-
Thanks, Jim.
This adds to the research documentation which would be incomplete without your dissertations. "Long winded" ? No. Much and much more can, I'm sure, and should be said if the whole story be told. And "camera crazy"? You know how we love and thrive on pictures. We want more. Please continue sharing your research.
Ralph
Well said, Ralph!
-
Hey Ralph and Papaw,
Thanks for your continued support. I'm really glad that you've been reading along and stuck with the thread this far. There's more to come.
Jim C.
-
Glad to see this essay on the jointer gauge! I've always wanted to play with one, but never found one I could afford. I think I'll look a little harder now.
-
Hi Branson,
I should also thank you too for keeping up with the thread, and everyone else for that matter. It's funny that you referred to my last post an "essay." That makes it sound long. I think you got right though!! I did turn it into an essay. When I finished it, even I thought it was too long. I usually start these posts off thinking that I'll make a few comments and then add some pictures. Keep it simple. Before I start these write ups, I know generally what I want to say. I want to be detailed, but concise. If I can throw in a little history, then I try to do that too. I think I got carried away with this last one. Anyway, I'm glad you hung in there with it. I've got some other good planes in store for future posts. I'll try to keep them brief and too the point....I hope!!
Getting back to the #386, I'd really encourage you to get one and give it a try. If you like to tinker, and you have a couple hours to play around out in the shop. then the #386 is for you. Once it's mounted on your perfectly tuned, favorite jointer and set for a specific angle, you will be amazed at how nicely the gauge produces a flat, smooth, repeatable angle. Mine is usually set at 90 degrees. I'm very careful not to knock anything out of whack when it's not in use. It's so easy to pick up a plane outfitted with the #386 make one pass along the edge of the work piece and then keep moving on with the project at hand. It's almost effortless, and it's kind of fun to use.
I hear what you're saying about the cost. They're usually more than just a few dollars even in so-so condition. Finding a pristine example in an original box will set you back a couple hundred dollars. A good, undamaged, complete user will probably be closer to $50 or so. Still not cheap, but a great "gift" to yourself for being a good guy. Right? Remember, the lack of nickel plating will not even remotely impact the utility or effectiveness of the tool. The main thing is to make sure the clamping mechanisms are complete. The rosewood knob can be replaced with anything you could make on the lathe, and the adjustment screws are most likely a common thread. If you're interested, I can provide you with all that information. Make sure that the fence operates correctly and is undamaged, and I think you're good to go. If you find one in rough shape for a great price, you impress me as the type of guy who could easily fix it up and make it useable. I hope you get one.
Jim C.
-
First, I'll join Art and Papaw and encourage you to continue writing your "long winded" pieces. Anybody don't like 'em don't have to read them through. They save me lots of research, and I never think you have written too much or included too many pictures (is "too many pictures" possible on Tool Talk?)
I'm pretty good at keeping a right angle with a plane, but anything that uses coopered joints would make the 386 a dream to have. As a user, I don't care ifr it has a nickel finish. And there is a #7 and a #7C sitting in my shop right now. I'm still keeping my eyes open for one.
-
Hey Mike
Stanley did not make enough 386 jointer fences. So they tend to sell for money in any useable condition.
Fortunately Millers Falls did, and so did a couple others. I use a Millers myself.
Getting a serviceable jointer fence is not criminally expensive.
yours Scott
-
Hey Scottg,
Any chance you could post a picture or two of your Millers Falls jointer gauge? It would be great if the readers could compare and contrast it with the Stanley version. It's also nice to get a look at other options/tools that may be more readily available. Thanks.
Jim C.
-
I've been doing a little research on the Millers Falls jointer gauge, and believe that it was model #88. It seems to be relatively similar to the Stanley #386 regarding its intended function, but a little different in appearance and manner of adjustment. From what I can tell, it seems to attach to the side of a long bench plane with a cam lever mechanism, versus the clamp mechanism on the Stanley. Also, whereas the Stanley angle adjustment is a stamped steel slotted arc that's attached to the fence at a pivot point, the Millers Falls version employs a steel rod that's attached on a pivot point to the fence. The #386 is outfitted with a nickel plated thumb screw to secure its angle adjustment while the #88 appears to have a large knurled nut for the same purpose. The thumb screw works just fine, but I think I might like the knurled nut more. What I do like about both jointer gauges is that they can be mounted on a plane and adjusted without the use of other tools, such as wrench, screwdriver, etc. At least I know that's true of the Stanley version and I don't see anything on the #88 that makes me think otherwise of it. Having never used the Millers Falls version, I can't say that its features are any better or worse than the Stanley jointer gauge. If the cam levers work the way I envision them to operate, then attaching the #88 to a bench plane seems rather easy. I'm still not sure how much up and down adjustment there is with the #88. The Stanley #386 might be somewhat more versatile in that regard. As for finding and setting the desired angle of the fence, it seems that both tools would be easy to adjust and secure for accuracy. I did take a look at Ebay in an effort to at least get an idea of prices and found two for sale. One looked like it was in top condition in its original box and had a starting bid of $199, and another one had a lot of patina on it and had a starting bid of $40. I don't know if either one will sell for those prices, but they were not too much different than what I'd expect to pay for a Stanley #386 in similar condition. I'm sorry that I don't have a Millers Falls example to show you, but with just a little research, finding pictures of them on the Internet is pretty easy.
Jim C.
-
The 1904 MF catalog pictures it, but gives no model number, simply calling it "the Perfection Jointer Gauge." The blurb talks about the "ease and rapidity with which it can be attached to or removed from a plane." Also mentioned is that it is designed to "provide adjustment to the varying heights of Iron planes." MF goes on to say that it can be attached to either Iron or wooden planes. For wooden planes, the cam locks are removed, and "round head wood screws are used in the arm slots instead." Iron, Japanned finish $18 per dozen.
A later MF catalog also calls it the Perfection Jointer Gauge, and gives the price as $22 per dozen, and gives the finish as black enamel.
The picture in both catalogs is identical.
Now to find one at either of these prices...
-
Jim C, Branson and Scott, thank you for this wonderful thread. You have long since gone beyond my knowledge base. That is pretty much why I don't post much, but I have certainly learned a lot With 3800 views, I suspect there are quite a few more like me. Jim, we know a bit about Scott and Mike and their backgrounds, maybe you could tell us a little about how you got to where you are?
-
Are you ready for another block plane? Ready or not, here goes. Over the years, most block planes changed very little in form and function from their original marketed designs. Various improvements and changes were made along the way that allegedly added to a plane’s utility, versatility, and ease of use. One such improvement (in my opinion) was Stanley’s “knuckle cap.” It replaced the traditional stippled lever/cam pressure cap design that is so familiar on most Stanley block planes. From my perspective, the knuckle cap was a step up in user comfort versus the open pressure cap, and is generally easier to mount on the plane itself. The knuckle cap design provided a solid smooth surface on which the user could rest his/her palm, thus aiding the user’s ability to apply more downward and forward pressure as the plane was put into motion. To put it simply, I think the knuckle style cap is just more comfortable to use. I’ve noticed that current hand plane manufacturers, such as Lie-Nielsen, have continued using a closed cap design on their block planes presumably for the same reason. The more of one’s hand that can be comfortably in contact with the tool will probably add to its accuracy in use. The knuckle cap might also add a little more weight to the plane, which is generally a good thing. A heavy plane in motion usually stays in motion, and having a more comfortable cap to push against helps that process. Let’s take a look.
Stanley #65:
This is really a great block plane and one of my favorites for several reasons. Its features include a cutting iron bedded at a low angle, an adjustable throat, its weight, and the “knuckle cap.” Setting the low angle iron for a fine pass and closing the throat makes it ideal for working end grain. At seven inches long, the plane itself is on the large size when it comes to traditional looking block planes, so it’s relatively heavy. Again, a heavy plane is generally a good thing. Finally, the addition of the knuckle cap added to its overall usability and visual appearance. I know that appearance alone shouldn’t be a major factor in the overall evaluation of the tool, but I must say, it’s a just a great looking plane.
Stanley manufactured the #65 from 1898 to 1969, but it didn’t start out with the knuckle cap. Early versions of the #65 were produced with a nickel plated stippled lever cam pressure cap. Somewhere around 1905, Stanley started marketing the #65 with the knuckle cap. Just by looking at the knuckle cap’s design, it must have been a little more difficult and expensive to manufacture. There was a lot going on beneath that pretty nickel plated cap. With various pivot points, rivets, and small connections, the knuckle cap was a real piece of fine and functional engineering. The knuckle cap remained as a feature on the #65 until about 1960, when Stanley reverted back to outfitting it with the traditional pressure cap (probably to save money). The plane depicted below is a Type 9, manufactured between 1951 and 1956, near the bitter end of Stanley’s golden age of hand plane production. The plane itself and its original box do give me some physical clues as to age. If you notice, I’ve included a close up photograph of the plane’s left side. The photo shows that the plane has been stamped with ”No. 65.” Stanley started stamping model numbers on the left side of its block planes in about 1950. Although I didn’t include detailed photos of the plane’s box, from experience I know that the box itself predates changes that were made to box construction in approximately 1956-57 and later. Taking those factors into account, I’d reasonably guess that the plane was made in the early 1950s. The #65 is a plane that’s still available, but not one that I normally see at garage sales and flea markets. I think in its day, the #65 was probably considered a higher end block plane, and thus possibly rejected as being too expensive by the average DIYer/homeowner. I think that today, good user quality examples exist, but they are prized by serious woodworkers and traditional cabinetmakers, so competition to acquire them could be stiff. Still, the #65 is most definitely a plane worth owning and was probably one of Stanley’s best ever!
Jim C.
-
The 1904 MF catalog pictures it, but gives no model number, simply calling it "the Perfection Jointer Gauge." The blurb talks about the "ease and rapidity with which it can be attached to or removed from a plane." Also mentioned is that it is designed to "provide adjustment to the varying heights of Iron planes." MF goes on to say that it can be attached to either Iron or wooden planes. For wooden planes, the cam locks are removed, and "round head wood screws are used in the arm slots instead." Iron, Japanned finish $18 per dozen.
A later MF catalog also calls it the Perfection Jointer Gauge, and gives the price as $22 per dozen, and gives the finish as black enamel.
The picture in both catalogs is identical.
Now to find one at either of these prices...
Well done Branson!!!! Thanks for the additional information. GREAT stuff!!! If you're lucky, you might just find a good "user" for $20 or so. I hope you do.
Jim C. (who always appreciates learning more about old hand planes)
-
Jim C, Branson and Scott, thank you for this wonderful thread. You have long since gone beyond my knowledge base. That is pretty much why I don't post much, but I have certainly learned a lot With 3800 views, I suspect there are quite a few more like me. Jim, we know a bit about Scott and Mike and their backgrounds, maybe you could tell us a little about how you got to where you are?
Hey John,
I'm glad you're enjoying the thread, but I'm also a little concerned, because it sounds like you might like to post some content and/or comments now and then, but are maybe a little hesitant to do so. I started the thread with the sincere hope that EVERYONE, regardless of their familiarity level with planes, would join in without feeling any sense of intimidation. It's simply about enjoying hand planes no matter where you are in the grand scheme of things, and on your own individual terms. I'm presenting content in an effort to stimulate conversations about hand planes. Ask a question, make a comment, feature a plane from your shop, etc. Jump in John!!!
As for how I arrived here, well, probably the same way mostly everyone else did. I love old cars, machinery, traditional woodworking, and consequently the tools associated with such things. When it comes to hand planes, woodworking naturally led me directly to them. It took a while to figure out that they were really useful tools, but once I saw the light, I was hooked. That's how I got here. One man in particular really got me started on collecting planes. He was a real gentleman, super knowledgeable about old tools and Stanley planes, and a good friend. We talked about old tools and planes at least once every week or so for several years on the telephone and via emails. As seemingly unbelievable as it may sound, we never met in person due mostly in part to the fact that we lived several states apart from each other. Unfortunately he died almost two years ago. I miss those conversations and I miss my old friend. In a way, I started this thread in his memory. Several of the planes that I have already featured, and will feature here in the future, came from his amazing collection. He sent some planes my way that I NEVER would have found with out his help and generosity. I hope you'll enjoy them as much as I do, and I hope you'll stay tuned.
Jim C.
-
We will all stay tuned, Jim!
-
We will all stay tuned, Jim!
Okay Papaw! This has been the perfect venue for this thread. Thanks for following along, and thanks to everyone who has stuck with it this far. I still have a few more planes to feature.
Jim C.
-
>The knuckle cap design provided a solid smooth surface on which the user could rest his/her palm, thus aiding the user’s ability to apply more downward and forward pressure as the plane was put into motion.
Perhaps a bit too much aid in the user's ability to apply more pressure. I have one -- grabbed it quickly for theft-quality price. When I had a chance to look carefully at it, I found the back of the mouth had a crack on each end, and that the mouth had been pushed down from the sole slightly. I've still got it, but I'm just not sure what to do with it.
-
Hey Branson,
Good point!! Thanks!! Like almost ANY hand plane or cast iron tool, over tightening its parts just a little too much will more than likely cause something to give. That's definitely one of the drawbacks to low angle planes. The sole immediately behind the throat feathers down and is relatively thin. Too much downward pressure from over tightening a knuckle cap, or even the more traditional lever cam type cap could potentially cause a crack. If you couple that with an iron set for an aggressive cut, or if it's a little dull thus causing the operator to really push, the elements are all there for a crack. I REALLY do appreciate you mentioning this!! I should have stressed that point and made sure to say that low angle block planes in particular should not be over tightened and they should be set for a light pass for the reasons stated above. I guess that should be the rule of thumb for most cast iron planes and tools.
Jim C.
-
Well its been raining for days straight here. no light for a good outdoor picture. So I finally broke down and took a flash picture of my Millers Falls gauge.
Even back in the old days before tools were hardly collected at all, the Stanley 396 gauges sold for money. Not a lot of money, but then I didn't have any. heehhee
There were a number of tools I wanted but never got to have because the price was just a little too much for me. Anything approaching 10 dollars was over the top. Mostly anything over 5 dollars was too much.
As tools became more collectible the price only rose.
But Millers Falls? Nobody cared about Millers at all once. I got this from a junk dealer who called himself Arkie Don. He ran a junk shop at the edge of Medford Oregon for 5 or 6 years. Don loved to haggle. You never paid his asking even after the third re-offer. It was back and forth for 1/2 an hour with insults and threats and gnashing of teeth and all the rest of it. I love it too.
"May they pull things from your body not even science can identify!!"
I remember this was about 4 dollars.
I have been using it when needed these past 35 years and thensome. Its simple to attach with its little cam levers, and easy to set and operate.
I don't use it that much. Most of the time working by eye is close enough.
But I wouldn't give it up either.
(http://users.snowcrest.net/kitty/sgrandstaff/images/oldtools/millersgauge.jpg)
yours Scott
-
Well its been raining for days straight here. no light for a good outdoor picture. So I finally broke down and took a flash picture of my Millers Falls gauge.
Even back in the old days before tools were hardly collected at all, the Stanley 396 gauges sold for money. Not a lot of money, but then I didn't have any. heehhee
There were a number of tools I wanted but never got to have because the price was just a little too much for me. Anything approaching 10 dollars was over the top. Mostly anything over 5 dollars was too much.
As tools became more collectible the price only rose.
But Millers Falls? Nobody cared about Millers at all once. I got this from a junk dealer who called himself Arkie Don. He ran a junk shop at the edge of Medford Oregon for 5 or 6 years. Don loved to haggle. You never paid his asking even after the third re-offer. It was back and forth for 1/2 an hour with insults and threats and gnashing of teeth and all the rest of it. I love it too.
"May they pull things from your body not even science can identify!!"
I remember this was about 4 dollars.
I have been using it when needed these past 35 years and thensome. Its simple to attach with its little cam levers, and easy to set and operate.
I don't use it that much. Most of the time working by eye is close enough.
But I wouldn't give it up either.
(http://users.snowcrest.net/kitty/sgrandstaff/images/oldtools/millersgauge.jpg)
yours Scott
Scottg thanks for posting a picture of your Millers Falls #88 jointer gauge! A picture really is worth a thousand words, and definitely a lot better than my weak attempt to describe it and compare it to the Stanley version. I really appreciate your efforts! Thanks again.
Jim C.
P.S. I also enjoyed the story about how you acquired it!!
-
Lately I’ve been trying to feature planes that are truly useful, relatively accessible, and are not priced to break the bank. Stanley and many other manufacturers made several such models through the years and they sold very well. Today I’m NOT going to feature one of those useable, “everyone should have one of these” planes. I’ll go back to them in the future, but every once in awhile, it’s fun to throw a curve ball and keep things interesting. A few days ago, another hand plane enthusiast/collector contacted me with a few questions about one of Stanley’s lesser known, more obscure planes. I went out to the shop, pulled it out of a box, took a few pictures of it and sent the requested information to my friend. As I was about to return the plane to its box, never to be seen again, I decided that since it was out on my bench, I’d feature it in this thread.
Stanley #278:
By just looking at this particular plane, it might not be obvious that it’s a rabbet/fillister plane. Don’t feel bad if you didn't know that. The first time I saw the thing, I had no idea what it did either. I’ll say that it’s a neat looking little contraption, but that’s about where my admiration for using it ends. It has several features that one might think are handy like a fence and depth stop that can be mounted on either side of the plane. It has spurs milled into both sides of the nosepiece for scoring across the grain ahead of the cut. The nosepiece is removable thus allowing the tool to function as a small chisel plane. All those factors would seem to add up to a well conceived plane that’s capable of cutting clean accurate rabbets and joints. In most cases, that would be true. Unfortunately, in this case, it’s not, for basically one reason. The lack of ergonomics designed into this plane make it practically impossible to hold and/or operate.
The plane is small to begin with, so there’s not much room to wrap one’s fingers around the handle. Furthermore, the end of the cutting iron and the lever used to set the iron’s depth run right into the middle of the handle’s opening in the main casting! There’s absolutely no comfortable way to position one’s fingers in the handle’s opening without being poked and scraped by the iron and the lever. I don’t have big hands, but as you can see in the photos below, my fingers just don’t fit in the opening. At the top of the nosepiece, there’s a circle/loop that I believe was intended to accommodate the user’s index finger. The problem is that it’s much too far away from the plane’s handle to reach with the index finger or any other finger on the hand at the rear of the plane. To make matters worse, the top of the depth stop on the nosepiece actually protrudes into the opening again poking and scraping any finger that one might try resting in the loop. After trying to hold the plane with one hand, I came to the conclusion that it was impossible. The best way I found to hold the plane was to avoid putting my fingers into the handle opening all together and to just put the palm of my right hand at the rear of the plane, keeping my fingers along side the body of the plane. That doesn’t provide much control however. By putting my left thumb into the circle/loop on the nosepiece, I was able to get more control on the plane and guide it through a cut. (Notice the position of my right hand and fingers and left thumb in the two photos below. I had to take two separate pictures because I had to hold the camera. I’m sure you get the point.) Even after repositioning my hands, I found the #278 to be one of the most non-user friendly planes Stanley ever produced. Amazingly, even though the plane is difficult to use, Stanley produced it between 1915 and 1943. Its patent number is 1,201,433. I cannot imagine how the #278 stayed in the Stanley product line for nearly three decades when there were several other models that had similar features and were much easier to use. The plane depicted below was most probably manufactured at some point between the late 1920s and early 1930s. The Stanley logo stamped on the top of the pressure cap screw and the remains of the yellow Stanley decal on the back of the plane's handle give me some clues as to its approximate age. Hopefully I made it clear that I would not ever recommend buying a #278 to use…… because it’s practically unusable! From a collector’s standpoint, it’s a gem. It’s not a plane that I’ve seen too often in complete condition. It has many small parts that are frequently missing. It also has several parts that are specific to it and only it, to include its fence, pressure cap, cutting iron, and depth stop. Those small parts alone, when missing, can be very expensive to replace…..that’s if they can be found at all. Before buying a #278, make absolutely sure that it’s complete and undamaged. Do your homework, and for the sake of your fingers, don’t ever try using this plane.
Jim C.
-
Stanley #278 continued.
-
I’m not so sure if the Stanley #278 rabbet/fillister plane was a big hit with followers of the thread or not, but still, in an effort to provide more interesting (hopefully) and informative content regarding the plane, I wanted to add one more short note and a photograph. As I mentioned yesterday, the #278 is a tough one to find in complete condition. In yesterday’s write up, I mentioned that the #278 had been in production from 1915 to 1943. The featured plane was a Type 2 version. There was an earlier version of the plane (Type 1) that I thought might be worth mentioning. It was supposedly produced between 1915 and 1921. What makes the Type 1 different from the Type 2 is the shape of the handle. The Type 1 handle was lower than the Type 2 handle. What I find interesting is that the Type 1’s handle came to a point right about where the middle of the user’s palm would be placed. Can you imagine that point pressing into your palm as you pushed forward to make a cut? I made a big deal about the ergonomics of the plane yesterday, saying it was uncomfortable to hold and use. Looking at the Type 1 version of the plane, I guess it was doomed from its very inception. Good thing the Type 2 version was “improved.” With the exception of the two handle styles the Type 1 and Type 2 are virtually the same.
Taking a look at the photo, you’ll see the Type 1 in the upper right section of the picture, and the Type 2 in the lower left section. As I mentioned earlier, the Type 1 was allegedly produced between 1915 and 1921. I have my doubts. To date, I have never seen a #278 Type 1…..ever, other than in this one photograph. That leads me to believe that they are extremely rare and may not have been produced for much longer than a year or two before the Type 2 was introduced.
Jim C. (who enjoys the mind numbing tidbits associated with rare odd ball hand planes)
-
Jim, thanks.
I too enjoy rare odd ball hand planes. That is exactly what I look for in my hobby of building miniatures. Initially I built copies of some full scale planes that I had collected or remembered seeing in the past as in my grandfather's carpentry shop. When the supply of readily available models was exhausted I started building miniatures based on pictures found here and there. I've even bought some planes to have "live" models to copy and have bid on numerous others that I failed to win and couldn't possibly afford. The Stanley #278 rabbet/fillister plane that you feature here is one such creature. I have bid on several to no avail. The pictures that you posted here are as close as I've come to visualizing one in miniature. I do appreciate all the pictures and literature on this model. I don't know that I am any closer to building one, but that may be due to other life's distractions right now. There in may lie the real value of your documentations. Now when the time is right and my head has more space for hobby miniatures, I will know exactly where to go for a complete documented reference with plenty of pictures of this plane. Thanks again to you and to Papaw for documenting and cataloging this fine string. Ralph
-
Hey Ralph,
Thanks for checking in. First let me say that I truly hope your current "life's distractions" are nothing serious. It sounds like you might have a lot on your mind. I hope that you find resolution and time to get back out in the shop. Just to be sure, I'm going on the record to say that any time I feature a plane that you'd like to make in miniature, or otherwise, all you need to do is let me know. I'll give you all the photos, details, measurements, drawings, tracings, etc. that you need. That's never a problem. If you're inspired, just tell me how I can help. As for the #278, it's a tough plane to find in complete condition. Stanley made a few other models in the #239 series of weather strip planes that are similar looking to the #278, but are slightly more user friendly. The #239s are also a little bit scarce. I'll certainly feature them at some point down the road. In the near future, I'm going to shift back to more common, useful planes. I feel like the readership connects more to practical tools versus some of the odd ball/speciality stuff. Thanks for following the thread. If I can ever help you with any of your future creations, just let me know.
Jim C.
-
For some reason, I'd like to try both of them out. Can't think of a reason to need one, but curiosity is needling me.
-
For some reason, I'd like to try both of them out. Can't think of a reason to need one, but curiosity is needling me.
Branson,
The trick would be figuring out how to hold the darn thing. After writing the posts above, I started trying different things and determined that placing my right palm on the back of the plane and leaving all my fingers and thumb outside of the handle along side the plane, while putting my left thumb in the loop at the front of the plane, worked best for me. That's basically what I described/depicted above. The alternative method would be to place your right palm on the back of the plane and then wrap only your middle finger around the handle keeping it above the iron and lever, and also wrap your ring finger around the handle keeping it below the iron and lever. Your index finger, pinky finger and thumb would stay along side the plane. Again, your left thumb would be placed in the forward loop. The plane itself is relatively sturdy and does incorporate some nice features. The problem is that it's small, and from my perspective, requires two hands to operate it sufficiently. While ergonomics does seem to have been a consideration when the handle was redesigned, the matter of where to comfortably place one's fingers was not addressed. Perhaps Stanley decided to leave the plane as is, rather than totally redesigning it. In my opinion, Stanley made better and more user friendly rabbet/fillister planes, to include the #78 and #289 to name a couple.
Jim C.
-
Many times throughout the thread, I’ve mentioned that Stanley, and some other fairly well known manufacturers, made some well designed, useful hand planes. Amazingly, the plane that I’ll feature today was made by a little known entity, R. M. Rumbold, Co., in Thornton, Illinois. More often than not, Stanley was the innovator when it came to designing job specific, specialty planes. Sargent had their share of good ones too, like the #507 block plane that was featured earlier in the thread. It was not unusual for Stanley to “buy out” smaller manufacturers, thus allowing Stanley to continue manufacturing the smaller company’s products under the Stanley name. The plane depicted below seems to have escaped Stanley’s notice. Either Stanley didn’t believe in its design, or perhaps it didn’t fit into Stanley’s product line. I’ll talk more about that a little later.
R. M. Rumbold Butt Mortise Plane (BMP):
The BMP was specifically designed to cut shallow mortises that would mostly accommodate hinges, lock sets, strike plates, etc. At first glance, it could very easily be mistaken for a “contraption” or gimmick item, and therefore dismissed as such. On the contrary, its simple, well thought out design makes it one of the most useful specialty planes that a wood worker could own. The BMP functions much like a traditional router plane, flattening the bottom of a shallow mortise with ease. What makes it so handy, and separates it from other router planes are its dimensions. A traditional router plane is wide across its handles and short going front to back. Consequently it’s more prone to rock/wobble as it’s pushed and/or pulled along the edge of a work piece. The BMP on the other hand is long and narrow (9 5/8” long and 1 9/16” wide) making it stable for working on the edges with less tendency for rocking/wobbling. The BMP can be pushed or pulled in either direction, thus allowing a user the ability to work into the very corners of the mortise being cut, without having to rotate or adjust the work piece itself. The large window/throat (2 ¾” long and 1 1/16” wide) in the sole provides a clear view of the cut. The cutting iron is ¾” wide and set into the plane with the bevel side down. The BMP has very few parts. Its pressure cap is cast in such a way that it’s captive on a steel rod that runs from one side of the plane to the other. The cutting iron ramp is part of the main body casting of the plane. The BMP appears to be fragile, but never leaves me feeling like it’s not capable of making the cuts for which it was designed. If abused, misused, or dropped, it will crack just like any other plane. If used appropriately to make cuts for various window, cabinet, and door hardware, then I believe that it’s more than up to the task at hand without any disappointments or apologies.
Using the BMP could not be easier, and good results can be had with just a little bit of practice. To cut a shallow mortise, the work piece needs to be marked, and the waste to be removed, outlined with a knife. I like to further clarify the lines with a sharp chisel and a rap or two from a mallet. Using the chisel and mallet, flake up the surface of the cut as shown below. Stay inside the lines and don’t cut too deep. I like to set the iron on the BMP to about half the depth of the final cut. Carefully remove the flakes created with the chisel. Starting in the middle of the mortise, carefully push the BMP to the end of the mortise. Now, turn the plane around and pull it toward you and the other end of the mortise. Once the flakes have been removed, set the iron, using one leaf of the hinge, to the final cutting depth. Again, starting at the middle of the cut, push the BMP to the end of the mortise. Turn the plane around and pull it to the other end of the mortise. If the cutting iron is sharp and care is taken to stay inside the lines, you’ll end up with a flat bottomed, square cornered mortise, that’s cut to the perfect depth. Care while using the plane is a must because there are no fences or depth stops to aid the user. The mortise is the result (good or bad) of freehand operation. Still, this plane is really a pleasure to use and I’d recommend it to anyone who wants to try something a little different when it comes to making hardware mortises. There are most certainly other ways to cut shallow mortises, but using a BMP is my favorite method.
The Rumbold BMP was patented in December, 1951. If you would like to do a little more research, its patent number is 2,579,911 and was invented by Wilbert Dohmeyer. I’m not entirely sure how long the plane was manufactured, but my guess is that by the mid 1960s it was out of production. In my opinion, the BMP was well designed, and easy to use. So why didn’t Stanley make something with a similar design, or better yet, why didn’t Stanley just buy out Rumbold? My guess is that the BMP was too late for the party. By 1951, Stanley’s hand plane offerings were decreasing. Most of the specialty hand planes once produced by Stanley were long gone nearly a decade earlier. The BMP just didn’t fit into Stanley’s plans. Today, I occasionally see old Rumbold BMPs in online auctions, or at tool shows. They don’t seem to show up too often at neighborhood garage sales or at flea markets. They’re available, but you’ll have to look a little harder for them. Lie-Nielsen currently makes a BMP modeled after the old Rumbold. Generally speaking, original Rumbold’s cost a little bit less than the Lie-Nielsen version. If Stanley had in fact made a BMP for a few years, say during the 1920s to 1940s, today it would probably be very collectible and cost prohibitive, like so many of its other specialty planes that are now long gone. By virtue of the fact that the original BMP was manufactured by an unknown company, it’s still relatively affordable, and worth owning. If you come across one at a reasonable price, buy it and use it. It’s a great tool. In a later post, I’ll show you Stanley’s answer to cutting shallow hardware mortises. Without giving too much away, I’d opt for the Rumbold BMP, and I think you’ll agree.
Jim C.
(See the Rumbold BMP in use on the next page of this thread.)
-
R. M. Rumbold butt mortise plane continued:
-
Thanks for this! I looked at the Stanley contender quite a while back, and wasn't impressed much, but the Rumbold looks very useful to me. Had I found one back when, I'd probably have gotten it. But I found a Stanley #71 1/2 and have been using it ever since.
I suspect you're on the mark, that it came very late in the day, when power routers were coming into vogue. Still don't like those routers for setting hinges. I don't find a real advantage in the power tool for this job.
-
What a neat plane. Something else to look for ;P
> I don't find a real advantage in the power tool for this job.
In the time it takes to walk back to the truck, get the router, get it out of the box, put the correct bit in, set the depth, find an outlet, set up the guide jig.....I will have the door hung and be getting my coffee ;P
And the few I do are done with mallet and chisel....
I can see where that plane makes sense tho, fixing the depth and the offset, you only have to worry about the start and stop point. Making cabinets all day you would certainly want one...
-
Thanks for this! I looked at the Stanley contender quite a while back, and wasn't impressed much, but the Rumbold looks very useful to me. Had I found one back when, I'd probably have gotten it. But I found a Stanley #71 1/2 and have been using it ever since.
I suspect you're on the mark, that it came very late in the day, when power routers were coming into vogue. Still don't like those routers for setting hinges. I don't find a real advantage in the power tool for this job.
Hi Branson,
Thanks for stopping by! It's always good to hear from you. I think your Stanley #71 1/2 router is a fine tool that's about as versatile as they come. On a narrow work piece edge like a cabinet face frame for instance, the user definitely needs a steady hand in order to make sure he/she doesn't rock/wobble off course, and outside of the cut. I need all the help I can get, so I like the the butt mortise plane in those situations. The little routers like the Stanley #271 are also pretty handy on small and/or narrow surfaces, and are definitely worth adding to one's arsenal of planes. The plane that I was actually hinting at featuring down the road was Stanley's "door trim/router plane" #171. Without going into a totally new post on the #171, it was definitely a contraption of the highest order, but designed to basically do what the Rumbold does. The two planes look nothing alike, and go from being extremely simple to set up and use (the Rumbold), to complicated and fragile, with several little parts to lose (the Stanley #171). At some point I'll drag out the #171 and feature it in the thread.
Jim C.
-
What a neat plane. Something else to look for ;P
> I don't find a real advantage in the power tool for this job.
In the time it takes to walk back to the truck, get the router, get it out of the box, put the correct bit in, set the depth, find an outlet, set up the guide jig.....I will have the door hung and be getting my coffee ;P
And the few I do are done with mallet and chisel....
I can see where that plane makes sense tho, fixing the depth and the offset, you only have to worry about the start and stop point. Making cabinets all day you would certainly want one...
Hey Rusty,
I'm glad that I could feature a tool that you might find some value in owning and using. The butt mortise plane is one of those hand tools that might actually be more efficient, and as effective to use as a powered tool, such as an electric router. I know the pictures posted above aren't professional quality, but I think you get the point. With just a few basic hand tools that are properly sharpened, anyone with some small amount of practice and motivation can quickly produce nice clean mortises for general cabinet, window and door hardware. Also, I just feel like using a hand tool successfully breeds a little confidence and hopefully a desire to try another hand tool or technique that wasn't previously considered by someone. Antique hand tools to be used are absolutely great for so many reasons, but they do have some drawbacks that pertain mostly to them being in useable condition, accessible, and affordable. In this particular instance, the old Rumbold planes are still around, but are not too common. I think one would have to do a little active searching to find one. They're still relatively affordable with condition playing a big part of their price. I've seen them sell for anywhere between $25 and $125, but more generally in the $50 - $75 range. Lie-Nielsen is the only manufacturer that I know of who currently makes a replica of the Rumbold butt mortise plane. The quality is fantastic to say the least. It costs $110. I'd still recommend an original Rumbold if one comes your way. If you absolutely must have one now, the Lie-Nielsen will not disappoint you. If you think you'll get some real use out of the plane, then that might be the way to go.
Jim C.
-
Looking at the 171, I'm kinda surprised it was produced as long as it was. Way more complicated than necessary, and it looks more tricky to use. I just can't see the advantage over the 71 and the 71 1/2. Sure looks like it's more trouble to set up.
Looking forward to your piece on the 171.
-
I never had a hinge mortise plane. I have used a router plane a few times. I've had butt gauges and a stamped steel mortise cutter you hammer in.
I've used an electric router for big hinges a few times, but only freehand.
There have been dozens of inventions for nothing else but setting hinges.
Modest skill with an ordinary mallet and chisel does the job quick and well enough to work perfectly. But once upon a time that was not good enough. It had to -appear- perfect as well.
Even when I was kid, people still had this psychotic thing about door setting. It was a really big deal back in time. I think it started in the 20's?
The fad of door inspection.
Everyone knew, and everyone was freaky about it. People would fuss over it and measure the gap with a match cover and took a real interest in door setting. Everybody did. It was one of those things the average person knew "just enough" to look for.
They might not know much more. The foundation could be wonky and poorly fitted rafters up top and everything else in-between slap dash work.
But inspecting the hang of a door?
That was something they could wear their prissy little clean clean clean slacks for, and they felt obligated to do. They would judge the overall skill of a carpenter by it.
So every carpenter had to hang a door with over-the-top hyper precision.
Most of the inventions for setting door hinges, both hand and power, come from this time.
The fad became much less as I became a teenager, and went totally away after that.
Today the average person knows nothing whatever about their own doors and the average carpenter can't even understand, much less handle anything but a prehung door.
yours Scott
PS. I saw yet another door hinge setting outfit last night, on the web. A router gizmo made for fully inset multiple linkage hinges. This one had a long presentation around a small plank of wood with a hole in the middle to guide a router bushing.
There is still a shred of interest in door hinges with the "yuppiest" crowd.
Today the interest is in boutique hinges.
Since regular hinges were perfected about 30 generations ago, today you need something that looks complicated if you want to sell it for 22 times the price.
Most of the complex looking hinges were actually made to be able to install faster with little brainpower required. A jig supplied by the hinge manufacturer and a power tool is all it takes.
But they "look different" so the yuppiest pay a whole lot more to get it.
-
Looking at the 171, I'm kinda surprised it was produced as long as it was. Way more complicated than necessary, and it looks more tricky to use. I just can't see the advantage over the 71 and the 71 1/2. Sure looks like it's more trouble to set up.
Looking forward to your piece on the 171.
Branson,
You're absolutely right on all counts! The Stanley #171 is every bit the "contraption" and then some. It's fragile, it has a lot of little parts that are frequently missing, and it's nowhere near as easy to set up and use as the Rumbold. The #171 has three different cutters, and it's usually missing two of them. One is usually mounted in the plane and the other two are long gone. They're expensive to replace. Make no mistake, the #171 is the type of plane that mostly appeals to collectors. I'll definitely feature it at some point.
Jim C.
-
Hey Scottg,
I'm not too familiar with the history of door setting. I never knew that hanging a door was how a craftsman was evaluated. As for hinge mortising, you're right, a mallet and sharp chisel will get the job done, and with a little clean up using a small router, or even a full size router plane, you're good to go. Still, I do like the Rumbold butt mortise plane because it's so easy to set up and use. It's almost foolproof and the results are better than good every time. The butt mortise plane is really just a variation of a router plane. On the narrow edge of a work piece, like a 3/4" thick cabinet face frame for instance, it really excells. It's probably not a plane that I would recommend as being a "must have" but certainly one that I'd recommend as a "nice to have" particularly if one is frequently, or even occasionally, working on projects that include setting hinges and similar hardware.
Jim C.
-
While we're still on the topic of butt mortise planes, I wanted to correct myself regarding the availability of such planes being produced by current manufacturers. Earlier I stated that Lie-Neilsen was the only manufacturer currently making a butt mortise plane. It's modeled after the Rumbold almost exactly, and sells for $110. Well I did a little more research and discovered that Lee Valley/Veritas also makes a butt mortise plane. Its main body casting and handle positioning are very similar to the Rumbold and Lie-Nielsen versions, however, it incorporates an iron adjusting mechanism that's very similar to what one would find on a traditional router plane such as the Stanley #71 and #71 1/2. The Lee Valley butt mortise plane sells for $139. Different width cutters ranging in size from 1/16" to 1/4" are also available as accessories. Lee Valley makes some fine tools, however, its version of the butt mortise plane seems like overkill. I don't think that the iron adjusting mechanism is necessary and only adds to its complexity and cost. I still think that a butt mortise plane is a nice tool to have, and I'd stick to finding an original, serviceable, Rumbold as my first choice. If a Rumbold can't be found but you'd still like to have one, I'd go with the low tech Lie-Nielsen version. I just don't see any reason to pay an additional $29 for Lee Valley's mechanical iron adjusting version.
Jim C.
-
I'd go with the low tech Lie-Nielsen version. I just don't see any reason to pay an additional $29 for Lee Valley's mechanical iron adjusting version.
I am astounded that Thomas is selling his mortise plane for 100 and change.
For a man who sells a repoduction #4 at $400 apiece (a plane you can get at any swap meet for a sawbuck),
or reproduction Stanley 750 "gents" chisels, approaching 100 dollars a stem?
(again, something you get almost anywhere, with no handle, for 2 or 3 dollars)
Seeing the mortise plane offered so reasonably is surprising.
And cool.
Way to go Tom!
yours Scott
-
Scottg,
I do see your point. Priced at $110, the Lie-Nielsen (LN) butt mortise plane is a relative bargain when compared to other products in the LN line of tools. At roughly $300 to $400 for a LN #4 (depending on options like bronze versus iron, high angle frog, etc.) the butt mortise does seem inexpensive. There are certainly some very good quality used antique planes on the market for literally one tenth or less of the cost. The LN #4 is modeled after the Stanley Bedrock #604, which in good user condition, can literally cost anywhere between $25 and $150. Assuming the Bedrock is complete, undamaged, and not rusted beyond recognition, even at the high end of the price scale, it's still a better deal than the LN #4. Antique Bedrock #604 planes are still fairly common too.
Things start to get a little blurry when deciding to buy a less common antique user plane or a new equivalent LN plane. Some old speciality planes like the Rumbold are still reasonably priced, but they just aren't that available. The average user Rumbold is probably still going to cost about $60, and possibly a little more if it's in an online auction and two people really want it. You know how that goes! Sometimes just being able to buy a new quality tool from a current manufacturer makes sense when comparing it to the antique tool and its availability. I think for that reason, the available LN butt mortise plane is reasonably priced in comparison to the "sort of available" Rumbold. Based on your comment regarding the price of the LN, I think you agree.
There are also several factors that do make many of the LN planes attractive (to me at least.) Availability is obviously one factor. A perfect example is the Stanley #9 block plane. An original Stanley is cost prohibitive if you can find one in undamaged condition. Suddenly the LN #9, costing a few hundred dollars, doesn't seem so bad. Another thing I like about LN planes is their durability. Using the #9 again as an example, it's well known that original Stanley versions were prone to cracking. Using different materials and construction methods, the LNs are much more apt to withstand heavier use without incurring damage. The durability factor is particularly evident in LN models such as the #9, #10, #62, #140, and Sargent #507. The antique versions of those planes listed, even under normal use, were susceptible to cracking. I like the fact that LN has made available old patterns that went out of production decades ago. Some patterns that are just too hard to find, or are too fragile to use, are now available to everyone to experience, if he/she so desires. Having those specialty planes in its inventory costs LN money. Finally, and maybe most importantly, I really like that an entrepreneur started a company in the United States, and has managed to grow it, employ Americans, and stamp "Made In USA" on his products. Over the years, the LN product line has expanded and the quality has remained high. A testament to the LN quality and brand is really evident on the used tool market. Used LN planes seem to hold their value and often sell for near retail prices. LN planes are expensive, but in some instances they might be a better option, particularly regarding speciality planes. There are generally more economical choices to be had among common used antique tools, like a #4 bench plane for example. Still, I'm rooting for LN and consider myself an LN supporter.
Jim C.
-
While the butt mortise plane is still a somewhat fresh topic, I wanted to mention that there's a really good writeup in the current issue of Fine Woodworking magazine regarding butt hinges. It's issue #240, June, 2014. The author of the article does a nice job detailing butt hinge installation. Although he does not use a butt mortise plane, after laying out the cut and removing the waste, he cleans up the mortise with a small router plane. The plane is the equivalent of the Stanley #271, and perfectly acceptable for finishing the bottom of the mortise. While reading the article, I wondered if the author was familiar with the Rumbold or not? Again, I think that the Rumbold is a GREAT tool for doing what it was designed to do, but I still also wonder about its availability. Small router planes are pretty common and relatively affordable. I just wanted to present another viable option by featuring the old Rumbold butt mortise plane. If you've been following the thread, it's probably no surprise to hear that I'm always looking for an opportunity to use a hand plane. While a mallet, chisel and small router will get the job done perfectly, a butt mortise plane is another chance for ME to try something a little out of the ordinary. What makes sense to me from a functional, economic, and enjoyment perspective may be totally different for someone else reading along. Going forward, just remember that I'm a collector, and I'm motivated by old hand planes. I'm always looking for an opportunity to find, try and buy another one. I'll keep trying to feature planes that are useful, available, and relatively affordable. Unfortunately, not every plane that I feature will receive high marks in all three categories, but I'll keep trying to present interesting content while keeping those factors in mind.
Jim C.
-
I have been behind Lie-Nielsen tools since the first month they were in public business.
As they came along, Tom's #1, #9, #212, among several others?
Magic on skates !@!
These are tools the average guy simply cannot have any other way. Originals are rare, and thousands of dollars.
When the company started this was what it was all about, and I was so delighted and proud someone was doing it. I tried to tell everyone I knew what was going on.
<sigh>
I suppose it was inevitable that eventually the "more money than sense" crowd showed up demanding to squander grandpa's inheritance or run up their credit cards out of sheer stupidity.
This was when the "sharp right out of the box" logo, and numbered collector boxes with certificates of authenticity (same as Beanie Babies and Franklin Mint dreck) began taking over the business.
There has become a whole human subspecies buying these now, along with John Economaki's Bridge City line of tools.
Ecomonaki was the first to accidentally prove that you could make pretty things and put on a good sales pitch with a glossy color catalog,
and not just gouge them for a little, you could take them down for a ridiculous amount.
6, 8, 10 times the price.
Johns first products were adorable and quite reasonable, but then cost overruns made one product over-the-top expensive. Instead of crashing, the product sold more than any other. Each subsequent product was released with a price reaching higher and higher past any particle of reason. As high as the market would bear.
Proving men can be as stupid as women, paying $700 for a T-shirt because it says Chanel on the front.
{If we're closed, just shove your money under the door...Chumps}
At the carnival we called this "playing a big Mark". That means a sucker with a lot of money willing to throw it away fast. I once played a Mark and inside of 2 hours time,......... I ended up taking the entire show, not just the jointies, but the ride guys and even the dime pitch grunts, plus the show owners, out to dinner and drinks all around.
Not that I had any choice mind you. With a Mark coughing up that much cash, that fast, in public? It drew a crowd. 1/ 2 the show was watching the play from a short distance whispering amongst themselves.
There I was barely 18 years old, not quite making carnival history, but at least making a small legend that would spread far and wide.
Tradition calls to "treat the show" afterwards, and it was not exactly voluntary.
Once in a while I go to the places where these L-N/Bridge City "Marks" hang out, as they brag about the condition of their cardboard and low numbers on the authenticity papers, and simply tell them.............
If I was so lousy at my craft that I had to pay $400 for a tool I can get anywhere for 10 bucks, in order to get it to work?
I'd kill myself.
Lie-Neilsen still makes some really high quality tools you can't get anywhere else, for a reasonable price considering the market. But the bottom line profit comes from the Marks whose only real skill centers around throwing money away as fast as they can.
Somebodies got to take it. You can't blame Tom. heeheheheheheheheheheheh
yours Scott
-
Hey Scottg,
You made some interesting points. I would have to agree that buying a Lie-Nielsen in a special box with a numbered certificate of some sort hardly seems worth the premium paid for it. I believe the LN planes themselves are expensive enough as is. In my attempt to present alternative option planes, such as LNs, I would never recommend buying one that is even remotely marketed as a collectible item. Every LN plane produced should really be used. I don't view them as collectible. I do occasionally refer to them for exactly the reason you mentioned.....some of the old Stanley models are just too expensive and/or rare to obtain. I guess keeping such tools in stock, and making them available to anyone who wants one, allows LN to basically set their price. Generally speaking, the market is the market, and someone is buying enough of them to keep LN in business. I don't think that the majority of individuals who buy LN tools are necassarily poor craftspeople or "Marks." That may be true of some, but I just don't agree that LN's bottom line profit is significantly the result of such people. There's got to be a sizable portion of variously skilled woodworkers out there who have at least one or two LNs in their arsenal of tools. I have a few LN planes that I bought, and some that came my way as gifts. I use them (some more than others) all the time. Those few that I bought for myself, I use frequently. They're an absolute pleasure to use, and in many ways, are better made than the antiques that inspired them. There really is some joy in using a new, high end tool, that performs beyond initial expectations. Some people simply want that experience. There's another sort of joy that comes from picking up a seventy five year old plane, seeing the patina, the dark cast iron, feeling the rose wood handle and knob, and knowing that you're about to do something really great with a tool that was produced several decades earlier. I think that both feelings, both experiences, can happliy co-exist in one shop on the same work bench.
Jim C.
-
In the last couple days Lie-Nielsen (LN) hand planes have worked their way into the discussion. If you were not familiar with them, perhaps the recent conversation prompted you to check them out. LN has a nice website that features their tools, woodworking events, and several informative You Tube videos regarding the care and use of several of its products. The LN website is worth checking out. Just google search Lie-Nielsen and you’re sure to find it.
LN is certainly a higher end tool manufacturer. I think the actual quality of their products and their prices reflect that. Are their hand planes worth the cost? That’s really a matter of ones personal choice. Do LN planes live up to their hype? From the experience that I’ve had with a few of them in my own shop, I believe that they do. Do LN planes out perform their antique counterparts? I guess that’s a matter for further debate. Generally speaking, most antique planes are definitely capable of producing very high quality results that are as nice as anything a LN plane can produce, and vise versa, provided the antique is sharp and in good working order. The same basic criteria applies to the LN plane. Where I believe that LN planes separate themselves from the antiques is in the higher quality of construction, materials, and attention to the fit and finish. LN certainly has the advantage in production techniques, and engineering improvements, and it’s obvious that their tools have benefited from decades of experience (some good, some bad) that Stanley and other companies endured in the hand plane production learning curve. Just pick up a LN hand plane. Hold it in your hands. Operate its adjusting mechanisms. Almost immediately, it’s very easy to see that it’s a high quality tool that was manufactured with precision and care. There’s just no denying that.
With all that being said, will using an LN plane automatically make you a better craftsperson? No. I think we all know that wood working, like any craft that involves shaping raw, natural, and man made materials, requires years of practice, experimentation, and experience. The use of tools and techniques are refined, revised, and re-evaluated. The learning never ends. Using a LN plane, or its “distant Stanley relative” can potentially lead a person to the same end. Each tool will hopefully bring its user to that certain level of satisfaction that he/she desires. There’s no shame in using either one. It really boils down to personal taste, economics, availability of the particular tool, and the experience that an individual wishes to have. The PERCEPTION that using a certain tool versus another is good or bad, right or wrong, foolish or wise, should never enter the equation. Use what you like, and don't be afraid to try something different.
Lie-Nielsen #60 ½:
I bought the LN #60 ½ block plane way back in 1999. At the time, I had a couple old Stanley block planes that worked just fine, but I was at a woodworking demonstration and noticed that the craftsman doing the presentation had a LN block plane on his bench. He used the plane continually throughout the demonstration. At the end of the class I went up and asked him if I could take a look at his block plane. He swore by it, and said that it was the best block plane he had ever owned. I was impressed with it. The man let me take a few passes with it on some scrap and I knew that I’d like to have one. Talk about a tool that feels great in your hand. The LN was inspired by the Stanley #60 and # 60 ½ block planes. LN did make improvements to the pressure cap, and thickness of the main casting. It’s a heavy plane for its size. The iron is thicker, and there’s no slop in its adjusting mechanism whatsoever. As evidenced by the shavings, the plane can be easily set up for an aggressive pass, medium work, or a shaving that’s whisper thin. It’s a nice tool. Since 1999, not one project has crossed my bench where the plane depicted below hasn’t touched the work piece at least once or twice. Any tool can be a part of the wood working experience. Hopefully the tool will provide utility, inspiration and satisfaction. This particular plane brings me all three every time I use it.
Jim C.
-
I've never used a metal butt mortise plane, but I made one, and I agree: they're the cat's fuzzy PJs for hinge mortises and similar shallow mortises). I posted an article on how I made mine on Wood Central, at http://woodcentral.com/articles/handtools/articles_114.shtml (http://woodcentral.com/articles/handtools/articles_114.shtml) (Papaw: I hope it's OK to refer to other fora here; if not, I'll delete this reference).
-
Wow Bill!!!! Your butt mortise plane is really GREAT!!!! First off, you did a fantastic job making a useful tool. Second, your writeup and photos are outstanding. What a great article you put together! I strongly encourage everyone to check it out. I think you've been holding out on us. What other planes have you made? You know it's funny, because I never know for sure who's reading this stuff. I've come to conclude that at least a few of the "regulars" like Branson and Scottg are serious hand plane (and other hand tool) users/enthusiasts/authorities. Their comments, photos, and observations have added a lot to the thread, and I appreciate their contributions. After seeing and reading about your butt mortise plane, you're being added to the list. You've been laying low.......but no longer my friend. I hope to be hearing more from you as the thread grows. Thanks for presenting some practical, useful content. Great stuff!!!!
Jim C.
-
I agree, Bill, you have been holding out on us!
-
How the heck haven't I been in on this thread?? I'm so glad you folks posted some new stuff so that I found it! Wow, what a wealth of information!! Cheers to the woodworkers amongst us!!!!!
For those of you that didn't know, I'm a chef by trade. I got out of the business for many reasons and now survive off of woodworking, the ocasional catering jobs, ect. .... much poorer and happier now.
I don't see that much difference in the two trades. Your food can only be as good as the quality of meat, vegies, fish, ect. that you buy. That is the first step. Your woodworking will only be as good as the piece of wood you have to work with. I cannot execute my job without the right tools. I have to have the right knive for the job. Cooking with a dull, inferior knife is a bad idea. Working with dull chisels, blades, ect. leads to dissapointment and injury.
But, I can buy the best chefs knife there is. It's useless unless I know how to take care of it. For anyone that's tried to use a handplane once or twice and given up or found it useless, try again. Tune it up right, and know that it takes a lot of practice to get the best results. Before you know it, you will be using one instead of setting up some complicated jig for one of your powered machines because it's a lot quicker in certain jobs.
When I started woodworking I made a pact with myself. I would always master things with hand tools before using any power tools.
Once you have the tools, you have to understand the grain, read the peice of wood, know how it likes to fit together--- moisture, what enviorment it's happiest in, ect. Food is the same way. You don't cook all fish the same way. You don't throw just any herb in anything. It all has to fit together, like a well made joint.
Next is something then people can learn to a certain degree, but I think in some people, creativity is something that comes naturally. I can't read a recipe worth a damn and I can't follow someone elses wood plans either. But, that's a topic for another time. Thanks for sharing !!!!!
cheers,
bird.
-
Jim C. and Papaw,
Thanks for the praise, although I've never seen that plane as anything but a quick tool to get a job done. Certainly not up to Scott's standards.
That butt mortise plane is the only one I've made. Other planes - bench, router, etc. - are so easy to come by that I'm not motivated to spend time on rolling my own. I've seen some of the user-made specialized joinery planes, like those for grooving the bottom of door parts; those would make sense if I were doing lots of casework. But for what I've been doing, no need. On the other hand, the mortise plane solved a problem, and, since I've never seen one in the wild, I had to make it.
Bill
-
How the heck haven't I been in on this thread?? I'm so glad you folks posted some new stuff so that I found it! Wow, what a wealth of information!! Cheers to the woodworkers amongst us!!!!!
For those of you that didn't know, I'm a chef by trade. I got out of the business for many reasons and now survive off of woodworking, the ocasional catering jobs, ect. .... much poorer and happier now.
I don't see that much difference in the two trades. Your food can only be as good as the quality of meat, vegies, fish, ect. that you buy. That is the first step. Your woodworking will only be as good as the piece of wood you have to work with. I cannot execute my job without the right tools. I have to have the right knive for the job. Cooking with a dull, inferior knife is a bad idea. Working with dull chisels, blades, ect. leads to dissapointment and injury.
But, I can buy the best chefs knife there is. It's useless unless I know how to take care of it. For anyone that's tried to use a handplane once or twice and given up or found it useless, try again. Tune it up right, and know that it takes a lot of practice to get the best results. Before you know it, you will be using one instead of setting up some complicated jig for one of your powered machines because it's a lot quicker in certain jobs.
When I started woodworking I made a pact with myself. I would always master things with hand tools before using any power tools.
Once you have the tools, you have to understand the grain, read the peice of wood, know how it likes to fit together--- moisture, what enviorment it's happiest in, ect. Food is the same way. You don't cook all fish the same way. You don't throw just any herb in anything. It all has to fit together, like a well made joint.
Next is something then people can learn to a certain degree, but I think in some people, creativity is something that comes naturally. I can't read a recipe worth a damn and I can't follow someone elses wood plans either. But, that's a topic for another time. Thanks for sharing !!!!!
cheers,
bird.
Hi Bird! I'm glad you found the thread. Welcome aboard. I hope you'll be a frequent visitor and contributor. Jump in and join the conversation any time.
Jim C.
-
Bill,
Whether that was the first plane you made or your one hundredth, you still did a really nice job on it. Your writeup was equally well done. Thanks again for adding the outstanding content to the thread. Keep it coming!
Jim C.
-
About a month ago, I responded to a post from John (johnsironsanctuary) regarding my interest in hand planes. (See page 17, reply #240) I recall that John asked me how I got into collecting and I mentioned that I met a very nice man who sort of mentored me and got me on the path to collecting. When I met this man, I was already a dedicated hand plane user and someone who frequently bought old planes to help me along with my projects. In my response to John, I mentioned that my friend and I spoke frequently, although I never met him in person. That didn’t stop us from enjoying our conversations on the phone and sending emails back and forth with photos of our most recent tool additions. Somewhere along the line, I started acquiring planes from my friend, and as a result, the composition of my collection changed. After a few years, I was a collector in every sense of the word. I don’t regret that, and I certainly don’t apologize for it.
You might recall that in my response to John, I mentioned that my old friend died a couple years ago. Shortly before he passed, we talked about his collection and the lifetime he had spent putting it together. It was truly a first rate collection of antique tools that were produced in a golden age of American industrial ambition. He shared some stories about a few of the planes and the circumstances in which they had come into his possession. Some of the stories I had heard before, and others were new to me. Some of the planes had come to him from friends who had passed. I just listened. Near the end of the conversation, he wondered what would become of his collection. Thinking that he had already come to a conclusion, I still said nothing and listened. After a moment or two of silence, he finally spoke and said that the planes were only his to preserve for a certain period of time. He was dedicated to their history, and when the time came, he hoped that they would be passed on to the next fellow, who in turn would preserve them, protect them, and eventually pass them on to someone else. More than anything else that I learned about collecting old Stanley hand planes from my friend, I learned that I’m just a custodian of a small segment of tools from our great industrial past. MANY of the planes in my collection came from my friend’s collection, either during his lifetime, or after, and now I am their custodian. When the time comes, they’ll pass to someone else, or be dispersed to other collections.
Jim C.
-
That is a great looking tool room!
-
That is a great looking tool room!
The photo really doesn't do the room or the collection justice. I tried to post a larger photo, but the website would not accept it. I have a few more that I'll try to post at some point down the road. I was looking through a few photos last night and thought some here would be interested in seeing just how advanced some collections can be. I'm sure there are similar collections of wrenches, saws, hammers, etc. that others have spent years piecing together. The photo I posted only depicts SOME of the collection. Other angles into the room reveal that there is a lot more. It’s truly a mini museum of sorts. Even to someone with a casual interest, the collection is impressive.
Jim C.
-
Jim, The link below is of an old thread where I posted some pictures from my tool room. The plow planes I have in my collection are display items only. I never used any of them. I was always intrigued how each maker had his own take on the details of their plane. Nut profiles and arm support profiles vary between makers.
I enjoy this thread for all the info that has been shared.
Les
http://www.papawswrench.com/vboard/index.php?topic=102.msg423#msg423
-
Wow Les!! I mean seriously.... WOW!! Yet another guy reading this thread who has been laying low "sand bagging" it. What have you been waiting for? I love old plow planes, and your collection is absolutely amazing!! The wrenches are great too. I'm pretty sure that we'd all like to see a lot more of your collection. Is there any chance that you could feature a plow plane here every once in a while? Maybe a few pictures, with a short write up and a little history? I really hope you'll consider my request. Great collection! I'd love to see more of it.
Jim C.
-
WOW! Les!!! Amazing collection & display, Looks like they belong in a museum!!
Jim, your collection is impressive!
-
that is a very wonderful private, cared for museum owned & managed by Les.
very nice, Frank
-
that is a very wonderful private, cared for museum owned & managed by Les.
very nice, Frank
Yes, I completely agree, and hope that we'll get to see more of it in the future.
Jim C.
-
Oh so now its BOTH Jim and Les sandbagging!! heehehe
Those pictures were a tease! I couldn't see a damn thing.
A broadside of a room or the glare of glass over tools, from 2 miles away! WhattamI I the Amazing Kreskin?
Dudes, give it up!! Show some tools.
And you... Les?? Bottles? You have a bottle and a jar and a jug?
These are local to you? Family ancestors? What?
You can't tease me with bottles!!
The jug is newish, made after 1900. I can't see the jar but the bottle looks like an 1890-1900 blob top beer.
Dish it up you two! If you need me to reduce the filesize of a few pictures?? Send them to my private email and I'll run them through Photoshop real quick.
Same appearing picture on a computer screen, dramatically smaller file size.
So it can be shared around easily.
Just ask.
yours Scott
-
If you click on the pictures they will enlarge. A few local bottles and a few hand me downs from the family. I have to open the cases and take individual pictures of the planes to post in this thread. The one bottle is from Seitz Brothers Brewery, used to be about 14 miles North of were I live.
-
......I have to open the cases and take individual pictures of the planes to post in this thread......
That would be GREAT!!!
Jim C.
-
Oh so now its BOTH Jim and Les sandbagging!!.......
Hi Scottg,
I wouldn't go as far as to say that I've been sand bagging. Okay, I will admit that to some extent I have been holding back a few less common planes that I will eventually feature, but I can't show you everything all at once. That would take all the fun out of it. Right? To be honest, I'm hoping that others will also feature some of their planes here. I certainly appreciate the planes you've shared with us, but as the thread progresses, I'm learning that several of the "regulars" here have a lot to offer. Wouldn't you agree? I think it would be great to have some different content that goes beyond my Stanley stuff. Les's plows are a perfect example of what I'm talking about. The thread was purposely and simply entitled "Hand Planes," not "Jim C.'s Hand Planes." Everyone is welcome and encouraged to post pictures and content regarding planes in their shops and collections.
Jim C.
-
Conrad Jensen do-it-all in one plane, Patent Number 126707, Patented May 14, 1872. Some examples are marked this one isn't but you can't mistake it for anything other then this patent. Specialty plane that can be used as a Dado, Fillister or a Rabbet Plane. These are the only views that I have loaded at this time. The one picture is of the plane in it's home, a Lexan box to help keep the dust and dirt off of it. As you can see it lives with my Sandusky Tool 141 Ivory tipped Center Wheel Plow Plane, that will be another post some day. The Jensen is a hard to find plane and has been found made in Rosewood. Martin Donnelly has one coming up in one of his Fall Auctions and I am waiting to see what it sells for as the auction estimate is a lot higher than what I expected.
I am a collector not a user like many of you are. I guess the idea didn't sell all that great as there aren't very many around anymore.
-
Conrad Jensen do-it-all in one plane, Patent Number 126707, Patented May 14, 1872.
Oh dang! There's one of these at a local antique shop -- minus the wedges and blades. Suppose I could make those...
I'm going to ask the price...
-
Conrad Jensen do-it-all in one plane, Patent Number 126707, Patented May 14, 1872. Some examples are marked this one isn't but you can't mistake it for anything other then this patent. Specialty plane that can be used as a Dado, Fillister or a Rabbet Plane. These are the only views that I have loaded at this time. The one picture is of the plane in it's home, a Lexan box to help keep the dust and dirt off of it. As you can see it lives with my Sandusky Tool 141 Ivory tipped Center Wheel Plow Plane, that will be another post some day. The Jensen is a hard to find plane and has been found made in Rosewood. Martin Donnelly has one coming up in one of his Fall Auctions and I am waiting to see what it sells for as the auction estimate is a lot higher than what I expected.
I am a collector not a user like many of you are. I guess the idea didn't sell all that great as there aren't very many around anymore.
GREAT post Les!! What a beauty! Thanks for sharing one of your plow planes with the rest of us. I was hoping for some diversity in the thread. Seriously, I really do appreciate it, and I think the others do too. I know so little about plows. I see them around in various states of condition all the time, but I've never pulled the trigger on one. I guess it's like anything else, it takes some education and experience to become a smart buyer/collector/user. Just based on the little that I saw in your previous photos, you're obviously an advanced collector, with some real experience. How long have you been collecting plow planes? Do you have any "users" that you've been able to try out? I hope you'll share more of your collection in the future. From a purely selfish perspective, I'm really looking forward to seeing more of your plow planes and learning something about each one. I think we'll all be watching for your next post.
Jim C.
-
THAT'S IT!!!!!! I'm BEYOND jealous!!!!!!! My planes look like crap now! Thanks a lot!
cheers,
bird
-
I've been collecting for over 20 years, at the high point I had about 130 plow planes in cabinets/cases in my tool room. I have since down sized a bit I have about 90 and will try and get down to around 75 in order to make room for wrenches and other items.
I haven't driven any yet, just never wanted to as I enjoy their design and all the different individual maker's ideas and way of making them. A lot of the different makers had their own adjusting nut profiles, fence profiles and even screw arm to fence mount profiles.
-
I've been collecting for over 20 years, at the high point I had about 130 plow planes in cabinets/cases in my tool room. I have since down sized a bit I have about 90 and will try and get down to around 75 in order to make room for wrenches and other items.
I haven't driven any yet, just never wanted to as I enjoy their design and all the different individual maker's ideas and way of making them. A lot of the different makers had their own adjusting nut profiles, fence profiles and even screw arm to fence mount profiles.
Wow, what a collection Les! I know that I've asked a few times now, so I hope you'll keep featuring your plow planes. No pressure..... (well maybe a little bit). As you downsize, please feature those that will be leaving the "herd." Who knows when we'll get a chance to see them again. To be honest, I hope you'll feature all 90 of them, one by one. Again, no pressure.....
Jim C.
-
THAT'S IT!!!!!! I'm BEYOND jealous!!!!!!! My planes look like crap now! Thanks a lot!
cheers,
bird
Bird,
The thread is a about "Hand Planes." Not just "Museum Quailty Hand Planes." ALL hand planes!! I think it's safe to say that all of us are interested in seeing and hearing about planes that are still out in the shop working every day. Feature one of your favorite planes. Take a few photos, tell us where/how you acquired it, and most importantly, show us/tell us how you use it to make the things you make. Okay?
Jim C.
-
Over the years, I’ve been fortunate to have access to a nearly unlimited supply of Michigan grown hardwoods, to include maple, oak, cherry, poplar and walnut. An older gentleman I know has a mobile sawmill, and has thus made a pretty good living sawing logs, and stickering lumber from trees that were purposely cut down, or fell during storms, etc. For next to nothing when compared to commercial operators, he’ll cut the log to order and store it on his farm indefinitely. It’s beautiful, and in many instances, old growth wood, perfect for making heirloom projects. Working with wood like that is very rewarding. Starting with a material in its most raw state, and transforming it into a unique one of a kind object, is a very satisfying, and sometimes challenging journey. I say challenging because those planks are never flat and ready to start cutting into. After it dries, it’s cupped, twisted, warped and rough. Simply running it through a powered electric surface planer will produce nothing more than a thinner plank that’s still cupped, twisted and warped. It may be smoother but it’s not flat. In order to get a rough plank ready to go through a powered planer, one face must be pretty darn close to flat. The high spots, and twist must be manually removed from one face, allowing it to stay flat on the planer bed as it is fed through the machine. In the end, you’ll have two parallel faces that are flat and ready for cutting into various project parts. The most efficient and fastest way to get that first face flat and ready for the surface planer is by utilizing a specialized hand plane.
Stanley #40:
The scrub plane is nothing novel or unique in woodworking. Some version of manufactured, or craftsman made scrub plane has been around for decades. Generally speaking, the scrub plane is almost as common as any plane I can think of, to include a simple block plane or a #4 smoother. It’s a plane that I’d put on my “must have” list. If one is doing any sort of moderate to serious woodworking, and starting with rough cut stock as I described above, then the first or possibly the second tool to come into contact with the plank will be a scrub plane. There’s no way around it. By setting the #40 for a moderate cut and running it across the work piece at 45 degrees to the direction of the grain, the high spots can be knocked off rather fast. On a twisted board that rocks when placed on a flat surface, simply taking down the “offending” opposite corners usually does the trick. By planing at 45 degrees in one direction, and then in the other, the plank starts to lay flat. Making passes at 45 degrees prevents any significant tear out. With a little further clean up using a #5 jack plane, you’ll have one flat face that’s ready to lay on the bed of a surface planer.
It’s easy to see that the scrub plane is not a finishing tool. Its throat is wide enabling thick shavings to pass through without clogging. The iron is purposely ground with a slight arc, leaving a scalloped finish on the work piece. (Notice the arc as compared to the straight edge of the machinist square.) The arc keeps the iron from digging in at its corners thus making it capable of removing a lot of stock very quickly. The plane itself is very simply constructed for heavy duty work. It has a thick iron and its main casting is such that the frog is cast as part of the body itself. It’s one of the few bench style planes japanned both inside its main casting and outside. I assume that was an effort made to protect the plane from rusting as a result of its intended rough life. Stanley produced the #40 scrub plane from 1896 into the early 1960s. The plane depicted below was most likely manufactured in the early 1960s near the end of its run in the Stanley product line. Stanley also made a slightly larger scrub plane, the #40 1/2, from 1902 to 1947.
Occasionally, I’ll receive a plane or two from neighbors, co-workers, relatives, friends, etc. Very often, the story goes something like this: “I have this old plane that belonged to my (dad, grandfather, uncle, father-in-law) and I have no use for it. Do you want it?” I say “Yes” every time! This is one of those planes. I actually received it from my neighbor across the street. My neighbor’s father had passed away and the family was in the process of disposing of/dividing his estate. My neighbor ended up with his father’s tools including this plane. He didn’t want it and walked it over to my house. I’ll admit that it was in rough condition when I received it, with some rust and decades worth of accumulated crud from sitting neglected in an unheated garage. Upon initial inspection however, I was encouraged to see that its original knob and tote were solid. Although the japanning is chipped, most of it was intact and consequently protected the plane, inside and outside, from major rust and pitting. The exposed bare sole and cutting iron were a different story. Still, with a little elbow grease and a couple quality hours out in the shop, it cleaned up nicely. When I start a new woodworking project, it's usually the first plane I pick up and use.
Jim C.
-
Two more views of the Conrad Jensen plane I posted last week.
-
Thanks for the additional photos Les! What a great looking plane. I'm going to keep my eye out for an old wooden plow. I think I'd like to try one out.
Jim C.
-
I've seen one Stanley scrub in the wild, a 40 1/2, and it is mine!! What a work horse! I thought they were interesting before, but having and using one has put it on my must have list. Flattening rough sawn wood, yes, but irreplaceable when you need to hog off extraneous material. It's the king.
-
Two more views of the Conrad Jensen plane I posted last week.
I'm really going to have to see how much the antique store wants for the one on the wall there!
-
I've seen one Stanley scrub in the wild, a 40 1/2, and it is mine!! What a work horse! I thought they were interesting before, but having and using one has put it on my must have list. Flattening rough sawn wood, yes, but irreplaceable when you need to hog off extraneous material. It's the king.
Hey Branson,
I agree 100%. A scrub plane is absolutely essential if you're doing any kind of woodworking that begins with rough sawn wood. What I like most about it is making that first pass. Just below the saw marks and bristly surface of a rough sawn plank is the true beauty of the wood. With a super sharp iron, that first pass is really the initial look at what's to come. Suddenly that rough looking plank takes on a personality all its own. The scrub plane unlocks the character of the wood.
You were lucky to find a Stanley #40 1/2. They're not as common as the #40. That's a great plane and a proven worker for sure.
Jim C.
-
I'm just getting started in traditional woodworking, as best I can at least, and accumulating tools. Vintage isn't happening but I've restored a few wrecks back into workers.
Saws are sort of easy even living in Mexico. Chisels, darn easy. Planes that are in good form and affordable, not so easy. A friend gave me a generic no.6, I bought a generic no.4 and both were in pretty rough shape.
A lot of work later combined with a youtube training course I got both of them into working order. The adjuster functions on the no. 6 are all but gone. Not a problem, I can hammer tap that thing into fine adjustment fast enough.
Then after I seen an Asain style plane I had to have one. So I made 3 wood bodies and wedges, used a modern Stanley iron in one and its a worker bee! The other two await me finding irons for them. I've been using it on a series of small pine shelves I'm making and it works pretty good. A few small details to work out but hey, it was a tomato crate a month ago. The next one won't have those issues.
I'll get some pictures up here soon, I have to take them yet.
Jim, Scott and all the rest, thank you for the inspiration to try.
-
Plow planes are used to cut various width grooves in a board at a set distance off the edge of the board. Drawer bottoms for example. The age old problem was/is to keep the fence parallel to the skate of the plane. The fence is the guide that rides the edge of the board and the skate is the thin metal blade that is actually the sole of the plane. The skate is thin because a plow plane will accept a range of different iron sizes to cut different width grooves depending on the intended use. The irons can range from 1/8 - 5/8 inches in width. The blade is centered on the skate and most irons have a groove on the back side of the iron that helps to keep the iron centered on the skate. The irons are also tapered to aide in keeping them adjusted with such a narrow wedge. The earliest plow planes have slide arms that are locked into position by either a wedge arrangement on the side of each arm or by locking screws from the top of the plane body that tighten against the top of the sliding arm. The locking screws are usually wood but brass is also found. The next most common design is screw arm design, where the arms are threaded and there are nuts and threaded washers that hold the fence adjustment. There have been many different patented and un-patented designs of Plow Planes. There is the fairly well known but hard to find Center Wheel design that was manufactured by both Ohio Tool and Sandusky. The Center Wheel design was patented November 30, 1869 Patent 97,328. The pictures are of my Sandusky 141 Center Wheel Plow Plane with six ivory tips. All Boxwood with the Sandusky Brass Center Wheel adjustment. Ohio Tool versions were similar in design but the large adjustment wheel is also wood.
Pictures won't load I'll try later.
-
Plow planes are used to cut various width grooves in a board at a set distance off the edge of the board. Drawer bottoms for example. The age old problem was/is to keep the fence parallel to the skate of the plane. The fence is the guide that rides the edge of the board and the skate is the thin metal blade that is actually the sole of the plane. The skate is thin because a plow plane will accept a range of different iron sizes to cut different width grooves depending on the intended use. The irons can range from 1/8 - 5/8 inches in width. The blade is centered on the skate and most irons have a groove on the back side of the iron that helps to keep the iron centered on the skate. The irons are also tapered to aide in keeping them adjusted with such a narrow wedge. The earliest plow planes have slide arms that are locked into position by either a wedge arrangement on the side of each arm or by locking screws from the top of the plane body that tighten against the top of the sliding arm. The locking screws are usually wood but brass is also found. The next most common design is screw arm design, where the arms are threaded and there are nuts and threaded washers that hold the fence adjustment. There have been many different patented and un-patented designs of Plow Planes. There is the fairly well known but hard to find Center Wheel design that was manufactured by both Ohio Tool and Sandusky. The Center Wheel design was patented November 30, 1869 Patent 97,328. The pictures are of my Sandusky 141 Center Wheel Plow Plane with six ivory tips. All Boxwood with the Sandusky Brass Center Wheel adjustment. Ohio Tool versions were similar in design but the large adjustment wheel is also wood.
Pictures won't load I'll try later.
Thanks Les! I'm looking forward to seeing and learning much more about old plow planes. I've also had problems with adding pictures to my posts. I've found that trying to post them during normal daytime hours is very difficult. My best success seems to be later at night usually after 9:00 p.m. CST. Don't give up! I want to see those planes!
Jim C.
-
I'm just getting started in traditional woodworking, as best I can at least, and accumulating tools. Vintage isn't happening but I've restored a few wrecks back into workers.
Saws are sort of easy even living in Mexico. Chisels, darn easy. Planes that are in good form and affordable, not so easy. A friend gave me a generic no.6, I bought a generic no.4 and both were in pretty rough shape.
A lot of work later combined with a youtube training course I got both of them into working order. The adjuster functions on the no. 6 are all but gone. Not a problem, I can hammer tap that thing into fine adjustment fast enough.
Then after I seen an Asain style plane I had to have one. So I made 3 wood bodies and wedges, used a modern Stanley iron in one and its a worker bee! The other two await me finding irons for them. I've been using it on a series of small pine shelves I'm making and it works pretty good. A few small details to work out but hey, it was a tomato crate a month ago. The next one won't have those issues.
I'll get some pictures up here soon, I have to take them yet.
Jim, Scott and all the rest, thank you for the inspiration to try.
Hi Strik9,
Thanks for joining in! It sounds like you're getting some good use out of your hand planes. I'm particularly interested in seeing those that you made from scratch. If you have a little time, post a few pictures of them.
Jim C.
-
This is a typical looking handled screw arm plow plane. The maker is A. Mockridge Newark, NJ. That alone makes this plane a little special as handled plow planes from NJ and PA are unusual for some reason. Mockridge is listed as a plane maker during the 1825 - 1841 era. I'll post several pictures but you can see the large nuts and smaller threaded washers that hold the fence adjustment. The bottom view shows the thin skate and the rectangle shaped piece of steel that is the depth stop. On the top of the plane is the wedge and iron as well as the brass depth stop adjusting thumb screw. On one side the brass thumb screw is the depth stop lock screw. In one of the pictures you can see a brass reinforcing strip on the skate. The plane is Boxwood.
-
Screw Arm Plow Plane makers all add their personal touches. Many of the plow planes made weren't patented so the basic design is similar. The easiest way for them to personalize planes was the nut design. At one point I could identify some of the makers by their style of screw arm nuts. These pictures are just a small sample of plow plane nuts from a few different plow planes in my collection.
If you double click the pictures they will enlarge!
-
Wow Les! I'm pretty sure I just became a plow plane enthusiast in a big way. Really! Those planes are something special. I like the mechanics they employ, the screws, their construction....But I think what did it for me was the photos you posted of the individual screw arm nuts. When seen apart from the planes themselves, they are clearly small turned pieces of art. I'm looking at plow planes from a totally different perspective now. I'm a fan! This could get serious for me. I'm just saying.....
Jim C.
-
This Plow Plane is an English made plane. At first glance one might think it is a regular slide arm plow plane. There is a lot more going on with this W. Hasler made plane. Haslar is listed as living from 1825 - 1865. If you notice there aren't any wedges to lock the arms in position. There are round head screws in the top that lock the arms in position and there is a larger fluted knob on the top of the plane. The fluted knob is connected to a rack and pinion system that adjusts the fence. The racks are inlaid into the bottoms of the arms. There are brass strips on the top of the arms that the locking screw tighten against. Brass end caps on the arms that arm fairly common on slide arm plow planes. There are scales engraved on the side of the arms to aide in setting the fence. The thumb screw on the top is used to adjust the depth stop. Underneath the bump out piece on the side of the main body along side of the fence is where the magic happens. There is also a brass reinforcement strip on the fence, this fence and reinforcement is riveted onto the plane body.
More pictures to follow.
-
Additional Hasler pictures.
-
Les, I'm beginning to see that some of these old plow planes can be fairly complex particularly in their methods of adjustment. I would imagine that their construction takes some planning and engineering too. I'm intrigued by the rack and pinion adjustments. It seems that the design of plow planes was only limited by the craftsman's ability to dream one up and then construct it. Each one is very unique. In terms of practicality, I wonder which ones worked the best? Generally speaking, they all were designed to do the same thing. Is that correct? So what separated the planes that provided real utility from those that were "contraptions?" In this case, was the rack and pinion system better than screw arms and nuts? I have A LOT to learn about plow planes. Like I said early on in the thread, it's all about education and the motivation to learn. This is GREAT stuff!
Jim C. (future plow plane owner)
-
They were all built to do the same thing, kind of like building a better mouse trap. The most common ones you will find are slide arm with wedge locks on the arms without a handle, screw arm style without a handle and screw arm with handle. The other types are attempts to solve the problem of keeping the fence parallel to the skate.
-
Wow Les!! The Hassler plane is a knockout! Never saw anything like it.
Rack and pinion adjust, I have flipped my wig! OK I don't have a wig, but how about a ball cap? heeheh
I'm blown away, anyhow.
I am sorry, but you are going to have to dig in and use that centerwheel long and hard, And tell me how well it holds the fence setting?
I always wondered about that.
The Jersey plane? Well no way to know how come there were few Jersey makers,
but if it was required they had to get solid chunks of boxwood that big..............
Thanks for sharing
yours Scott
-
Scott, lots of NJ makers they just didn't make very many handled plow planes.
Rhode Island plow plane makers are hard to find. J. W. Pearce and E Childs are the only two I can think of off hand. Other plane makers from Rhode Island but they didn't make plow planes.
-
Two good books on Plow Planes out there, The American Cabinetmakers Plow Plane by John A. Moody is sometimes hard to find, out of print and usually sells for over $100. The second is Wooden Plow Planes by Don Rosebrook and Dennis Fisher, you can find this one for around $50. Both books have sections on nut styles. Don Rosebrook and Dennis Fisher's book was released in 2003 and has a lot of color pictures of a lot of different makers from across the country.
If you see a plow plane with a brass ring around the base of the nut where the nut contacts the main body it was made in Philadelphia PA or Lancaster PA area. Nobody else did that detail. I'll show some in a future post.
-
>Other plane makers from Rhode Island but they didn't make plow plane.
Our claim to fame seems to be that we made the irons for many planes (often unmarked or OEM stamped), because Rhode Island Tool Co/Providence Tool Co was one of the very very few companies that could reliably a steel edge on a malleable iron sheet...
Still following along, this is a great thread :)
-
During Stanley’s golden years of hand plane production, the company managed to fill just about every conceivable niche known to exist, and perhaps invented a few new ones. Stanley’s hand plane offerings were diverse, ranging from planes designed to hog off thick shavings, to those that could fine tune a joint for a perfect custom fit. Many of the planes used to fine tune joints were often small, relatively delicate tools, that usually incorporated their own unique characteristics. As always, some worked better than others.
Stanley #79:
The plane depicted below is a side rabbet plane. Its sole function is primarily to widen dados, grooves and rabbet joints. With its thin sole, it can fit into the narrowest of dados, etc., and if set up properly, will remove the slightest shaving from the joint’s side wall. Personally, I’m famous for undercutting joints. They’re almost always a little bit too tight, too long, too thick; and I end up “creeping” up on the final fit by making little adjustments and fine tuning the parts. Rarely if ever do I cut a joint that mates perfectly with the first attempted fitting. This is exactly the sort of plane that I find to be extremely handy.
What made the #79 unique was its design to cut in both directions on the same side wall of a joint, hence, two irons are mounted on the same face and same edge of the plane itself. The tool can be pushed or pulled in either direction without having to move or reposition the work piece. It seems like a handy feature. That being said, if the non-cutting iron is set to make a cut, it is consequently being dragged across the wall of the joint, possibly “throwing off” the accuracy (angle) of the iron that is being engaged going in the opposite direction. Basically, the iron not in use needs to be retracted back beyond the body of the plane so it is not being dragged and potentially misguiding the iron that’s engaged in the cut. That kind of defeats the convenience of setting both irons on the plane so the user can go in either direction quickly. By repositioning the small “shoe” at the leading edge of each iron, the plane can be converted for bull nose work, or with the removal of the shoe, can cut into the corner of a stopped dado. That's a nice feature. Stanley also made individual side rabbet planes, the #98 and #99, that were designed to cut in one direction or the other. They were two separate planes, and probably a better idea in the long run. However, in Stanley’s never ending attempt to fill a niche (real or not), the #79 was born. Its production overlapped the #98’s and #99’s production run by sixteen years. Don’t get me wrong, side rabbet planes are very useful, but trying to create one that cuts in both directions, may not have ultimately saved the final user any time and/or effort. Still, other companies also tried too, most notably Sargent, with its #81. We’ll cover the Stanley #98 and #99, as well as the Sargent #81, in future posts.
The number #79 was produced from 1926 to 1969. It was traditionally nickel plated, however, during WWII, some were finished with black japanning. The japanned versions are somewhat rare. Early versions of the #79's main body, like the one depicted below, were cast with a semicircular cutout section. Later versions produced from approximately 1952 to 1969 were cast straight across the top and had a small hang hole in them. Stanley also added a stamped steel depth stop to the back of the plane about the same time that the #79’s semicircle cutout was eliminated. I occasionally see #79 side rabbet planes for sale at tool shows and online auctions. Although side rabbet planes are very useful, and almost necessary when making fine furniture or cabinetry, because of their limited function, they’re not tools that most basic DIYers ever needed. Consequently, they don’t show up at garage sales and/or flea markets too often. If you’re thinking of adding a side rabbet to your collection of tools, the #79 might be a good choice, provided you understand that its two iron feature is only of limited convenience. Still, from an economic point of view, it’s probably a little less expensive than trying to find a Stanley #98 and #99. As always, do your homework. The #79 has several little pieces that can get lost or damaged. Make sure you buy a complete plane. Interestingly, several of the small pieces found on the #79, were interchangeable with those on the Stanley #98 and #99. With the exception of the #79, #98 and #99 main castings, several of their respective parts to include the thumb screws, iron clamps, irons, shoes, and shoe screws are interchangeable.
Jim C.
-
If you’ve been reading along so far, I suspect that you now know Stanley made many, many different block plane patterns. I’m sure that during a particular tool’s design phase, Stanley’s engineers and marketers were targeting some specific segment of the woodworking public. Although block planes like the #9 ½ for instance, were probably targeted at just about everyone, some planes, perhaps only based on their specific physical characteristics may not have been aimed at so broad an audience.
Stanley #203:
A while back we covered the Stanley #118 stamped steel, “boy proof” block plane. With pieces that couldn’t be removed without some intentional force, and a steel body and pressure cap, the #118 seemed like the prefect tool for the young budding woodworker. You may recall that the #118 wasn’t produced by Stanley until 1933. Well, prior to 1933, the world was still populated with young woodworkers. What did they use? I don’t think Stanley was about to concede that segment of the market to one of their competitors. In response to that niche, Stanley came up with the #203 block plane. It was manufactured between 1912 and 1961. At approximately 5 ½” long, it was just about the right size for small hands. With a fixed throat and an iron bedded at an angle of slightly greater than 20 degrees, it could produce respectable results. (It should be noted that most reference material regarding this plane provides information stating that the bedded iron angle is "standard." The common standard bedded angle is usually 20 degrees. The iron on the #203 is clearly bedded at an angle that's greater than 20 degrees. See replies #325, #327, and #328 below for more information.) Still, its body and pressure cap are cast iron (so not “drop proof”) and it’s equipped with an iron adjusting mechanism that can be easily removed…..and lost. While the #118 and #203 production overlapped each other for nearly thirty years, the #118 was the sole survivor of the two and was produced well into the 1980s. The plane depicted below was most likely manufactured in the early 1950s.
I occasionally see #203 planes for sale, but not too often for some reason. I don’t think they’re particularly rare, but I've never seen one at a garage sale or flea market either. It took me a while to find the example depicted below. Even though it may have initially been designed for children to use, I see some utility in the size and design of the #203. For small work pieces, and use on hardwoods (based on its iron being bedded at greater than 20 degrees), it might be the perfect tool for some applications..
Jim C. (I hope everyone enjoys a happy Memorial Day weekend.)
-
While they may not be rare, neither are they very common. I've never seen one at a yard sale or flea market either, or even at the M-WTCA meets I've been to. Maybe not one of Stanley's better ideas.
Mike
-
While they may not be rare, neither are they very common. I've never seen one at a yard sale or flea market either, or even at the M-WTCA meets I've been to. Maybe not one of Stanley's better ideas.
Mike
Hi Mike,
Thanks for jumping in. A little independent validation (or contradiction) is always good, just to make sure I'm not spouting off inaccurate information. Yes, that's been my experience too. The #203 isn't a plane that I'd consider to be uncommon, but at the same time, it's not one that shows up for sale too often either. I really hesitate to categorize the #203 as rare, but it did take me a few years to find one. I do agree that it's probably not the best block plane Stanley ever produced, but it could get the job done when necessary. It's certainly a stout little tool that appears to be durable under normal use. Stanley did make a couple small block planes with some nice features to include adjustable throats, mechanical iron adjustments, and irons bedded at a low angle. If you get a little time, take a look at the #60 and #60 1/2 block planes. In my opinion, they're two of Stanley's best small block planes.
Jim C.
-
Jim,
I like the 60 1/2 the best. I have sold more of them than any other plane. They just seem to be the right size. My biggest problem is finding them. Seems like they are becoming more scarce for some reason.
Mike
-
Jim,
I like the 60 1/2 the best. I have sold more of them than any other plane. They just seem to be the right size. My biggest problem is finding them. Seems like they are becoming more scarce for some reason.
Mike
Mike,
It could be for the reason you stated. They're the right size and they're good tools. They work. Why part with a simple, well designed tool, that delivers great results? Maybe more people are just holding on to them.
Jim C.
-
I have managed to get picture capability again! My most successful wood planes as promised gentlemen:
I am still waiting for an iron for the biggest one. The next ones will need bigger throats as they can choke up on some types of wood.
-
Stanley came up with the #203 block plane...[with] an iron bedded at the standard angle (20 degrees)...
Thanks for your extensive, detailed tutorials on various planes, Jim. One comment (well, one comment and elaboration) on your latest post:
On my example of the 203, a gift from a friend when I helped him move, the iron is bedded at a higher angle. I just measured it, and estimate it to be bedded at 23-24 degrees. With an iron sharpened at the standard 25 degrees, you would get an effective cutting angle close to 50 degrees. In a bench (bevel-down) plane, this would be considered York pitch, optimal for hardwoods and interlocking/figured grain.
The same is true on my example of the Stanley 220.
I was taught that metal-bodied block planes have two bedding angles - the standard 20 degree angle and the low 12 degree angle. It appears this may be over-simplifying what Stanley, at least, did. I'm not sure why they would have chosen a higher bedding on these two planes, one marketed for shop classes and the other designed as a utility plane that would mostly show up in the home shop or the toolbox of a carpenter doing rough work.
And it was a choice; on both planes, as you can see in Jim's first photo of the 203, the adjuster is a tall cast block, running on cast fingers on the plane's bed. If Stanley had wanted to use the 20-degree bedding of the 9-1/2, 18, 19, 110, etc., they could have just cast the block a bit shorter and changed the angle of the fingers. Again, the 220 shares the same tall adjuster design.
I've used my 203 a bit for fine trimming, although the carpentry that's soaked up much of my time for the past decade doesn't call for much finesse. I note that the size of the plane (though not the bedding angle) is very close to the size of Lie-Nielsen's #103 block plane and Lee Valley's Apron Plane; this leads me to think that a 203 could enjoy a role in the shop (if you should happen to find one).
-
Hi Strik9,
Thanks for getting a couple pictures posted. I'm interested in seeing more of your wooden planes. It looks to me like you did a great job constructing them. How do they cut? I see that one plane still needs an iron. What size iron are you looking for?
Jim C.
-
Hey Bill,
I read your post and did a little side-by-side comparison out in the shop. You’re 100% correct! You made some GREAT points and observations! I can honestly say that the irons on the #203 and #220 always looked to be bedded at a little higher than the “standard” angle of 20 degrees, but I never really looked closely to make sure I wasn’t just imagining that, or if it was fact. Well, based entirely on your post, I can say now that it’s fact. I love learning new information and “tidbits” about these old tools. Now I want to know why!! You made a good point. Why would Stanley put a "York-like" pitch on two general utility block planes? I spent a good part of the morning going through my reference materials looking for any mention of those two planes having been produced with irons bedded at greater than 20 degrees. I couldn’t find a word about it. My only guess is that Stanley attempted to make a general utility block plane that could handle a little bit of every thing. I have always thought that a block plane with an adjustable throat and iron bedded at 12 degrees would be the tool of choice under most circumstances where a block plane is needed. I might have to re-think my position. I can’t say that the #203 or the #220 are the first block planes that I reach for, but I’m fairly certain I might have to give both a second look going forward. Maybe I’m missing some of their benefits. GREAT information Bill. Thanks again for posting your observations. I’ll go back and amend my previous post regarding the #203.
As I stated above, I did go out in the shop and do a little side-by-side comparison. The photo below depicts three Stanley block planes. From left to right are the #220, #9 ½, and #203. The iron on the #9 ½ is bedded at the standard angle of 20 degrees. Clearly, the #220 and #203 irons are bedded at steeper angles.
Jim C. (Who always appreciates learning something new about old hand planes.)
-
Bill and Jim,
Kind of interesting that Sellens makes no mention of different bed angles nor does Pat Leach. John Walters does say the 220 is bedded at 23° but does not mention the 203 as being anything but 20°.
Looks like you guys are paying more attention to actual examples than Stanley's propaganda. Nice work on your parts!
Mike
-
Bill and Jim,
Kind of interesting that Sellens makes no mention of different bed angles nor does Pat Leach. John Walters does say the 220 is bedded at 23° but does not mention the 203 as being anything but 20°.
Looks like you guys are paying more attention to actual examples than Stanley's propaganda. Nice work on your parts!
Mike
No kudos for me on this one Mike. Bill's the guy who brought it to our attention. Credit goes to Bill. Once again, I REALLY do appreciate you guys checking my facts and figures. First off, I don't want to pass along bad, inaccurate, or incomplete information. Second, it lets me know that someone is reading this stuff. Third, I do like learning more about old planes. I learned something new today. Thanks you all for staying with the thread. We've still got a lot more ground to cover.
Jim C.
-
Jim,
I like the 60 1/2 the best. I have sold more of them than any other plane. They just seem to be the right size. My biggest problem is finding them. Seems like they are becoming more scarce for some reason.
Mike
I find 'em, I buy 'em. And keep 'em. I always need at least two, and if one of those hits the floor... Plus there's the general go to box, and also the window work go to box... Sell one? Not likely.
-
This thread has made me wonder who made the Stiletto block plane I picked up quite a while back. There's the Stiletto etch on the blade, but no other markings on the body. It's rather heavy for a block plane.
-
Jim,
I like the 60 1/2 the best. I have sold more of them than any other plane. They just seem to be the right size. My biggest problem is finding them. Seems like they are becoming more scarce for some reason.
Mike
I find 'em, I buy 'em. And keep 'em. I always need at least two, and if one of those hits the floor... Plus there's the general go to box, and also the window work go to box... Sell one? Not likely.
Hi Branson,
I think that's the train of thought these days. Stanley did make tens of thousands of those 60 series block planes over many decades, but not an unlimited supply. Even though they were mass produced, their overall quality was pretty darn good. It seems that anyone who works wood, from a serious cabinet maker to a DIYer has discovered that old tools are generally the way to go when it comes to performance and price. That being said, good used tools (and I don't mean collector quality) are getting harder to find. When you factor in breakage, and abuse/neglect, the number of available tools gets smaller. I think you're wise to hold on to those old block planes.
Jim C.
-
This thread has made me wonder who made the Stiletto block plane I picked up quite a while back. There's the Stiletto etch on the blade, but no other markings on the body. It's rather heavy for a block plane.
I can't say that it sounds familiar, but you can't leave us hanging like that. You're almost obligated to post a few pictures!!
Jim C.
-
I find 'em, I buy 'em. And keep 'em. I always need at least two, and if one of those hits the floor... Plus there's the general go to box, and also the window work go to box... Sell one? Not likely.
Yeah, me too. Mrs. Chilly says I'm a hoarder.
Chilly
-
This thread has made me wonder who made the Stiletto block plane I picked up quite a while back. There's the Stiletto etch on the blade, but no other markings on the body. It's rather heavy for a block plane.
I can't say that it sounds familiar, but you can't leave us hanging like that. You're almost obligated to post a few pictures!!
Jim C.
Stiletto was/is a West Coast brand. In their heyday, they offered a full line of tools. They've survived by specializing in some fancy hammers. See https://stiletto.com/ (https://stiletto.com/) and https://stiletto.com/t-about.aspx (https://stiletto.com/t-about.aspx). They're kind of vague about how the tools got produced, and the fact that they make no reference to a factory leads me to think that they were selling tools made by someone else for them, as did a lot of the hardware stores. But I don't know what company it was.
Since they were Northern California-based, just like me (born in Oakland, on the east side of the San Francisco Bay, and lived there until I was 18, when I set out to wander the world a bit; then back to the area in 1973, and since then), I tend to grab every Stiletto-branded tool I find. Wish I knew the history better; the company's website is pretty limited.
-
This thread has made me wonder who made the Stiletto block plane I picked up quite a while back. There's the Stiletto etch on the blade, but no other markings on the body. It's rather heavy for a block plane.
I can't say that it sounds familiar, but you can't leave us hanging like that. You're almost obligated to post a few pictures!!
.
Jim C.
Stiletto was/is a West Coast brand. In their heyday, they offered a full line of tools. They've survived by specializing in some fancy hammers. See https://stiletto.com/ (https://stiletto.com/) and https://stiletto.com/t-about.aspx (https://stiletto.com/t-about.aspx). They're kind of vague about how the tools got produced, and the fact that they make no reference to a factory leads me to think that they were selling tools made by someone else for them, as did a lot of the hardware stores. But I don't know what company it was.
Since they were Northern California-based, just like me (born in Oakland, on the east side of the San Francisco Bay, and lived there until I was 18, when I set out to wander the world a bit; then back to the area in 1973, and since then), I tend to grab every Stiletto-branded tool I find. Wish I knew the history better; the company's website is pretty limited.
Thanks Bill. I've been learning a lot around here lately. This is exactly what I hoped this thread would be.....an exchange of information with a hand plane theme. Good stuff!!!
Jim C.
-
[Stiletto] The company's history page is missing a piece, the merger of B&H with Pacific Hardware & Steel, probably the actual makers of hardware long ago. The current company has only the mark as far as I can tell...
The mark was originally a cutlery trademark/company name, there is detailed history on the pocket knife collector forums...
-
[Stiletto] The company's history page is missing a piece, the merger of B&H with Pacific Hardware & Steel, probably the actual makers of hardware long ago. The current company has only the mark as far as I can tell...
The mark was originally a cutlery trademark/company name, there is detailed history on the pocket knife collector forums...
Hey Rusty,
Thanks for chipping in.
Jim C.
-
With the merger mentioned (Baker Hamilton and Pacific Hardware & Steel), Stiletto became the premium line of proprietary tools from Baker Hamilton. You could get more things from BH than you could at Alice's Restaurant. They were general merchants, selling more things than you could imagine. (Their largest line of wrenches were Billings) They produced nothing, actually.
My search for information on Stiletto tools led me to Tool Talk -- one of our old members had a love of Stiletto and things BH, and one of his entries showed up in one of my online searches. I now have catalogues number 11 and number 101(101 is from 1949). Huge things.
Stiletto hammers is what got me started. I started working with a couple of guys who formed Phoenix Planing Mill, and they were sold on the hammers from BH. I came to share their enthusiasm for the quality of the hammers. Great out of the box balance! Can't pass one up. Mine run from 13 oz to 28 oz currently. Then I found the block plane, and then a leather working knife, and the race was on.
Most Stiletto tools have only the Stiletto logo. But my wife came home with a 2" Stiletto socketed butt chisel for me one day that is the exception. The back of the blade has the familiar Stiletto logo, but the top of the blade is marked clearly "Jernbolanget Egilstuna Sweden." It's the only one I've seen with the mark of the actual maker.
Their secondary line of tools were Baker. Not long ago I found a NOS Baker smoothing plane. The only give away was the still intact paper label on the lever cap. (Yeah, I know. I gotta post a picture).
They haven't actually survived. The fancy Stiletto hammers are the result of a fellow purchasing the brand name. I was hopeful when I saw the Stiletto logo on somebody's pickup rear window, but they have no relationship to the hammers I love. (And I don't like the hammers.)
-
Pictures of the fruit crate planes, the irons are Stanley Sheffield which I can get locally. Not cheap but they cut straight from the sleeve. I really like them.
Not Lie-Nielsen quality by far but as worker bees they serve me. They do choke up a bit on certain types of wood but I can live with that, I can always build new bodies later if it becomes unlivable.
-
more
-
With the merger mentioned (Baker Hamilton and Pacific Hardware & Steel), Stiletto became the premium line of proprietary tools from Baker Hamilton. You could get more things from BH than you could at Alice's Restaurant. They were general merchants, selling more things than you could imagine. (Their largest line of wrenches were Billings) They produced nothing, actually.
My search for information on Stiletto tools led me to Tool Talk -- one of our old members had a love of Stiletto and things BH, and one of his entries showed up in one of my online searches. I now have catalogues number 11 and number 101(101 is from 1949). Huge things.
Stiletto hammers is what got me started. I started working with a couple of guys who formed Phoenix Planing Mill, and they were sold on the hammers from BH. I came to share their enthusiasm for the quality of the hammers. Great out of the box balance! Can't pass one up. Mine run from 13 oz to 28 oz currently. Then I found the block plane, and then a leather working knife, and the race was on.
Most Stiletto tools have only the Stiletto logo. But my wife came home with a 2" Stiletto socketed butt chisel for me one day that is the exception. The back of the blade has the familiar Stiletto logo, but the top of the blade is marked clearly "Jernbolanget Egilstuna Sweden." It's the only one I've seen with the mark of the actual maker.
Their secondary line of tools were Baker. Not long ago I found a NOS Baker smoothing plane. The only give away was the still intact paper label on the lever cap. (Yeah, I know. I gotta post a picture).
They haven't actually survived. The fancy Stiletto hammers are the result of a fellow purchasing the brand name. I was hopeful when I saw the Stiletto logo on somebody's pickup rear window, but they have no relationship to the hammers I love. (And I don't like the hammers.)
Great writeup Branson! I'm learning a lot about Stiletto tools! How about a picture or two of that block plane?
Jim C.
-
Those are some really NICE looking planes Strik9!! Well done!! How long does it usually take to make one?
Jim C.
-
These are a fast build but I have about 10 failed efforts in front of these three that are on the way out.
It takes about a day to cut all the pieces and glue them up. Mostly waiting for glue to dry. At the end of the day I can cut rough form from the crude block and start making it pretty.
The time is spent in making the wedge and iron fit well, adjusting the mouth and flattening the sole. Lots of time with a sheet of sandpaper on glass actually. At the end of the 2nd day if all went well stain and clear are applied. Let that dry overnight and its good to go.
Because its a tool and hopefully will wear out from use one day I don't let a few flaws bother me much. They cut great thanks to the fine folks in Sheffield England, I can't take credit for that.
Actually I want to upgrade my two iron planes to Stanley Sheffield irons when I can. Sure they work good enough now but they can be better.
-
Strik9,
Like I said earlier, "well done." I hope you'll continue posting more here about the planes you make, and include some photos too. I'd really be interested in seeing and reading more about the process you go through to make one. Maybe you could do a detailed writeup with some step-by-step photos showing the construction process. ????Maybe???? Give it some thought. I think we'd like to see how you do it. Thanks again for showing us your hand crafted planes! I'm hoping to see more.
Jim C.
-
You're in luck Jim. I have one more planned that fixes the tight throat problem these three have. And after that I'm going to spend a few years trying to wear them out. I really don't need 3 dozen no. 4 planes!
Its a pretty crude cut and glue process really, but it did take a while to work out a few details too. ScottG could make one 10X better with mother of pearl inlays while he slept!!!
-
You're in luck Jim. I have one more planned that fixes the tight throat problem these three have. And after that I'm going to spend a few years trying to wear them out. I really don't need 3 dozen no. 4 planes!
Its a pretty crude cut and glue process really, but it did take a while to work out a few details too. ScottG could make one 10X better with mother of pearl inlays while he slept!!!
I'd still like to see how you do it if you're up for taking a few pictures and writing about the process. I'd also like to see a writeup on making planes from Scottg too. I can never get too much of this stuff and the point is to learn more from one anothers experiences using, making, and collecting hand planes.
Jim C.
-
>Great writeup Branson! I'm learning a lot about Stiletto tools! How about a picture or two of that block plane?
Thanks for the compliment. I might be able to get a photo sometime today. I'll try to get a photo of the Baker smoothing plane, too.
-
In today’s addition to the thread, I thought I’d feature a very unique block plane and talk a little bit about authenticating and approximating the age of a plane based on its physical clues. We’ve talked a little bit about this in the past, and the featured plane is a nice representation of what a collector might be looking for when considering a plane.
Stanley #140:
From a pure utility standpoint, this block plane seems to incorporate some nice features that might make it a worthy addition to one’s woodworking tool arsenal. Just looking at it, the #140 basically appears to be like many other common block planes. From a distance, its length, width, styling (nickel plating) and configuration all make it appear to be a higher end block plane that’s similar to others of its time. Upon closer inspection however, one will notice that the #140 is a little more than a common block plane. With its skewed iron and removable right side wall, the #140 is somewhat more versatile than the common block plane. I like the skewed iron for its ability to slice fine shavings from end grain. By removing the plane’s steel right sidewall, it can quickly be converted into a rabbet plane. That could be a handy feature. The left sidewall casting is significantly thicker, thus adding physical stability and integrity when using the plane to cut rabbet joints. The nickel plated pressure cap is unique to the plane, having its own mini sidewall that provides a bearing surface against the shoulder of a rabbet joint. Some thinking went into the design of this tool. Although it borders on being a contraption of sorts, the potential utility is there, and in certain circumstances, it might be the right tool for the job.
Stanley produced the #140 from 1895 to 1943. It’s not one of the more common block planes that I’ve seen. In terms of styling, it’s probably one of my favorites. It’s prominent nickel plated pressure cap, skewed iron, and large iron adjusting wheel at the rear of the plane certainly entice me to want to pick the tool up and simply study its curves and angles. To me, it’s an attractive plane, and that’s really why I wanted one for my non-working collection. That being said, I had to find the right one, and it took some time. Like so many of Stanley’s planes, their parts were interchangeable from one era to the next. For instance, if a particular plane was used frequently its iron would be sharpened, honed, used, and eventually need to be replaced. A replacement iron would most likely have a later trademark on it. That wouldn’t even remotely affect the plane’s ability to get the job done, but from a serious collector’s standpoint, well, what can I say?
When I’m on the hunt for a plane that I want to add to my non-working collection, I’m very particular about what the plane needs to incorporate in terms of originality, completeness and condition. I’m looking for a showpiece that as closely as possible depicts the tool’s physical state the day it left the factory. Planes, just like any old tools, are very difficult to find in NOS (New Old Stock) condition. The rarity of the tool also plays a part in my decision to buy or keep looking. As always, knowing what to look for prior to buying is paramount. Once a plane has passed my initial damage (loss of finish, dings, cracks, repairs, missing/replaced/incorrect parts, etc.) inspection, I move on to the more technical/subtle inspection. This is where I decide to make an offer on the plane or not. One of the main issues I keep in mind when buying a collector quality plane is the age of the plane’s INDIVIDUAL parts. I want to see parts from the same era, and patina on those parts that’s evenly distributed and of the same color on the bare castings. Very often, individual parts are assembled and then machined as a unit. Do the grinding/machine marks on both individual pieces match? If they don’t’ there’s a good chance that those pieces were from two different planes. On early planes, I want to see foundry marks on parts that are the same, indicating that they were produced during the same time period. I look for patent dates and trademark stamps on various individual parts that support (or conflict with) the age of the other parts when taken as a whole.
The #140 depicted below is an early Type 2 and was most likely produced between 1899 and 1902. The patent date (11/6/1894) on the removable right sidewall was only found on the early versions of the plane (usually prior to approximately 1905). The cutting iron bears the arched trademark most commonly used by Stanley from 1890 to 1910. In the exploded parts view photo below (photo 6), notice a mark on the inside bottom of the plane’s main casting in the center, just forward of the of the iron’s nickel plated adjustment seat. That’s a foundry mark, and it is the letter “B.” Now take a look at the close up photo depicting the bottom of the pressure cap. See the “B” foundry mark again? Stanley used the B foundry mark between 1899 and 1902. Based on those clues, I can confidently say that the plane’s main casting, pressure cap, iron, and removable right side wall were all produced at some point between 1899 and 1905, and are probably all original to each other. Still I look for other details. Based on doing some research, I know the two little screws that hold the removable right sidewall in place were ALWAYS flat head slotted screws with vertical knurling. Anything else would be a replacement. Finally, I mentioned taking a look at the fit of mating machined parts. The #140’s removable sidewall was machined while attached to the right side of the plane. When the toe and heel of the plane were ground to shape, the removable right side wall was also ground. That grinding process created a sharp burr at the front and back edges of the removable right sidewall. Although it may be difficult to see in the photo below, the grinding marks on the main casting match perfectly with the marks that carry over to the removable right sidewall. The patina between the parts also appears to be consistent. That's basically how I evaluate a plane before I add it to my non-working collection. The plane depicted below came my way in 2007.
Jim C.
-
Saw one of these back in the '80s. Immediately wanted one, but never saw one again. It wasn't that I didn't buy it -- it belonged to a co-worker and I knew better than to try to talk him out of it. So I just drooled every time he brought it out to use in the shop. Grrrrr.
-
Hi Branson,
Thanks for stopping by! I do see #140s occasionally at old tool swap meets and auctions. They're available at online auctions too. I ended up with the example shown above after several years of searching. I would have liked one in its original box, but this one came up for sale and I knew that it was the best I had seen up to that point in time, so I went for it. I'm really picky about buying a collector quality tool, and I've LEARNED TO BE PATIENT. More than once I've overpaid for a plane that I thought was in collector quality condition, only to find a MUCH better example later on down the road for the same money. So, now I've got some really nice user quality planes that cost me more than they should have. It's a learning experience!!! Some times one has to learn the hard way, and there's a "tax" for being uneducated. Anyway....
As for the #140, I'd see them around, but never in the condition I wanted for collector purposes. Still, the sellers wanted collector quality prices for them. Although the pictures I posted aren't great, and the detail is lost on poor lighting, etc. the plane shown, on a 1 - 10 scale, is a solid 9. I passed on four or five that were in the 6 - 8 range because they were just too much money given their physical states of condition. They would have made GREAT users, but not for collector quality prices. Years ago I probably would have overpaid for one of them. I've learned, and I'm still learning. At any given time, I have two lists of planes that I'm on the lookout for; a user list and a collector list. To date, I'm still actively looking for a nice #140 that I can use out in the shop for a reasonable user price. With some of these models however, even finding a nice user, without paying a "tax" can be difficult.
Jim C. (who loves talking about old hand planes and tends to ramble) :smiley:
-
To date, I'm still actively looking for a nice #140 that I can use out in the shop for a reasonable user price. With some of these models however, even finding a nice user, without paying a "tax" can be difficult.
Jim C. (who loves talking about old hand planes and tends to ramble) :smiley:
If I find two, I'll let you know. The 140 always looked like an exceptionally useful plane.
-
Saw one of these back in the '80s. Immediately wanted one, but never saw one again. It wasn't that I didn't buy it -- it belonged to a co-worker and I knew better than to try to talk him out of it. So I just drooled every time he brought it out to use in the shop. Grrrrr.
Is this the place to mention that, when I found the only one I've ever seen in the wild at a garage sale, I paid $2.50? No? Not the place?
I'm still shaking my head about that miracle price, three years later.
-
Hey Bill,
That's not a plane one typically sees at a garage sale! What a great find and the price was right! Although I do envy your good fortune, I would have been more upset if you had said that you passed on it for some reason. I'm never that lucky. As you well know, pictures are always welcome here. Let's see what you "stole" for $2.50.
Jim C.
-
I don't know if any of you subscribe to monthy periodicals or not, but I'm a big fan of Fine Woodworking magazine. I usually read that magazine cover to cover evey month. I haven't missed a single one since I started reading it back at issue No. 125 (July/August 1997). I'll bet someone here owns and/or has read every issue starting with No. 1. I most certainly credit that magazine with contribuing to my ongoing woodworking education. I'm constantly learning new woodworking tips and techniques, and have found myself getting better at making tight joints and more detailed "works of art." Remember, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.......
Anyway, this month's issue (August 2014 No. 241) features a pretty good article (pages 22-25) on using block planes. The craftsman demonstrating the plane appears to be using a Lie-Nielsen #60 1/2, low angle model. It's a quick read with lots of clear pictures, and some basic tips. It might be worth checking out.
Jim C.
-
Jim,
Like you, I hunted for awhile to find a really nice 140. The one I found was also missing the box but has all the japanning and no nickel loss. They are indeed a neat plane.
I also have one that would make a good user. It has all the correct parts but lots of nickel loss and probably about 50% of its japanning. If you don't find one by the time I get back home in Nov., I would sell it.
Mike
-
Jim,
Like you, I hunted for awhile to find a really nice 140. The one I found was also missing the box but has all the japanning and no nickel loss. They are indeed a neat plane.
I also have one that would make a good user. It has all the correct parts but lots of nickel loss and probably about 50% of its japanning. If you don't find one by the time I get back home in Nov., I would sell it.
Mike
Thanks Mike! Maybe we can work out a deal in November. I don't know where you are right now, but I hope all is well.
Jim C.
-
I only ever had one chance at a 140 and it happened long ago. That one was close-to-toast though. Basically a stripped body.
The entire philosophy of the #140 plane is hard for me to grasp.
Seems too fragile to work without the sideplate (as a rabbit plane), for 2 seconds!
They must be tougher than they look though. Or we'd never see any of them at all.
I bought a Sargent 507, the model L-N copied, and had that for years. Stronger design but no skewed iron.
Eventually, since I didn't use the Sargent, I got hard up for money and sold it.
My favorite rabbit planes are the #190 and 180 bevel down series. Especially the type 1 examples. Its not just that Stanley was more generous with the iron in the first examples, but the style is decidedly more.... there.
The #90, 91, 2 ,3, and 4 bevel up planes are good users too.
But nowhere near better enough to justify the "multiple times" increase in price that they go for.
In my experience.
yours Scott
-
Hey Scottg,
Where have you been lately? Thanks for stopping by. The #140 works okay as a rabbet and it is pretty sturdy. Still, I would set it for a light pass, especially on end grain just in case. I'm a fan of the Sargent #507. It's one of my favorites for making larger joints. In the long run, however, more often than not, I usually reach for a Stanley #90, #92, or #93. I like the #94 too, but that's a tough one to find in any condition. For some reason, the #94 seems more prone to damage than any of the others in the 90 series. I'd say that it's more scarce than a #140. If you have a little time this weekend, maybe you could post a few photos of your #180s and #190s. Those are some great models!
Jim C.
-
Doesn't the #94 weight about 60 pounds? heehehe :cheesy: I expect they get damaged easier than any other for this reason.
I have the polished casting of an infill shoulder plane that size. It weighs so much its ridiculous! Must be at least 1/4" thick, solid brass sides and 1/2" sole.
Its mostly why I haven't finished it yet. I know I'd never use it.
I have another homebrewed plane casting to finish one day. Its the same story. This one is a cast iron T-rabbit with a squirrel tail. It has to weigh at least 5 pounds!! (feel like 25 in your hand)
I am in the process of setting up a mini milling machine in my shop. I got one recently.
So far, even this mini mill, (which weighs about 1000 pounds), won't fit into my little shop anyplace. I am still juggling everything I ever owned to try and fit it in.
Maybe someday I will be able to mill away significant weight from these two (substitute wood inlay maybe) and have something nice.
Meanwhile I just got my first wooden filletster plane. (yard sale 3 bucks, and that included a handful of other items too). It was pretty mangy, but I got it restored well enough to use. I haven't used it much so far.
The jury is still out with me, whether I am going to like it, in other words hehe
yours Scott
-
Pictures Scottg!!! Pictures!!! Let's see what you've got going on.......... Funny comments about the #94. It's certainly a big one. I'm not sure that it weighs 60 pounds, but it does have some heft. I can't say it's one that I use because of its reputation for cracking........I'm envisioning another plane to feature in the thread. Stay tuned.
Jim C.
-
A popular website has one man's reviews of — or perhaps I should say "feelings about" — many in the line of Stanley's handplanes. The few planes I was most familiar with, I had no serious quibble with their reviews. One, though, saddened me: that of the Stanley 55 Combination Plane. The reviewer began by saying, "Bought it. Used it. Hated it. Sold it." My experience with Stanley advertising's "A planing mill in itself" is diametrically opposite.
My day job was a seven-year marriage to a couple… Wait, wait. Lemme try that again. My day job from the late-1970s well into the 1980s consisted of seven years building an antique shop on skids (so it could be pulled by a dozer up to a couple's new home-site), a garage-shop in which the wife could work on antiques, and two porch remodels blending into a 1940s-1950s home designed and built by a contemporary of Frank Lloyd Wright. All this for a self-styled "antique picker" (and her husband; but she was the boss), a term I was unfamiliar with. She said she bought the stock of antique dealers going out of business and when she'd amassed enough for a particular market, the couple delivered truckloads to said market. Wickerwork to San Francisco, high-end highboys to Connecticut, and so on.
One winter, the crew and I were shut down due to heavy winter snow and extreme cold (this was at a little over 10,000' in northern New Mexico). What to do, what to do? She lured me into a sideline of antique restoration (a worthwhile story by itself), in the course of which I sometimes needed to reproduce moldings in usually-short lengths. Building custom homes for around 25 years by then had only called for off-the-shelf moldings; I realized I needed to be able to reproduce much older molding patterns.
Option #1 was, of course, to build a room off my shop to hold several hundred or so wooden planes. Option #2 was to get a Stanley #55. Problem with that was that the blades didn't cut those older shapes, but Fine Woodworking magazine, I think it was, ran an article about how to custom-shape a blade out of "scrap steel." #55s were expensive, but I figured one was less-so than "enough" wooden planes.
Then the couple flew the three of us back East, hired a car and we did a long, meandering tour so I could see what she wanted me to reproduce in a ca. 1720 timber frame salt box she'd had her heart set on for years. We traveled around New England for close to a month and one day we whipped off of a highway to check out a very nice sign heralding "Antique Restorations." The young fellow had purchased an old Cape Cod saltbox that had all the "proper period lights (windows)," said my boss, as we drove up to his home/shop, and we easily got sidetracked by an offered guided tour of the premises. At one point my boss asked the fellow where he found the period "lights" (window frames) and he replied that he made them all, plus all of the doors but for two proper period ones he found. I was surprised at this, because we'd done a walk-through of his shop and I saw no power-shaper or -router, and I said so. He said he'd reproduced everything with a Stanley #55. My boss commented, "Gosh, that must've taken forever!" He said no, that he could grab his plane and the requisite blades (I didn't know to ask about the colonial molding patterns), adjust each just right and run all the mullions and muntins, switching blades and running them however many times, for about three windows before someone with an electrickery rig could catch up. He added that he'd enjoyed the whole task. I was sold.
Late in the journey we got to Wiscasset, Maine, and discovered The Anchorage Antiques, in which a fellow had a huge old barn filled with antique hand tools…, including a goodly selection of #55s. I took my time going through them and I picked out the body and attachments of what I long afterwards learned was a Type 1 (1897-1922), a complete later-Type (1925+) set of 55 blades, all in their original labeled boxes, plus a number of simple rectangular "extra" blades for working into special shapes I might need. (It wasn't till I moved here to Idaho that I acquired an original chestnut box for the whole shebang at auction. An early German immigrant had owned three 55s and all got heavy use. That was in 2005 or '06 and I'm still mumphing about not buying the entire collection.)
On returning to New Mexico, my very first case piece restoration needed 21" of very early molding for one end of a "country cabinet maker-made" side-board. Thankfully I'd been saving thicker "church keys" for just such an eventuality and following the directions for shaping a blade, I got it on the first go and didn't need any of my "extras." My second similar job was reproducing about 120' of cornice molding for both gable ends of an early-1800s home. The third such need was for around 100' of reproduction hand-rail on the same house. I didn't charge for making the blades, I just added them to my arsenal.
The reviewer I mentioned at the beginning agreed that the #55 was fine for the occasional short run, but he felt that much longer runs would require too much patience and skill. I flat don't believe in "too much patience and skill." My reputation is in part tied to the motto my former business partner and I cribbed: "The impossible just takes a little longer," and yes, I admit we love challenges. I'd absolutely not do or say anything to dissuade you if you do too. How else do we create a niche reputation? *he grins*
Edit: Oops, I should've added the suggestion for newbies to this plane, get a copy of the (or even an original) instruction manual and read/study it as long as it takes to settle perhaps-initial butterflies in the stomach. The subject matter is nowhere as daunting as, say, quantum physics.
-
If you read the same fellow I did, you find he didn't care much for the 45 either. Everybody has his own gripes, I guess. The 45 works perfectly for me, and has certainly made live easier and made me money. The 55 is more complex, and a little more unwieldy, I admit. But for duplicating moldings for short runs the only other solution (except for a wall of wooden molding planes) the only other option is a scratch stock. Last I checked at a mill, the cost for a custom molding was $75 for set up and $85 for grinding the knives. Just a bit expensive for running 6 feet of stock (those were 1987 prices).
-
Hey that was a cool story Jim! Thanks for that.
Interesting that you had an old fashioned "patron" Jim.
I worked for the town druggist at about the same time. 70's and into the 80's. Milt Kevershan. An amiable short little weasel in a really really bad toupe, who eventually became a really close friend of mine.
Milt built an entire town in his yard! Small buildings each stuffed with antiques. A print shop with 2 complete presses. Saloon with hundreds of antique whiskey bottles. Firehouse.
For a while he had a beautiful small carousel. Miniature golf course, big barbecue pits and a large dance floor. Blacksmith, Merchantile general store, school, carriage house, church, and especially the drugstore! Which had a small but complete marble soda fountain and antique patent medicines galore.
It all started with a "bottle house".
Johnny Schitzo kept getting busted for public stupidity, so finally Judge Connors (who was tired of feeding him in jail) sentenced him to community service. Except he didn't know what to do with him.
So he sent him to Milt and told Milt to find work for him.
Milt didn't know what to do with him either, so told him to go to the bar and bring back empty bottles and start building a building with them. Eventually, through several sentences and other people's sentences, the bottle house was done. This was the start.
From then on Milt would take advantage of guys with any kind of building skill who were stranded in town. He'd "contract" work. Eventually the guys would figure out they were working for 11 cents an hour and quit.
I never built any of the "town" buildings, but I finished and furnished them all.
Milt paid me strict by-the-hour, cash in full, at the close of every single day.
Momma drowned the dumb ones...... :)
Of course Milt, being Milt, he couldn't help but try and weasel in one more favor.
"Harriette needs 5 pounds of sugar" is something he might add when he was handing over the cash for a days work "Pop over to the grocery?"..........
Vermin heehehehe!
God I miss him
I have both a 45 and a 55 in deplorable condition. I am thinking to one day make new handles that aren't so ugly as Stanley, and add thicker skates with better mouth clearance. And then japan them. Stanley made their skates minimal for plowing really thin grooves. The mouth wasn't very tight either.
I think I'd rather have more blade support and give up the thinnest groove myself.
yours Scott
-
If you read the same fellow I did, you find he didn't care much for the 45 either. Everybody has his own gripes, I guess. The 45 works perfectly for me, and has certainly made live easier and made me money. The 55 is more complex, and a little more unwieldy, I admit. But for duplicating moldings for short runs the only other solution (except for a wall of wooden molding planes) the only other option is a scratch stock. Last I checked at a mill, the cost for a custom molding was $75 for set up and $85 for grinding the knives. Just a bit expensive for running 6 feet of stock (those were 1987 prices).
Amen, Branson. I witnessed a friend who was making a pair of double-Dutch door reproductions and when I heard what he'd paid for custom shaper blades, I knew I was in the right line of work. He speculated that he'd probably never use those blades again and didn't feel right about charging his client for their work-up. He chalked their expense up to an experiential lesson.
-
bear_man,
That's a great story and an equally great endorsement of the Stanley #55. I guess not everyone is going to find utility in every plane, while someone else may think the same plane is invaluable, or somewhere in between worthless and amazing. One can only find out through several attempts at using the plane in question. Finding the perfect job for a hand plane can be difficult at times, however, once the plane has proven its worth, you'll reach for it more and more. I appreciate the time you took to share your hands on experience with a plane that can be intimidating to try. While some websites may cast doubt in a potential user's mind, I'd like to foster a more positive attitude here and hope that what WE as a group are doing, is encouraging one another to pick up an old hand plane (or any old tool) and give it a try. There are some advanced hand plane users, craftsman, and collectors here too. To you folks, all I ask for is your continued guidance and experience. Finally, we all like pictures, so if you could post a few pictures of your #55, that would be great! Thanks again for contributing to the thread.
Jim C.
-
Jim, I'm still trying to figure out how to massage my pics down to 640 X 480 pixels. For the last 20 years, I had to get a computer (I'm a long-time typist) and I've been a writer and historian, because I couldn't use my hands without shaking. My computer was a glorified tuypewriter and filing cabinet in one little laptop — and I didn't even have to learn that much about computer programs and so on. I've done next to nothing with photos and only NOW am I wanting to get into them, but when I ask a question about them, no one treats me like the computer idiot I am. Now let's see…, how do I make a little cross-eyed smiley face?
-
Jim, I'm still trying to figure out how to massage my pics down to 640 X 480 pixels. For the last 20 years, I had to get a computer (I'm a long-time typist) and I've been a writer and historian, because I couldn't use my hands without shaking. My computer was a glorified tuypewriter and filing cabinet in one little laptop — and I didn't even have to learn that much about computer programs and so on. I've done next to nothing with photos and only NOW am I wanting to get into them, but when I ask a question about them, no one treats me like the computer idiot I am. Now let's see…, how do I make a little cross-eyed smiley face?
No pressure on posting pictures. I'm also in the "computer idiot" category and frequently need help from those with more "computer smarts" than I have (which isn't much). Stay in touch and I hope to see you here at the Hand Plane thread. Join in any time!
Jim C.
-
Amen, Branson. I witnessed a friend who was making a pair of double-Dutch door reproductions and when I heard what he'd paid for custom shaper blades, I knew I was in the right line of work. He speculated that he'd probably never use those blades again and didn't feel right about charging his client for their work-up. He chalked their expense up to an experiential lesson.
A tool for one job, probably never to be used again, and he just ate the cost? Seems to me that the job should have at least covered part of the cost of an unusual tool bought just for that job. Hope he got repeat business from the customer.
-
I've done next to nothing with photos and only NOW am I wanting to get into them, but when I ask a question about them, no one treats me like the computer idiot I am.
He hee...... ain't it the truth!
My youngest boy, who can flip though screens so fast I can't even see them, cannot talk at all while he does it. Zip!
When he does try to slow down to tell me something, he totally loses his train of thought!
You just need to pick a simplified computer program and start in. We'll help.
yours Scott
-
I recommend IrfanView photo converter and editor.
http://www.irfanview.net/ (http://www.irfanview.net/)
-
Branson: I'm like my friend (and my former business partner is too). I/we "took/take jobs" implying we could/can actually do the work on demand/need. Had we appended, "…IF you'll front the money for any tools I don't have," the expense wouldn't be/have been an issue. My former partner's very first carpentry job, he arrived on-site with an apron, pencil, tape, hammer & framing square. He was hired, but it was touch-and-go for awhile and he didn't actually get on the crew until the next day after he'd bought a bunch more stuff. My pard has a Lot of "early" stories that kept us in stitches.
My own personal "out" was having to take the time to shape blades (my memory says 7 or 8 total), and the only "write-off loss" SO FAR was the biggish blade I made for running early-1800s hand-rail. Still, I may yet some day run some more of it, or maybe that'll be one of my heirs. Heh.
Scott (and so many others who've offered help as well): Thank you! I JUST A FEW MINUTES AGO learned how to resize pics! Now I ONLY need to learn how to connect a URL to one so's to insert that btw. brackets in a post. Like I told Papaw , my head's just about raw from all the scratching.
Bus: Thank you, but I drive a 2009 Mac and Irfanview's only guaranteed for Windows users. And before anyone sneers at the Mac, I still don't own any anti-virus software or have to go through all the malware angst (what my former pard called) "Dozer drivers" do. Yet, I better add, just so I don't anger the compuker gods. And on that note… *he exits with a wave and still-scratching*
-
Back on page 24 of the thread, somewhere in reply 351, I mentioned to Branson that I had purchased a few planes in the past and probably overpaid for some of them. I guess it’s part of the “buying antique tools” learning curve. That discussion coupled with Scottg’s recent comments about the Stanley #94 got me to thinking…….
Stanley #94:
First off, let me start by saying that I overpaid for this plane. I bought it at a time when my self perceived knowledge outweighed my actual knowledge. Having had a second, unbiased, more experienced opinion would have saved me some money. I wasn’t critical enough of the plane or disciplined enough to walk away from it. I was more caught up in the rarity of the plane versus its physical condition. To make a long story short, I bought a GREAT user quality plane at a collector quality price. Generally speaking, the example depicted below is in better shape than most other #94s that I’ve seen, but I have seen a few that were significantly better since I bought mine. With that out of the way, let me begin.
Stanley made four rabbet planes in its 90 series (#90, #92, #93, and #94). For some reason, there was never a #91. I don’t know why. The #94 is the largest of the group (7½” long and 1¼” wide) and probably the most scarce too. Perhaps because of its size and design, the top casting was very prone to cracking at or near its arch. I’ve seen more than a few that have been cracked and/or repaired in that area. Many other examples that I’ve seen, damaged or not, have been practically devoid of all nickel plating. At least more so than its smaller siblings, which seem to more readily retain their nickel plating. The #94 is simply a tough plane to find in good useable condition, and rough examples are still pricey.
Stanley produced the #94 between 1902 and 1943. The example below was probably manufactured during the 1920s. I can only imagine that the rarity of this particular model is due in part to it being used and then broken. Those that survived are usually missing most or all of their nickel finish. Again, I think they were used a lot. The nickel plating on the example below is well worn at the rear of the top casting where a craftsperson would palm the tool during use. It’s simply a great tool that can produce some fantastic results on medium to large joints. Like every plane in the 90 series, it can be easily converted into a chisel plane just by removing its top casting. I'd recommend the #94 to use in your shop, but be careful with it and set it for a light pass. Digging in too deep and adding a little force to the cut is just going to put unnecessary stress on the top casting. Dropping it is an instant disaster! It's an expensive plane to make a mistake with. As I mentioned earlier, even those with poor finishes and signs of age and neglect still command more than most other models in similar condition. Very recently I came across one that was undamaged, but was missing 90% of its finish, and included some light surface rust over most of its lower casting and iron.....the asking price was $150. I know that it ultimately sold for $125. As much as I like the #94, a more common, more affordable, more durable substitute might be the smaller #93.
Jim C.
-
Now let's see…, how do I make a little cross-eyed smiley face?
I get it if I don't pay attention to where the bathrooms are.
-
"I bought it at [a] time when my self perceived knowledge outweighed my actual knowledge." - now, that's a candidate for quote of the day!
An alternative to the 94 is the Record 073. I've got one, purchased years ago, and it's a durable tool, better engineered than the 94. Prices on That Auction Site run from $36 to $100, though mostly north of $100. Another alternative, far sweeter but at a scarier price, is the Lee Valley large shoulder plane. I have their medium shoulder plane, and it's so much easier to use than the Record that the Record sits in the drawer except for those rare occasions that I need the width it offers.
-
Hi Bill,
As for the quote of the day, well, that's been the story of my life so far. I don't really know what I don't know until I find out (sometimes the hard way) what I don't know. Often times, I fool myself into thinking that I know more than I really do.
As for your shoulder planes..... How about a few pictures? They'd be a great way to compare and contrast them to the #94.
Jim C.
-
Jim,
You asked me to post pictures of the alternative shoulder planes I mentioned (pointing up to my earlier post). Here they are. The rustier looking one is the Record 073; the shinier one the Lee Valley (Veritas) medium (3/4" wide, similar in size to the Stanley 93) shoulder plane.
The Record is comparable in size to the Stanley 94. I find it a little frustrating - it's hard to find a good grip on it in many positions. But I won it in a contest years ago and am reluctant to give it up. This is the plane that Lie-Nielsen copied for its shoulder planes.
The Veritas, like all the Veritas products, has been rethought from the traditional design. The little brass knob on top can be flipped to either side or straight up, and the overall design gives great, and flexible, grip. This is the shoulder plane I use 99% of the time; if the money gods ever smile brightly enough, I'll pick up their large shoulder plane, which is similar in size to the Stanley 94 and Record 073.
-
Perfect Bill. Thanks for taking the time to post a couple pictures for comparison. Also, your personal experience using the planes helps a lot. It's good to know what others think of a plane's performance, functionality, and utility, particularly when some of these tools are not cheap. There's nothing worse than buying a tool and then being less than happy with it for whatever reason. Honest evaluations are really great.
Jim C.
-
About a week ago today, I attended an extended family get together in the Midwest, for purposes of celebrating my cousin’s wedding back in March. It was a belated outdoor party with a pig roast and casual attire. That’s my kind of wedding reception. I’ll pass on the formal shirt and tie thing any day if possible. It was good to see all my aunts, uncles, cousins, nieces and nephews. A short while back, my aunt and uncle moved to Arizona. They had been vacationing there for several years, and finally decided they’d had enough of the Midwest winter and moved down there for good. They bought a house in a nice area, across the street from a man and woman who were a little older than they are. The man was a retired aerospace engineer from California. My uncle described the man as real “tinkerer.” He had a garage full of tools and could fix any thing. My uncle is also one of those guys. Although he was not a mechanic by trade, he’s the best “shade tree” mechanic I know. Anyway, during occasional conversations between my uncle and his across the street neighbor, my uncle learned that the man had a “storage locker” a few miles away containing some other old tools and odds and ends. My uncle didn’t think much of it and that was that. Well, a few months ago, the man died without warning. It was after his death that my uncle learned that the man’s “storage locker” a few miles away, was actually a BUILDING that could accommodate sixteen cars. Although there were a few cars in the building, it was mostly used to store tools and machinery associated with metalworking, woodworking, and mechanical applications. By the time my uncle found out about the true size and contents of the “storage locker,” it was too late. Most of the stuff had been sold or disbursed in some manner. Only a few unwanted, overlooked items were left. The plane depicted below is one of those tools. Knowing of my collection, my uncle was kind enough to pick it up for me.
I can’t tell you how many times over the years that I’ve received old tools (mostly hand planes) from family, friends, neighbors and co-workers. Nine out of ten times, the tools are in fair to poor condition, with broken and/or missing parts, or are damaged beyond repair. I accept every one of those old tools with a smile and a sincere “thank you.” It’s nice that someone thought of me and I appreciate that. I save many of those old broken down tools for parts, and they do come in handy. If I haven’t said it before, I’ll say it now, “I hate chasing parts.” Individual parts can be expensive and sometimes impossible to find. If a collector quality plane is missing any part that I KNOW FOR SURE will be easy to find, I might still buy it. If it’s missing anything that will be tough to find, I pass on the plane. I’m picky about user quality planes too, particularly if they're common. Chasing parts is not an activity that I enjoy. Even if the part that’s missing on a user quality plane is easy to obtain, my OCD compels me to find a vintage correct part to replace the missing/damaged part(s), and that again makes things harder. I don't like chasing parts.
When I receive a plane from someone, it is what it is. Almost all of them become parts planes for the reasons stated above. Still, every once in a while, someone gives me a real gem. This is one of those planes! It’s not an uncommon plane, but just a Stanley #6C, manufactured from 1898 well into the 1980s. It’s a Type 13, manufactured between 1925 and 1928. The Stanley logo on the iron was commonly used from 1922 to 1923. What makes the plane great is the simple fact that it’s virtually complete with all vintage correct parts and appears to be undamaged. Usually the knob and/or tote are missing, cracked or chipped. Those things are expensive to replace. All the correct hardware is present and accounted for. The only thing I see is that the cutting iron is getting short. There’s only about 9/16” left behind its cutting edge. That’s okay because it says that the plane was well used, but not abused, and valued by its previous owner(s). I like that. The grunge, grime, dark patina, and light surface rust show an even distribution across the entire plane. This plane hasn’t been taken apart in decades, and has not seen any use in recent times, hence the surface rust. Still, everything about it tells me that all of its parts are original to the day it was assembled by Stanley. I love planes like this, and the price was right. With a few hours invested out in the shop, and a little applied elbow grease, this plane will be a great worker again. Stay tuned……..
Jim C.
-
Those things we miss out on, can haunt us, but if its gone, let it go. I never turn down free tools, if they think enough to offer, I take it as a gift. You got a great plane to start with, anxious to see how it comes out.
-
Hi John,
I think the plane is in pretty good shape for starters, and all the parts are present. After I posted the photos this morning, I took the plane apart and gave it an initial cleaning. There was a lot of packed down shavings under the frog and crud caked onto all the parts. I started gently scrubbing the screw threads with a toothbrush and Kroil. There's some rust here and there, so I've got parts soaking in Evaporust. I don't want to totally remove the natural patina. I don't mind if the plane shows its age. My plan is to give the plane a good cleaning, lubrication, and tune up. I won't re-finish it. Once I get it back into working order, I'll definitely post a few pictures.
Jim C.
-
If you've never tried it, Evaporust is amazing stuff! The photo below depicts the same Stanley logo on the plane iron shown above in post #379 from this morning. I soaked the iron for a few hours in Evaporust, and then gave it a light scrub with a toothbrush. I rinsed the iron in water and dried it off with paper towel. Done. When I'm finished cleaning up the rest of the parts, I'll resharpen the iron and start making shavings. Stay tuned...
Jim C.
-
As I get further along into the process of cleaning and rehabbing the plane I received from my uncle last week, I'm able to see all the good things this tool still has to offer in terms of going back to work. I try to imagine its history and how it may have been used over the years. With its short iron, I know that it was definitely used frequently. I'm still impressed that a well used plane nearing 90 years old is still together and for the most part undamaged. I don't mind normal wear and tear, and actually welcome it to some extent, but then I have to stop and wonder what a previous owner was thinking when he/she decided to manipulate the brass cutting iron adjustment screw with a toothed tool like pliers!! I can't think of a single reason to adjust anything on a hand plane with pliers or the like. There are teeth marks and gouges going all the way around the circumference of the screw and a lot of the knurling is mashed. Too bad. I'll still use the screw because I believe that it's original to the plane, but I hate to see avoidable damage like that. There's no good reason for it. :rolleyes:
Jim C.
-
I was taught to never use a toothed tool on any brass or on anything with a flat wrench pad (bolts, nuts, propane tanks, etc.)
Whoever did that should be wrist whacked by a sunday-go-to-meeting nun, with an aluminum yardstick.
Chilly
-
Hi Chilly,
You would think that anyone with even the slightest "shop aptitude" would know better than to use pliers to adjust ANY tool or machine. Pretty much every time I use a pair of pliers, I know that I'm going to leave marks on whatever their jaws touch. Pliers certainly have their place out in the shop, and can be real lifesavers at times, but I mostly regard them as tools that are suited for rough work and/or demolition tasks. They really shouldn't come into contact with any other hand tools.....including hand planes!!
Jim C.
-
Me, I've "had" to use pliers to break loose a bolt or nut. Especially if the frozen part is brass, I'll cushion the serrated "grippers" with bits of leather.
-
Me, I've "had" to use pliers to break loose a bolt or nut. Especially if the frozen part is brass, I'll cushion the serrated "grippers" with bits of leather.
Yeah, that's me, too. Got plenty of leather scraps that serve the purpose. I get impatient, but not so impatient that I neglect the leather. Usually.
-
Well, I got all the parts cleaned. It took a few hours working here and there over the last week, but they're ready to go back together.....just as soon as I get the body of the plane cleaned up. I mostly used Kroil, EvapoRust and a couple different toothbrushes to get the gunk and rust off. I hand buffed the knob and tote with bees wax and a soft clean rag. I'm reluctant to use a wire brush and/or wire wheel on my grinder because I don't really care for the finish those leave on the surface of the metal. Sometimes it's unavoidable and such measures must be taken. Fortunately not this time. I still have some work to do on the main body of the plane. There's great patina on the sides of the plane and I intend to save as much of that as possible. The sole of plane is another story. As one can see in the photo above (see Reply 379) there's some light surface rust that I have to remove. That could take a little time using oil and a tooth brush. A small brush with brass bristles may be what it takes. I'm getting there slowly but surely. This plane will hopefully be a nice worker that still retains 90 years worth of character when it's done.
Jim C.
-
I hope everyone had a great 4th of July. It was a beautiful weekend to be outdoors, but I still spent a little time in the shop cleaning the main body casting of the Stanley #6C bench plane depicted above in earlier posts starting at #379. I'm really happy with the way it came out. It took a little time, because I wanted to be careful not to remove any more of its original finish. Once I got below the decades of crud and rust, I found about 50% of the plane's black japanning still intact. It's not pretty, but I can tell this one's going to be a real nice worker. If I get a little time this coming weekend, I'll grind and sharpen the iron, then we'll see just how good this old tool can be.
Jim C.
-
It's not pretty, but I can tell this one's going to be a real nice worker.
Jim C.
Makes me think of the old adage, "Beauty is as beauty does." Looks like this one will do plenty.
-
I think you're right Branson. The plane will be "beautiful" when it's working again. It's solid and although the iron is a little short, there's still some steel left for another re-grind and sharpening. The cutting edge has a few nicks, so I'm just going to start over and put a fresh profile on it. I'm hoping to test it out and make some shavings this weekend.
Jim C.
-
E. W. Carpenter was a Lancaster County PA Cabinet maker, toolmaker, plane maker and practitioner of medicine. He was born in 1791 and died in 1856. He was awarded several patents, his second patent #594 was issued February 6, 1838 for improved arms design on plow planes. His design was to thread the body of the plane and attach the arms to the fence so they were able to turn yet stay attached to the fence arm mounts. His improved arms patent planes bring a premium price in the collectable plane market. I feel lucky to have 3 examples of Carpenter improved arms patent planes in my collection. The first one that I will post is the handled version of the plane. Things to note in the pictures. The arms spin freely in the arm mounts, the large knobs on the ends of the screw arms allow you to turn the arms. The body is threaded so the nuts on the arms are used to lock the fence to body/skate adjustment in place. The nuts on the outside of the plane have brass rings around them adjacent to the body. (This is a Philadelphia area detail not found on plane makers outside of this region.) The small rectangles on the top of the arm mounts are rosewood wedges that hold the arms in the mounts. Carpenter used Rosewood and Boxwood in many of his improved arms patented planes. Carpenter also had an unusual design for the handle and handle mounting. The use of brass mounts for the handle are shown in the pictures.
-
One more view
-
This is the Fillister version of the improved arms patent by E. W. Carpenter.
-
One more of the Fillister stamp.
-
Hi All,
Sorry for my absence during the last month or so. Work unexpectedly got crazy (two days off in the last 30 days) and I fell a little behind on maintaining this thread. I'm hoping for things to return back to normal in the next couple weeks. Hang in there, I still have a lot more hand plane content to post. Also, big thanks to Les (Lewill2) for picking up my slack and posting the GREAT Carpenter plow plane write-up and photos. I hope you're all having a wonderful summer!
Jim C.
-
Beautiful planes, Les.
You have a wonderful collection - and in pristine condition.
How do you treat them to keep the wood in good shape? Ralph
-
I usually just use something like Howard's Feed & Wax, it has orange oil and bees wax in it. It will loosen and soften old grime slowly. Some I have were already cleaned when I purchased them.
-
One of my favorite English made planes is a Cowell and Chapman Gun Metal, Rosewood and Boxwood Plow Plane. Cowell and Chapman worked in Newcastle-Upon-Tyne England 1869 to 1890. They made other planes including regular English Plow Planes but this is one of their rare ones. The best I can find out there are less than a dozen of these known to exist. I acquired this one about 9 years ago. That Fall I took it to the Brown's Antique Tool Auction and there were 2 others that dealers had there for sale. One of the others had a depth stop screw like mine just a simple slotted screw. The other one had an elaborate fluted knob with a stud that was used to lock the depth stop in position. The skate is steel that is set into the Gun Metal body assembly.
-
A few more Cowell and Chapman pictures.
-
Wow, Les! That is a real beauty. Ralph
-
One of my finds at a local auction house was a J. W. Pearce screw lock slide arm plow plane. Pearce worked in Rohde Island 1853 through 1879. He is one of a few Rohde Island plow plane makers. His planes are often made from a mixture of woods and most of his plow planes are of the screw lock slide arm style. I also have one of his screw arm plow planes in my collection. The Pearce plow planes are easily recognized by the turned up slipper nose on the skate. One of his maker marks is made up with his name stamp arranged in a triangle with stars placed on the corners of the triangle and around the triangle arrangement. The year it was made is also usually stamped within the triangle as this one is stamped 1856. The woods in this one are what I believe are Lignum Vitae screw locks and wedge, Burl Cherry body, Beech arms and either Maple or Sassafras double ended fence. The skate has a brass reinforcing strip. Take note of the brass tips on both ends of the arms. Cross wedges of Rosewood or maybe Ebony hold the brass tips in place.
-
Additional J. W. Pearce pictures.
-
Jim C., in post #388, p. 26, you wrote, "I'm reluctant to use a wire brush and/or wire wheel on my grinder because I don't really care for the finish those leave on the surface of the metal. Sometimes it's unavoidable and such measures must be taken. Fortunately not this time."
Some years back my nearest welding supply-house displayed some 6" dia. brass-bristled wheels and I bought 2, brought them home and used one immediately on something-or-other. (Perhaps on something brass? I disremember.) I just checked and the makers-mark is something like an acorn — but NOT.) Anyway, I recall being quite pleased with the results. Your thoughts on this/these wheels?
Lewill2: Thanks very much for your posts showing some of your collection in detail. It took me just long enough, evidently, to become a user/affecionado of handplanes but I'm most definitely there now. "Unnecessary detailing" like that found on the fences and wedging you've shown pickle me tink. Them WERE the days!
-
Those planes are beautiful, Les.
I really like the tote on the last one. Is that the cherry burl?
Chilly
-
Yes the last one posted is the Pearce with the Burl Cherry main body, the handle also called the tote and the body are a single piece of Cherry.
-
Bear-Man, I also use a brass wire wheel at times. it is true brass, not coated like
many sellers are putting on the market.
I had asked a few sellers if they were real brass or coated and a few responded that they did not know.
mine is an OLD 6" fine brass wheel that I need to replace as it is well worn and I am
getting tired of pulling the wires out of my cheek.
do you know of a place to purchase a 6" 1/2" hole fine wire brass wheel ?
Frank
-
Turnnut/Frank — Mine also are 6" dia. and came with installed plastic/nylon/something 5/8"-1/2" arbor reducers. Left-handed thanks to you, I now have to paint my face red. Dealing with cataracts in both eyes, I never saw that my wire wheels are brass plated. I reckon I used the one lightly enough not to damage the whatever-I-used-it-on.
So no, I don't YET know where to find an actual brass wire wheel. I reckon I'll query Lee Valley Hdw. first and then if that doesn't work… *bear_man scratches his head*
-
Getting off topic for the plane thread but checkout McMaster Carr they have all kinds of brushes not cheap but they have them.
http://www.mcmaster.com/#wheel-wire-brushes/=t7cdt6
This link is for brass, they have non-sparking, stainless steel, aluminum and plastic for starters.
-
Hello again “Hand Planes” thread followers. I’m truly sorry for my recent absence. Work has been insane since late July, and is finally starting to get back to normal. Thankfully!! I hope you’ve all had a great summer. I thought I’d get back into the thread with something a little unusual, a small squirrel tailed block plane, the Stanley #100 ½. Squirrel tailed block planes aren’t really too unusual, however, this particular model’s sole features radiuses that are 7/8” across its width and 12” along its length. Why?
Well, the story goes that Stanley actively solicited and sought out tool designs, improvements, etc. from tradesmen and other tool users. The #100 ½ is one such tool that came to be as a result of such solicitation. According to published advertising put out by Stanley:
“This model maker’s convex plane fills a long-felt want”
The advertisement went on to say:
“Like many other model makers, John Black of Marblehead, Ace Model Yachtsman, felt the need for a tool for working on the concave surfaces in wood. Accordingly, he made the suggestion to the Stanley Rule and Level Plant, and their No. 100 ½ model maker’s plane, illustrated herewith, is the answer……”
So there you have it. We can thank Mr. Black for the Stanley #100 ½. This plane was produced by Stanley between 1936 and 1962. It’s somewhat scarce, but not impossible to find. The earliest models had a black japanned pressure cap and a smooth squirrel tailed handle. Later versions, like the example depicted below, came with a red pressure cap and the words “Stanley” and “No. 100 ½” cast into the top of the handle. Those changes took place somewhere right around 1940 or so. The handle was also cast with a hang hole in its center. Normally I shy away from tools with those sorts of after factory additions (which are really subtractions to a collector). However, since the hang hole was a factory added original feature, it’s okay with me.
With it’s convex sole, I suppose this plane could provide some utility to a model maker, instrument maker, etc. Generally speaking, its uses are somewhat limited I think. Still, it does have the potential to be used as a very small scrub plane and is capable of hogging off material with its “scrub plane like” radiused cutting iron. Over the years, I’ve looked for subtle ways to add handcrafted details to my projects. I want my work to show character and a clear indication that hand work with hand tools was a conscious decision. With that in mind, the little Stanley #100 ½ fits the bill perfectly. On small to medium sized projects that include drawers, I frequently set the #100 ½ for a light cut. Then I’ll make consecutive passes equally spaced (sort of) by eye (no measuring), the entire length of all the inner surfaces of the drawer parts (before final assembly of course). The inner surfaces are left with a scalloped effect that isn’t necessarily seen, but is definitely felt. (Look closely at the last picture below. See the scalloped surface of the wood?)
The Stanley #100 ½ isn’t a plane that I’d acquire as a must have for regular use (unless you’re Mr. Black), but keep an eye for one. At the very least, one might find it useful for creating “details.”
Jim C.
-
Also, MANY, MANY thanks again to Les (Lewill2) for keeping the thread going with some great posts that included writeups and pictures of a few AMAZING plow planes from his collection!!
Jim C.
-
As I collected my plow planes I noticed another regional thing. The depth stop adjusting knob/thumb screw style adjuster found on most plow planes as well as the depth stop lock knob/thumb screw are different on the Auburn New York makers. The Auburn area makers use a round knurled head adjuster for both the depth stop adjuster and the depth stop lock. I don't know if this a result of the prison labor Auburn Tool used and other Auburn area makers obtained some of their parts from the prison or if they all purchased the parts from the same Auburn area supplier.
-
Hey Les,
Thanks for the additional information on plow plane hardware. Prison labor huh? I had no idea. I REALLY love the history of these old tools. Great stuff! While you’re here, I was hoping you could take a look at the pictures below.
Here’s a little background. Pretty much everyone that I know is aware of the fact that I like old hand planes and hand tools. I know that somewhere earlier in the thread, I mentioned that I frequently receive old hand planes and tools from coworkers, neighbors, acquaintances, immediate and extended family members, etc., etc. As I also mentioned, I accept every single tool with a heartfelt “thank you” followed by a handshake and/or a hug. During my recent absence from the thread I received a few old tools from a coworker about a month ago, to include a couple wooden moulding planes, and the remnants of the plow plane depicted below. As you can see, it’s in rough condition missing its iron and wedge, and with a few broken/damaged parts. Like several old wooden planes that I’ve seen over the years, it has a couple names stamped into its nose. Manufacturers? Prior owners? I don’t know.
Les, as the resident plow plane guru, I was hoping you could provide me with any information you may know about the plane and the names stamped into its nose. Anything you can tell me about it would be appreciated.
Jim C.
-
John Denison is the maker, Born 1799 Died August 25, 1876. He was in business for himself at Denison's Tool Manufactory in the rear of his home in Saybrook CT from 1840-1876. More info can be found in American Wooden Planes by Emil & Martyl Pollak 4th Edition. It is one of his rarer marks. The other name is a previous owner's mark. There is a J. C. Duryea listed as a hardware store owner in Brooklyn NY from 1836-1849, perhaps this was a different owner of the business after 1849, son maybe?? J C's stamp was a 2 line stamp, name on first line and Brooklyn on the second line.
One arm has been replaced with a homemade replacement.
-
John Denison is the maker, Born 1799 Died August 25, 1876. He was in business for himself at Denison's Tool Manufactory in the rear of his home in Saybrook CT from 1840-1876. More info can be found in American Wooden Planes by Emil & Martyl Pollak 4th Edition. It is one of his rarer marks. The other name is a previous owner's mark. There is a J. C. Duryea listed as a hardware store owner in Brooklyn NY from 1836-1849, perhaps this was a different owner of the business after 1849, son maybe?? J C's stamp was a 2 line stamp, name on first line and Brooklyn on the second line.
One arm has been replaced with a homemade replacement.
Wow! That was fast Les! Thanks for the information. Being somewhere between 138 years old and 174 years old, that would be the oldest plane that anyone has ever given me. That's really something. It's too bad that it's not in useable condition. As you can see, parts are missing, broken, and have been crudely replaced. Do you have a complete example of this plane that you could post a few pictures of? From what remains, I have a general idea of what it looked like as a complete working tool, but still, a few pictures would be great if you have an example in your collection.
I have a pretty good array of old cast iron parts planes. Most of them were given to me in similar (or worse) condition to the plow plane depicted above. Occasionally, those old planes yield a part or two that is missing from some other plane that has more potential as a "user" out in the shop. Is that the case with plow planes? Anyway, if you're interested, I'd be willing to send this plane to you for your parts collection. The metal hardware appears to be original with just some minor surface rust. One screw arm appears to be in good shape, as is one of the large nuts. Both small nuts are also in good condition. The fence has a few dents and dings, but it seems to be solid and useable. If you think this plane has some value to you or any other plow plane collectors that you know, just send me a Private Message (PM) with your address and I'll send it out to you by the end of the week. It would be great if this plane, or at least some of its parts, could help you or someone else.
Jim C.
-
Except for the absence of the wedge and blades, it looks perfectly usable to me. From experience I can say that the most expensive part to replace is the depth adjuster. Wedges can be made, and blades come up on eBay regularly. The replacement arm is ugly, but you ought to be able to carve it to match the original better.
-
I agree with Branson the only parts missing are the wedge and iron. I appreciate the offer but I have been thinning my plow plane collection the last few years. I still have over 50 but I try not to bring anymore home with me. Concentrating on wrenches these days. I don't have one of that makers anymore but I can get a picture of one similar. Yours isn't a top of the line plane in its day but it wasn't a bargain basement version either. It has the brass reinforced skate so that was a little more than one without the brass.
-
I think it's going to be one of those many little projects that will be added to my, "One of these days I'm gonna....." list. There's a lot of things already on that list!
Jim C.
-
The smoothing plane is a must have for any wood worker. With a super sharp iron that’s ground to a slight camber on the ends, and set for a light pass, it will leave a finish on the surface of a work piece that cannot be matched by any machine, and certainly not by sandpaper. In a future post I’d like to show you just how amazing such a finish can be leaving a sheen so bright, that sandpaper would only dull it. Smoothing planes are generally thought to be sizes 1, 2, 3 and 4. If you go all the way back to the initial post on page one, I featured what might be the single most popular hand plane size of all time, the #4 smoothing plane. While the #4 is a real worker, in my opinion, the ultimate cast iron smoothing plane is the #4 ½.
Stanley #4 ½:
The numbering system Stanley used to identify its planes sort of made sense some of the time, but occasionally they came up with a plane that was between sizes. The #4 ½ is one such plane and the first in Stanley's product line to have received a fractional designation. Certainly longer and wider than a traditional #4, but not long enough to be considered #5 jack plane size, I guess calling a it a 4 ½ is appropriate. Stanley started producing the #4 ½ in 1884 and continued to make them into the early 1960s. The thought is that Stanley wanted to manufacture a smoother that could compete with the highly prized European infill smoothers that were made by Spiers, Norris and others, yet still mass produce them for the general public. European infill planes are heavy, and that’s a very desirable feature when considering a smoothing plane. Stanley’s answer was to produce a plane that resembled a #4 on steroids, the #4 ½. At one time (1902 – 1924), Stanley made a plane that was cast with number “4 ½ H.” The “H” actually meant “Heavy.” The Heavy #4 ½ smoothers were never listed in any Stanley U. S. tool catalog, but they very frequently turned up in Europe. It was certainly an attempt to compete with the European infill smoothers. Since they weren’t offered in the United States, Stanley #4 ½ H smoothers are scare and expensive to boot. It should be noted that Stanley also manufactured Bedrock versions of the #4 1/2, they were the #604 1/2 and the #604 1/2C. Although not as rare as the #4 1/2H, collectors and users alike also covet the large Bedrock smoothers, so you know what that means..... big $$$.
The first five photos below depict a #4 ½ with a corrugated sole. It’s a type 14 that was probably manufactured somewhere right around 1929 – 1930. It’s a beautiful plane that’s capable of producing a very nice finish. When compared to a standard #4 (see photos #6 and #7 below), one can see that the #4 ½ is significantly bigger and heavier than its smaller sibling. Between 1884 and about 1945, the #4 ½'s dimensions were 10 ¼” long and 2 ¾” wide. What’s interesting is that somewhere around WWII, Stanley started making the #4 ½'s main body casting still bigger, heavier and thicker (see photo #10 below). Notice the difference in the thickness of the side walls between the type 19 (1948 - 1961) on the left and the type 14 on the right. The type 19 weighs a little over five pounds, which was also the weight of the rare #4 1/2 Heavy version mentioned above. From the mid 1940s until the end of production in the early 1960s, the #4 ½ remained 10 ¼” long, but its width was increased from 2 ¾” to a full 3” (see photo #8 below). See that extra 1/4" difference in the width?
With all the 4 ½’s different sizes and weights over the years, it seems like Stanley was never really satisfied with its larger smoothing plane offerings. I don’t doubt that Stanley could have made a very high quality large smoothing plane, however, mass producing one that was still affordable to the general pubic may have been a fine line to walk. While the old Spiers and Norris smoothers are still highly sought by users and collectors, the Stanley #4 ½ can certainly earn its keep out in the shop and it won’t break the bank. In a future post, I’d like to show you just how good a #4 1/2 could be.
Jim C.
-
Just caught this plane on eBay:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Old-wood-plane-5-/331310962220?ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT&_trksid=p2047675.l2557&nma=true&si=XlXi6Gs7Yr5z5zWFB95%252B2FWoLeM%253D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc
Maybe people were thrown off by the maroon paint, but the knob was really good and if fairly screamed old Stanley. So I put down the minimum bid of $8.99 and got it. Tote, not so good, but only missing the horn and not split through elsewhere. Knob is beautiful. The blade is a replacement, marked Stanley Patent Pend 1999. But the rest of it is a type 6 Stanley (1888 - 1892) with nothing broken or bent. And unbelievably, the blade is actually sharp. Happy critter here.
-
Hey Branson,
A Type 6, now that's really an old timer! You did VERY well for $9. The front knob alone would be at least $20 if you had to replace it with one as nice as the one currently on the plane. I like those old low knobs the best. If the only problem with the plane is having the tip broken off the tote (which happened frequently), then I'd say that you came out way ahead. Post a few pictures! What are your plans for the plane?
Jim C.
-
I like the low knobs for No. 5s and up, but I find them a tad awkward for No. 4 planes (and probably No. 3, but I don't have an example of that size with a low knob). The space is just too tight.
But, with that said, yeah, the low knobs are so much more attractive.
-
I like the low knobs for No. 5s and up, but I find them a tad awkward for No. 4 planes (and probably No. 3, but I don't have an example of that size with a low knob). The space is just too tight.
But, with that said, yeah, the low knobs are so much more attractive.
Yes, I kind of agree with you Bill. I can see where a person with big hands would come to that very realistic conclusion. I'm pretty average in terms of physical size so I'm still okay with the lower knobs on the smaller bench planes. My dad on the other "hand" (pun intended) has rather large hands with sausage like fingers. Getting a good grip on a smaller bench plane outfitted with a low knob would be a problem for him. At some point, Stanley went to the taller knob, but I'm not sure why. Perhaps for the very reason you suggested. I'll do a little research and try to get a few pictures posted.
Jim C.
-
Hey Branson,
A Type 6, now that's really an old timer! You did VERY well for $9. The front knob alone would be at least $20 if you had to replace it with one as nice as the one currently on the plane. I like those old low knobs the best. If the only problem with the plane is having the tip broken off the tote (which happened frequently), then I'd say that you came out way ahead. Post a few pictures! What are your plans for the plane?
Jim C.
Pictures will have to wait on my learning better camera work. What are my plans for the plane? Using it! It arrived with a sharp blade and is all ready to go. Works just lovely. I imagine there is nothing left of the Japanning since the surface of the maroon paint is flawless. With the broken off tip of the tote, and the 1999 blade, I think this makes it a real user.
-
I had to go check on low knobs. Maybe it's because I have narrow hands, but I don't mind the low knobs on smaller planes. One of my #4 planes is a low knob, and I've used it for, well, decades now. The high knob #4 came to me two, maybe three years ago. My Stanley #3 is still in storage and I cannot remember the knob. But a couple of years ago I picked up an Ohio metallic plane (right hand thread nut) that is essentially a Stanley #3 C. I've been using it fairly regularly, and it, too, has a low knob.
-
Hey Branson,
A Type 6, now that's really an old timer! You did VERY well for $9. The front knob alone would be at least $20 if you had to replace it with one as nice as the one currently on the plane. I like those old low knobs the best. If the only problem with the plane is having the tip broken off the tote (which happened frequently), then I'd say that you came out way ahead. Post a few pictures! What are your plans for the plane?
Jim C.
Pictures will have to wait on my learning better camera work. What are my plans for the plane? Using it! It arrived with a sharp blade and is all ready to go. Works just lovely. I imagine there is nothing left of the Japanning since the surface of the maroon paint is flawless. With the broken off tip of the tote, and the 1999 blade, I think this makes it a real user.
That's what I like to hear. I kind of figured that would be your answer. Use it, take care of it, and eventually pass it on to the next guy who will hopefully do the same.
Jim C.
-
That's what I like to hear. I kind of figured that would be your answer. Use it, take care of it, and eventually pass it on to the next guy who will hopefully do the same.
Jim C.
Yeah, that's me pretty much. I have one tool that I'll never use -- a Neolithic stone ax. There's a #271 router, still in box, and never actually sharpened that I did buy to use, but I haven't touched it. Probably won't. Every other tool earns its living here.
-
That's what I like to hear. I kind of figured that would be your answer. Use it, take care of it, and eventually pass it on to the next guy who will hopefully do the same.
Jim C.
Yeah, that's me pretty much. I have one tool that I'll never use -- a Neolithic stone ax. There's a #271 router, still in box, and never actually sharpened that I did buy to use, but I haven't touched it. Probably won't. Every other tool earns its living here.
I'd like to hear the story behind that ax. I know it's not a hand plane, and I'm really trying to keep the thread on track in terms of subject matter, but a real stone ax sounds very interesting! Pictures are always welcome.
Jim C.
-
Based on our discussion from yesterday morning, I went out to the shop last night and pulled out a few planes with short and tall knobs. The planes depicted in the first photo are Stanley #3 size planes, while those in the second photo are Stanley #4 size planes. The last photo is a group shot with the #3s on the right and the #4s on the left. It's easy to see why someone with bigger hands might prefer the tall knobs on the smaller bench planes (sizes #1 - #4).
When Stanley started making bench planes back in the 1870s they were produced with the short/low knobs. To me, they resemble hot air balloons or possibly mushrooms. I personally like the way they look as opposed to the taller knobs which came later. Perhaps someone at Stanley who was in a position of authority decided that the knobs were too short, and as such, difficult for some people to grip, or that the tall knobs looked better and were easier to grip. Maybe both or neither reason is correct, or some combination of the two. I don't know for sure. What I can say is that the knob change took place somewhere right around 1919, when Type 12 bench planes were being manufactured. Stanley made several changes/improvements to that version of their bench plane. Switching from the short knob to the tall knob was one of them. Deciding which one is preferable is a matter personal opinion.
Jim C.
-
After adding a short post to the thread concerning Stanley bench plane knobs, I got to thinking that I should post a couple pictures of knobs that were found on larger bench planes like the #7 size and #8 size jointers. The photos below depict the larger size bench plane knobs on the left as compared to #3 size bench plane knobs on the right. There's certainly a difference. Generally speaking, the taller knobs probably make more sense in terms of comfort, usability and functionality, for not only smaller bench planes, but for the larger bench planes as well. As for appearance alone, I'm still going with the short knobs.
Jim C.
-
The supposed reason that Stanley went to the tall knob was to eliminate chipping where the base of the knob met the bed. This was done ca. 1920 and didn't work very well, given that the taller knob gave you even more leverage so that it was even easier to chip the base of the knob.
Recognizing this flaw, they corrected it ca. 1929-1930 by casting a ring in the bed to support the base of the knob. This did work and eliminated the base chipping problem.
If you have to replace a tall knob be aware there are two types. The one that goes in the ring has a tapered bottom to allow it to properly fit the ring, the original ones are straight.
Note: This information came from work done by Roger Smith and Pat Leach.
Mike
-
Thanks Mike! Great details! I'm glad you jumped in.
Jim C.
-
Earlier today I was out in the shop looking for a plane to feature, and realized that I hadn’t yet said anything about one the most popular bench plane sizes, the #5 jack. This one size might be fighting it out with the #4 as the most common, yet most useful bench plane. It could be a toss up. Anyone who spends any time at all doing wood working, whether it be rough construction type work, or fine cabinet making, should own a #5 sized bench plane. Depending on the nature of the work at hand, and how the plane is set up, the #5 jackplane (or “jack of all trades”) excels at jointing short to medium length boards, smoothing medium and larger sized surfaces, and dimensioning stock. I’ve seen some that were in tough shape with widened throats and arced cutting irons that were used as scrub planes. Based on its length (usually about 14 inches) and two inch wide cutting iron, it really is the jack of all trades. Jackplanes are very common and extremely useful. They’re not normally expensive either. For that reason alone, get a couple and dedicate them to specific tasks. I have two that I use frequently. One is set up for initially flattening the scalloped surface left behind by a scrub plane, and the other is set up for making one last fine pass on the edge of a board that’s ready to be joined to another board.
Stanley #5:
One of Stanley’s staples, the #5 was in continuous production from 1867 well into the 1980s. There must be literally millions of them out there in various states of condition. Since one can find a #5 almost anywhere, I thought I’d feature one that’s in top NOS (New Old Stock) condition. The plane depicted below is a Type 16 that was manufactured by Stanley between 1933 and 1941. It’s enormously common but extremely rare in this condition. This particular plane and its original packaging is a virtual time capsule that dates back 70 - 80 years, giving us an accurate look at what Stanley was producing in terms of quality, fit, finish, etc. during that time period. It still retains its factory grind on the cutting iron, and from what I can tell, has never been used even one time. All of its finishes are 100% intact. At this stage of the game, it’s really just a tool for study and benchmarking. The collector in me will never allow for the use of this plane while it’s in my care. Someday it will be passed on to someone else. I hope its next owner sees its historic value and significance.
While re-assembling the plane, I remembered that Mike (see reply #431 above) made a few good points about the evolution of Stanley’s front knobs, and the addition of a ring on the body casting to prevent chipping/cracking of the front knob while under stress. If you take a close look at the last picture, you’ll see what Mike was referring to. See the raised ring around the milled screw boss? The base of the front knob fits perfectly between the two features on the casting. Thanks again Mike!
Jim C.
-
> I have two that I use frequently. One is set up for initially flattening the scalloped surface left behind by a scrub plane, and the other is set up for making one last fine pass on the edge of a board that’s ready to be joined to another board.
So it's OK for me to have four Stanley #5 planes? I just checked my stash and not one has the raised ring, even though one has the tall knob. That one and a #5C were $1 garage sale finds, btw. Another is in process of rehabilitation. I picked up a flawless #5 base a couple of years ago. Still need a few parts to make a whole plane of it.
-
Hi Branson,
Thanks for stopping by! There's no limit on #5 jack planes that I'm aware of. I wouldn't say there's an infinite supply of antique #5s out there in the wild, but good user quality planes are plentiful to say the least, and can be found almost any where old tools are available. Thanks for supporting my point. With so many available at generally affordable prices, having a couple (or more) that are dedicated to specific tasks isn't too unreasonable. The issue is space/storage. That's the only thing that really keeps my collection of user planes from getting out of control. I just don't have the space for them. Anyway... So Branson, how do you use your four #5 jacks? Are they dedicated to specific tasks? Do you have a favorite? Pictures are always welcome if possible.
Jim C.
-
Jim, and others, I do appreciate the detailed pictures of classic planes parts - little did I know. They are most helpful in designing my miniatures,
and I appreciate the detailed information even if I never build another miniature.
Ralph
-
Hi Branson,
Thanks for stopping by! There's no limit on #5 jack planes that I'm aware of. I wouldn't say there's an infinite supply of antique #5s out there in the wild, but good user quality planes are plentiful to say the least, and can be found almost any where old tools are available. Thanks for supporting my point. With so many available at generally affordable prices, having a couple (or more) that are dedicated to specific tasks isn't too unreasonable. The issue is space/storage. That's the only thing that really keeps my collection of user planes from getting out of control. I just don't have the space for them. Anyway... So Branson, how do you use your four #5 jacks? Are they dedicated to specific tasks? Do you have a favorite? Pictures are always welcome if possible.
Jim C.
I'm relieved to know there no limit on #5s. What I've reached for most often over the years is my veteran 5 1/2 C. But I'm really beginning to like the Type 6 I just bought. It just seems to handle well. I've been making handles for things with it -- getting some octagon handles for some of my tanged chisels and making some "roughly made" handles for the Russian style inshave, scorp, drawknife, and flincher for Sutter's Fort. For a lot of other things I go for one of the two #4s, and recently I've put some time in with an Ohio #3 C clone. I have a #7 and #7 C, but haven't used them much at all.
In wooden planes I definitely have a favorite -- a solid rosewood razee jack with an L&!.J. White blade. Both gorgeous and a cutting fiend.
I have other metal planes as well. There's a Baker with all it's finish intact and the paper label still good. Had to have a Baker for the CA history of the company. Bought it and the Ohio for $15 together. I have another jack and smoother that my wife found and pointed out to me at a second hand shop (two different occasions). I bought them, $5 each I think, largely because I was so touched that she found them and pointed them out. One day, before I got my Stanleys out of storage, I really had to plane something, so I spent a little time on a stone with the smoother and was thankful to have it.
I have a number of block planes, various makers, packed in different go-to tool boxes. I do have favorites among the blocks. The Stiletto is heavier than any Stanley, and it's out on the shelf in the shop, along with that corrugated one I got not long ago, and one of the Stanley low angles. The Stiletto is vying for favorite with a recent made English Stanley that works really well.
There's another tool box about to come out of storage. I' be pulling out a #3 Stanley and one of the adjustable curve Stanleys. Can't remember what else I put into the box ten years back. It's an army tool box I picked up at an antique store -- couldn't pass it up because it was made in North Carolina by Millikins, to whom I'm related. Guess it just about qualifies as a family heirloom.
-
^^^^^^
Branson,
Any time you'd like to feature those planes here in the Hand Planes thread, that would be great!! I suspect that you have a nice collection stashed away somewhere. I'm always interested and excited when I see that someone posted in the thread. You never know what's going to show up. I know there's a lot of great old planes in the hands of people who have been following along, so let's see them!
Jim C.
-
Are any of you members of the Mid-West Tool Collector's Association (MWTCA)? If you like antique hand tools then that's the place for you. The membership holds local tool meets all over the country, and the organization publishes a magazine called the Gristmill, where old tools and tool related information is the topic. You won't meet a nicer group of people, and there's a ton of "old tool knowledge" to tap into. Each year, the MWTCA holds a Spring and Fall National Meet. The Fall meet is going on now, October 1 - 4, 2014 in Rockford, Illinois. I try to make at least one National Meet every year, and this year I got to Rockford. I usually go not looking for anything in particular, and sometimes I come home empty handed. Not this time......
Today I finally pulled the trigger on a VERY nice Stanley #602 Bedrock...... I'll give you more details on this one in the future.
Jim C.
-
I went to the Mid-West meet in Raleigh about 2 weeks ago. My first time at that one since it was 666 miles from where I am in Florida. As you pointed out, a really nice bunch of guys.
Seeing your exceptional 602 reminded me that a member there had around 25-30 no.2's of various types...even a flat top 602C, which you don't see many of.
I haven't made any of the nationals. Maybe next year.
Like Jim, I would urge all of our forum members to join. I think it's a bargain at $25.00.
Mike
-
even if you can not make the meetings, the magazines are worth the price of membership.
I agree, skip eating out just one time and put the money towards your membership fee.
Frank
-
Jim, and others, I do appreciate the detailed pictures of classic planes parts - little did I know. They are most helpful in designing my miniatures,
and I appreciate the detailed information even if I never build another miniature.
Ralph
Hey Ralph,
I'm glad you're enjoying the thread. I still need to improve on the pictures. Sometimes they're okay and other times they're not. They're never great. The thread would be more informative and potentially more interesting if I could take better, more detailed pictures. I'll keep working on it.
Jim C.
-
I went to the Mid-West meet in Raleigh about 2 weeks ago. My first time at that one since it was 666 miles from where I am in Florida. As you pointed out, a really nice bunch of guys.
Seeing your exceptional 602 reminded me that a member there had around 25-30 no.2's of various types...even a flat top 602C, which you don't see many of.
I haven't made any of the nationals. Maybe next year.
Like Jim, I would urge all of our forum members to join. I think it's a bargain at $25.00.
Mike
Hi Mike,
I can only imagine what 25-30 #2s looked like all together in one place. As you well know, #2 size bench planes, Stanley or otherwise, are definitely collectible. I did see a #602C today, but the asking price far exceeded its true condition. I held it in my hands but it was a "user" quality example at best. It's an extremely rare plane in any condition. It's also easy to overlook a rare tool's condition when it's right there in your hands. Logic and discipline can go right out the window. Over the years, and after overpaying more than once, I've gotten much better at controlling my excitement in the presence of rare tools, and then accurately evaluating their condition. Sometimes it's hard to walk away, but the condition and the price have to be in sync.
Jim C.
-
Oh boy, I'm in trouble now! I'm going to have to see if my camera skills and my camera are up to the task, because photos are gonna have to happen.
Ten and a half years ago, when "domestic bliss" vanished from my then household, I was in a fire to get all my stuff out, and finally was throwing everything into any box I could find. Almost all went into a 12 X 12 storage unit, packed to the ceiling. Well, my wife told me I ought to get a second unit so I could move things around and organize it all. Friday I got the second unit and started shifting things and looking for tools that were in there "somewhere."
Folks, a while back I said I had two #45s. I was mistaken. I have three. I opened the box I had for one of them and found two 45's. Odd, I thought, since the Sears 45 has its own leatherette case... One was the Wards 45. The other in the box, though, is a Stanley sweet heart. With the exception of the Stanley mark, and the Stanley sweat heart logo on the back of the skate, they are absolutely identical, down to the "Trade 45 Mark" cast into the fence, and the 45 in the casting for the right hand side of the body. I'm certain I'll find the same thing on the Sears 45 whenever I dig it up.
In a cardboard box along with the planes are a dozen blades, rabbet blades and beading blades, plus a single reeding blade and an obscure molding blade. Most I'm pretty sure came with the Stanley. Also in the cardboard box were four or five blades for my 71 1/2, including two 1/4 inch blades. Two pin vises, one a really tiny Starrett.
There was another box that I remembered tossing a bunch of wooden planes. What I forgot was that two of them are marked Odnance Dept 1863. Also forgotten were two small sets of Japanese finger planes, a set of small carriage maker type planes (4 inches long) hand made and some still in progress. Three Viet-Namese planes showed up -- rabbet, hollowing, and high angle smoother -- and a plane stocked scraper to make a 1/4 inch bead.
Another box I can't get at yet I know holds a Stanley #3, a Stanley #10, and one of the Stanley adjustable curve planes. It might be where I stuffed my Stanley 40 1/2. And Batz, there's a torch in that box as well. Underneath this chest is an old carpenter's tool chest that holds a bunch of various wrenches.
I have a busy week ahead. Tomorrow checking out lumber for the cooper's shop, then dealing with the air conditioning fellow to replace the primary condensation tube. Also seeing a potential customer about doing unspecified finish carpentry on a Craftsman style house. So it will be a while before I can do a lot with my new finds.
-
^^^^^
Branson,
You're right, you're in trouble. You've been totally sand bagging us. You DO have a nice collection of planes. I knew it! Get that camera out and start taking some pictures. Let's see and hear more about what you've got!
Jim C.
-
Well, somewhere in the unit should be a #66 beader, which is really a sort of scratch stock. It needs some blades, but has both the straight and curved fences. There ought to be also one of the cigar spokeshaves and a particularly beautiful Viet-Namese spoke shave. Bunch of bow saws and a lot of axes and hatchets live in another chest. There's one chest full of the planes I used to use at Sutter's Fort, including a really nice plow plane and a wide range of rabbet and dado planes. Probably more surprises. I have no idea how many wrenches are in the chest that belonged to "First Class Carpenter" nor what kinds of wrenches they are.
One set of photos ought to be just on scratch stocks. Except for the #66 they are shop made, including one I threw together to duplicate a couple of molding details. All are different.
-
Well, somewhere in the unit should be a #66 beader, which is really a sort of scratch stock. It needs some blades, but has both the straight and curved fences. There ought to be also one of the cigar spokeshaves and a particularly beautiful Viet-Namese spoke shave. Bunch of bow saws and a lot of axes and hatchets live in another chest. There's one chest full of the planes I used to use at Sutter's Fort, including a really nice plow plane and a wide range of rabbet and dado planes. Probably more surprises. I have no idea how many wrenches are in the chest that belonged to "First Class Carpenter" nor what kinds of wrenches they are.
One set of photos ought to be just on scratch stocks. Except for the #66 they are shop made, including one I threw together to duplicate a couple of molding details. All are different.
Branson,
You clearly have a lot of great planes and experience to add to the thread. I hope you'll feature one soon! No more sand bagging. Get your camera out and let's see what you have.
Jim C.
-
In the first half of the twentieth century, several manufacturers were competing with Stanley to make mass produced hand planes, and other hand tools. Some companies did cut into Stanley’s share of the market, and often did so by copying many of Stanley’s designs and ideas. Some tried to “make a better mousetrap” by adding special features and gimmicks. Most of the time, those unique features didn’t really enhance the plane’s overall performance, and occasionally, they detracted from it. There were other times when various Stanley competitors came up with entirely different “non Stanley” ideas and designs that really worked. Two such planes that I previously featured are perfect examples; the Sargent #507 block plane (see page 11, reply 162) and the Rumbold butt mortise plane (see page 17, reply 254).
In my opinion, more often than not, these new ideas and designs fell into the “better mousetrap” category. As one of Stanley’s top competitors, Sargent manufactured a few planes that looked very different and unique, when compared to their Stanley equivalents. Take for example their #1500 series rabbet planes, commonly referred to as “lady bugs” due to their insect like appearance. They sort of remind me of a snail too…. Anyway, those planes don’t look like anything else out there and when compared to the results produced by Stanley #90 series rabbet planes, there’s not much difference. What makes the “lady bugs” so special is their shape, and that makes them VERY collectable. Depending on the model and its condition, those little planes can easily sell for a few thousand dollars apiece!!
Sargent also made a relatively unique looking series of bench planes called “Autosets.” Several different sizes were generally manufactured between 1916 and 1943. I say generally because a few sizes were manufactured for much shorter periods of time within the 1916 – 1943 span, making them rare, collectible and expensive. The Autoset plane model numbers were designated with a 700 series, that like many Sargent planes, was followed by their size in inches. They were also available with corrugated soles and as such were referred to with a “C” after their model number. For example, an 8” long Autoset would be model #708, while an 8” long Autoset with a corrugated sole would be model #708C. When I think about Autoset planes, what really catches my eye is the distinctive shape of their main body castings, which adds nothing to their function, and their one of a kind pressure cap and frog configuration, which may or may not be an added benefit and could be seen as falling into the “better mousetrap” category. I guess the individual craftsperson will ultimately have to make the final decision on that score.
The unique pressure cap and frog design are what give this plane its name… Autoset. The theory was that once the plane was setup for a particular cut (light, heavy, etc), its pressure cap and cutting iron could be removed from the plane and then re-installed to make the same cut without having to re-adjust the frog, the iron or the depth of cut. The fact of the matter is that after using any tool with a cutting edge, like a hand plane, that edge is going to get dull and require honing. The Autosets allowed the user to remove the iron, hone it, and then re-install it back on the frog while still producing the same cut, but without having to fiddle around with the adjustments to achieve it.
The design employs a fixed frog that’s attached with screws to two stout screw bosses that are cast into the main body of the plane. Down near the throat, the bottom edge of the frog rests on a lip that’s cast into the plane’s main body. This configuration provides a stable platform for the cutting iron, thus reducing chatter and potential iron flex. On more traditional bench planes, the double iron (cutting iron and chip breaker) configuration usually requires that the chip breaker be removed in order to hone the cutting iron. A traditional chip breaker has that little horizontal slot that orients itself on the yoke attached to the top of the frog, so it must be fitted to the cutting iron in exactly the same place in an effort to avoid having to re-adjust the frog, the depth of cut, etc. No matter how hard I've tried to install the chip breaker back on the cutting iron in exactly the same place, I'm usually off just a little, causing me to have to re-adjust the depth of cut, the frog, etc. to get the same cut I had prior to removing the double iron assembly. Autoset planes use a single short iron that sits directly on the frog, which has a small pin protruding up to engage a small slot on the cutting iron itself (not a chip breaker that has to be perfectly re-oriented on the cutting iron).
Finally the pressure cap is designed to act as a chip breaker that can be moved closer or further from the cutting edge depending on the desired cut. Once it's positioned, the pressure cap too is "autoset" and does not need to be adjusted if removed from the plane. If one looks closely at the photos below, he/she will see that the pressure cap incorporates a "T" shaped catch that's held in place by a nicely engineered capitve nut at the top of the lever cap itself. Notice how the "T" has catches on it that lock onto the pressure bar that runs from side to side across the plane's main body. Even when the pressure cap is removed, that "T" mechanism remains fixed because of that captive nut. When the pressure cap is re-installed on the plane, the catches on the "T" re-engage the pressure bar at exactly the same distance from the edge of the cutting iron as it was prior to removing it.
In terms of doing what they were designed to do, the Autoset planes deliver. Their unique components do allow the user to remove the iron, hone it, and then re-install it onto the plane without having to make any significant adjustments thereafter. I like that. Do the Autoset planes produce superior results when compared to the results produced by a well-tuned traditional looking/functioning bench plane? Probably not, but again, that decision is up to the evaluation of each individual. In the end, the Autoset "better mousetrap" idea probably didn't cut wood (or catch mice) any better than the more traditional looking bench planes that we're all so familiar with. As for creating a bench plane that required little if any adjustment after disassembly and reassembly, well, I think Sargent got it right.
Hopefully I didn’t bore you or confuse you too much with this feature. I spent a lot of time talking about frogs, chip breakers, irons and pressure caps. The best way to really see what I’m talking about is to compare any common bench plane you may have to an Autoset. Get an Autoset out in the shop, play around with it a little, and I think you’ll see what I’m talking about. With that being said, I have to admit that the Autosets are my ALL TIME FAVORITE bench planes to collect. I have a couple that I use too. I absolutely love the theory behind them, the engineering and machining that went into making them, their distinctive styling, and the functional “contraptionism” of their pressure cap and frog design. What a great looking tool! It’s fair to say that I’m a hardcore Stanley hand plane enthusiast, but when it comes to Sargent Autosets…… well you get the point.
Sargent #708:
The plane depicted below was probably manufactured between 1925 and 1943. It’s approximately 8” long, or about the size of a #3 bench plane. Sargent manufactured a 707, 708, 710, 711, 714, 718 and a 722. All were also available with corrugated soles. Most Autoset planes are relatively collectible. They’re available, as I still see them at tool shows and online, however, condition and completeness are everything, even when considering a user quality plane. The parts on these planes are relatively unique to Autoset planes only. Buying one with missing and/or broken parts could turn into hassle. Parts can be expensive and difficult to track down. Be picky regardless if you’re going to buy one to use or for your collection. Thanks for hanging in there on this one.
Jim C. (who likes to ramble)
-
^^^^^^After I write this stuff, I like to go back the following day to clarify things, cleanup typos, etc. Often times, I cut things out that sounded better the day before, or re-word them so they make more sense (I hope). Today I went back and reviewed yesterday's Sargent Autoset feature. When I was done reading it, I felt like I really just skimmed over the uniqueness of the Autoset's pressure cap design. As a result, I added more content to the writeup, particularly as it relates to the pressure cap. Yes, it's actually longer now! My sincerest apologies. Really. I totally missed the mark on being concise and to the point on this one. Thanks again for hanging in there.
Jim C.
-
No problem, Jim! I think most of us are enjoying the thread.
-
No problem, Jim! I think most of us are enjoying the thread.
Thanks Papaw. I hope so.
-
Well I am really enjoying this thread on planes. I've learned a lot from you, Jim. I'd never heard of the autoset. I still think I would have to have one in my hands to really understand it, but that's probably just me. I'm almost as much tactile as visual.
I'm going to have my hands full here. I've gotten into most of the tools in storage, and there are pictures to take. I found my #55, which was more intact than I remembered. Found my #3 and #13, and both are type 8. It turned out I didn't have a #66 with both fences, but two #66, one with the straight fence, and a very early Japanned with the curved fence. Two tool chests are filled with wooden planes, one of which holds my 18th Century carriage makers rabbet plane.
-
Well I am really enjoying this thread on planes. I've learned a lot from you, Jim. I'd never heard of the autoset. I still think I would have to have one in my hands to really understand it, but that's probably just me. I'm almost as much tactile as visual.
I'm going to have my hands full here. I've gotten into most of the tools in storage, and there are pictures to take. I found my #55, which was more intact than I remembered. Found my #3 and #13, and both are type 8. It turned out I didn't have a #66 with both fences, but two #66, one with the straight fence, and a very early Japanned with the curved fence. Two tool chests are filled with wooden planes, one of which holds my 18th Century carriage makers rabbet plane.
Hi Branson,
I'm really glad that I was able to introduce you to a series of hand planes that you weren't familiar with. Also, I'd like to thank you for your honest feedback regarding the Autoset writeup. I do think that you'd better understand the Autoset's unique features if it were in your hands where you could physically examine it. I know the writeup was sort of complicated and probably confusing too. After reading it SEVERAL times myself, and trying to clarify it, I still came away thinking that others who were unfamiliar with the Autoset planes were probably wondering what the heck I was talking about. I view the post as a total failure in terms of clarity. Rather than going back and trying to "fix" it, I think I'll leave bad enough alone and try to do better on the next one. I apologize, and again, thank you for your constructive feedback. If you like something, that's great! If you don't, for whatever reason, I'd like to hear about that too! Actually, the critical comments will help me know what works and what doesn't.
On another note, I'm very happy to hear that you're breaking into your tool collection, and I look forward to seeing all of your hand planes featured here on the Hand Plane thread.
Jim C.
-
I wouldn't call it a failure, Jim. Some things just defy description in words, things we think are even simple. One of my college professors had a standing offer to give any student an A for the semester if he or she could describe, in writing, how to tie a bow knot. Nobody had ever succeeded.
Among my discoveries in my old planes is that the 113 is missing the lateral adjuster. I've got a parts-only frog that can provide a replacement as soon as I figure out how to attach it to the 113 without breaking the casting when I rivet it together. Another is that the cap iron screw on my better #4 is missing. How could that have happened?! Grumble grrr. I don't want to cannibalize another usable plane for a screw.
-
I wouldn't call it a failure, Jim. Some things just defy description in words, things we think are even simple. One of my college professors had a standing offer to give any student an A for the semester if he or she could describe, in writing, how to tie a bow knot. Nobody had ever succeeded.
Among my discoveries in my old planes is that the 113 is missing the lateral adjuster. I've got a parts-only frog that can provide a replacement as soon as I figure out how to attach it to the 113 without breaking the casting when I rivet it together. Another is that the cap iron screw on my better #4 is missing. How could that have happened?! Grumble grrr. I don't want to cannibalize another usable plane for a screw.
Hey Branson,
Let us know how your 113 repair goes. I never tried riveting to cast iron. Go easy on that. As for your #4, which screw are you talking about. The little short one with knurling that holds the cutting iron and the chip breaker together? Or the screw that goes in the frog and holds the lever cap and double iron assembly in place?
Jim C.
-
It's the screw that holds the blade and the cap iron/chip breader together.
-
It's the screw that holds the blade and the cap iron/chip breader together.
Hey Branson,
I'm away right now, but I'll take a look in my parts box when I get back to my shop. If I have an extra, I'll send it your way.
Jim C.
-
Hey Branson,
I'm away right now, but I'll take a look in my parts box when I get back to my shop. If I have an extra, I'll send it your way.
Jim C.
That would be deeply appreciated!
-
Well, back at the storage unit I found my Sears #45, in its leatherette case with both sets of arms and full box of blades. Unlike the Wards 45, the 45 is nowhere to be found on the casting. Strangely enough, it was in a box marked "planes." There was another 5 C in the box and a 5 1/4 (no knob on this one and the retaining bolt is snapped off level with the casting).
A while back there was some discussion on the 4 1/2, and I had read Leach's write up on that, wistfully thinking I'd like to try one out. Even tossed a couple of futile bids on ones that showed up on eBay. Well, at the bottom of the plane box I found a Stanley 4 1/2 C. Yay! (Good thing those bids were futile). So I got home and tried to get a fix on the date. No ring cast into the bed for the knob. Check. No "Stanley" stamped into the lateral adjust. Check. Later threading on the depth adjuster. Check. No "Bailey cast into the toe. Check. Blade is stamped with the triangular Stanley, New Britain, Conn, USA" mark. But the number isn't cast into the toe either. The tote (cracked, of course) and knob are beech. Hunh? The depth adjustment knob is 1 1/4 inch in diameter. No patent dates. "M 4 1/2 " is cast into the bed behind the frog, I'm confused now.
So Jim, what have I got? (other than a good 4 1/2 C that will work just fine with cleaning and de-rustification -- the blade even looks to be sharp)
Yeah, I know, photos. Not yet. storage hasn't been kind to these planes and they aren't ready for a public appearance.
-
In my last installment, I tried to explain the unique features of my favorite series of bench planes, the Sargent Autosets. Well, if you read that epic post, you may be wary of reading this one, as it also deals Sargent Autoset bench planes. I promise to keep this one short and to the point. So, let’s get into it.
As I stated in the last post, Sargent made several sizes of Autoset bench planes. The largest of the series were the #718 fore plane and the #722 jointer. Those two planes included one extra feature that their smaller siblings did not have, an adjustable front knob. By simply loosening the barrel nut on the top of knob, the knob could be moved from side-to-side, or backward and forward, depending on one’s preferences. The side-to-side adjustment allegedly provided knuckle clearance when the plane was used up against a barrier. That makes some sense. The backward and forward adjustment was provided to add comfort to craftspeople with longer or shorter arms. Yes, that’s absolutely true! Sargent actually touted the backward and forward adjustment as a selling feature for people with longer or shorter arms. The #718 and #722 are the only planes I’m aware of that tried to fill the short arm/long arm niche.
Looking at the photos below, it’s easy to see how Sargent accomplished the knob adjustments in a relatively simple manner. A cast iron domed base was mounted onto raised screw bosses on the main body casting. The domed casting has four slots that allow the knob to be shifted into a position and tightened in place with the barrel nut on top of the knob. If the photos don’t tell the story, just let me know and I’ll elaborate more on the adjustment mechanism. Does anyone really want that?
I like the adjustable knob concept for its “contraptionism” but don’t entirely buy the practicality of the mechanism, and have seen MANY of these planes with cracked, broken or missing front knobs. Original knobs are relatively fragile. Often, the knobs have been replaced with non-originals. An original knob’s base is manufactured to match the curvature/shape of the domed base. If you come upon one of these larger Autosets with the adjustable front knob feature, be VERY sure that you’ve done your homework, and you know what to look for.
The first few pictures below compare a #718’s adjustable front knob (on the left) to the fixed knob of a #714 (on the right).
Jim C.
-
Well, back at the storage unit I found my Sears #45, in its leatherette case with both sets of arms and full box of blades. Unlike the Wards 45, the 45 is nowhere to be found on the casting. Strangely enough, it was in a box marked "planes." There was another 5 C in the box and a 5 1/4 (no knob on this one and the retaining bolt is snapped off level with the casting).
A while back there was some discussion on the 4 1/2, and I had read Leach's write up on that, wistfully thinking I'd like to try one out. Even tossed a couple of futile bids on ones that showed up on eBay. Well, at the bottom of the plane box I found a Stanley 4 1/2 C. Yay! (Good thing those bids were futile). So I got home and tried to get a fix on the date. No ring cast into the bed for the knob. Check. No "Stanley" stamped into the lateral adjust. Check. Later threading on the depth adjuster. Check. No "Bailey cast into the toe. Check. Blade is stamped with the triangular Stanley, New Britain, Conn, USA" mark. But the number isn't cast into the toe either. The tote (cracked, of course) and knob are beech. Hunh? The depth adjustment knob is 1 1/4 inch in diameter. No patent dates. "M 4 1/2 " is cast into the bed behind the frog, I'm confused now.
So Jim, what have I got? (other than a good 4 1/2 C that will work just fine with cleaning and de-rustification -- the blade even looks to be sharp)
Yeah, I know, photos. Not yet. storage hasn't been kind to these planes and they aren't ready for a public appearance.
Photos my friend, we need photos.... I'll have to check a few resources and get back to you on the type/era. "M 4 1/2"?? That's an interesting detail that I'm not familiar with.
Jim C.
-
Jim, never seen a plane with a stick shift...
-
Jim, never seen a plane with a stick shift...
Hi oldtools,
Thanks for stopping by the thread. The Sargent Autoset adjustable front knob is definitely unique, and it does resemble a stick shift. With the exception of the #718, #718C, #722 and #722C Autosets, I can't think of any other planes that incorporate a four position front knob mechanism. There are a few Stanley models that have knobs and totes that adjust from side-to-side, but not backward and forward. I'll feature a few of those models in future posts.
Jim C.
-
Photos my friend, we need photos.... I'll have to check a few resources and get back to you on the type/era. "M 4 1/2"?? That's an interesting detail that I'm not familiar with.
Jim C.
Pictures as soon as I can figure out if my camera gives any detail, and how to size them. Since I don't have my own, you can see the style of the frog here:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/STANLEY-WOOD-PLANE-FROG-STANLEY-4-1-2-WOOD-PLANE-2-3-8-WIDE-/291266518504?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item43d0d65de8
Mine's prettier, pretty much light surface rust and no pitting, but this is the right casting. It has a plain key hole lever cap.
I got more enthusiastic about it because I cleaned it up a bit, slightly honed the blade and put it to work two days ago. I'm impressed. You run across purported improvements in use in tools, but often as not, you'd have to put in a 12 hour day to notice the advantage. Not with the 4 !/2. That extra weight really makes the work easier. You notice in a couple of strokes. The weight holds it to the work, and the momentum just carries it along. Very pleasing performance.
Yesterday at work, I needed a plane pronto. I remembered there was another older plane in the back of the van (still gotta make more space in the shop!). It'll never make a collection because there's a one inch long chunk out of the right hand side near the knob. Right now it's still not ready for a public appearance -- pretty much covered with light rust. It's a Siegley corrugated No. 5. Feels a little lighter than the Stanley. Probably best to describe it when I have photos, but Siegley took an interesting round about for the lateral adjuster. The lever has a pin in the lower end that engages a long slot in the blade. It doesn't have a cap iron, not exactly. What would be the lever cap on a Stanley is a casting that serves to hold the blade firmly. It has two screws in the top that will let it be adjusted farther or closer to the edge of the blade. Yeah, this will be easier with photos. but I found that it was an easy plane to use, especially since it was the only one I had to hand.
-
About a month ago, I read a post in the woodworking forum written by a gentleman who received an old Stanley #120 block plane from his father. For some reason that post has stuck with me. In the post, the writer wondered if the plane was any good, based on some negative things he had read on other forums/websites. Clearly, some planes are better than others. But in making that statement, a plane’s INTENDED function and original design must be considered, and "apples must be compared to apples." Stanley, like many other tool manufacturers of their day, made different planes for different consumers who had various budgets, uses, and skill sets. Practically every plane that’s complete and in good working order can provide some level of utility. Expecting a plane to do more than it was originally designed to do is what leads to disappointment and frustration…..and possible negative reviews on other forums.
Stanley #120:
This is a good medium to light duty block plane. It will handle a variety of tasks and is capable of doing an honest day’s work. It’s not a block plane that was designed for cabinetmaking or fine woodworking. This is the type of plane that I’ll put in my tool tote when I’m on my way to my parents house to do a few odd jobs for them. It’s great for knocking the edges off tomato plant stakes, thus reducing slivers in one’s hands when pounding the stakes into the ground during planting season, or pulling them out in the Fall. Have a dresser drawer that sticks a little in the summer months? With just a couple light passes over the high spots, the drawer will fit perfectly in its opening. The possible uses go on and on. I really love planes like this. They’re inexpensive, they’re easy to find at garage sales and flea markets, and when used in the right situations, they deliver great results every time.
Stanley manufactured the #120 between 1876 and 1947. Based on some clues that the box provides (label, paper, construction), and the logo on the plane’s cutting iron, I believe the plane depicted below was manufactured some where between 1925 and 1932. It’s not in mint condition, however, as one can see, its original box did protect it from paint drips and unnecessary damage. The plane's bare sides show a beautiful dark patina. At some point, it was certainly used and in the hands of someone who respected it, and understood its utility.
Jim C.
-
>Expecting a plane to do more than it was originally designed to do is what leads to disappointment and frustration…..and possible negative reviews on other forums.
This ought to be done up on a sampler and posted on the wall! Apples with apples, and oranges with oranges. While there are junk planes, the vast majority of planes (and other tools, too) are meant to do a job, and even most of the true "junkers" will do decent work within their limitations. A lot of times "Will it work?" is best answered, "Depends on the carpenter."
-
>Expecting a plane to do more than it was originally designed to do is what leads to disappointment and frustration…..and possible negative reviews on other forums.
This ought to be done up on a sampler and posted on the wall! Apples with apples, and oranges with oranges. While there are junk planes, the vast majority of planes (and other tools, too) are meant to do a job, and even most of the true "junkers" will do decent work within their limitations. A lot of times "Will it work?" is best answered, "Depends on the carpenter."
Thanks Branson! I know that your response is based on a great deal of personal experience which is truly appreciated here.
Jim C.
-
It's been ages since I did any proper joinery, and used anything bigger than a No 4 - for most of the work I do a block plane suffices, and mine are used almost daily - ideal for taking the sharp corner off a sawn board to avoid splinters.
I use several, mainly Stanley, (both US and UK made ones) with the occasional UK Record thrown in for good measure. A year or two ago I bought a couple of Stanley steel bodied 118's from the US (they appear never to have been made or sold here)... They are superb for site work, and good to carry on a roof or up into the scaffolding, as they are virtually unbrakeable if dropped...
My favourite is an old 60 1/2 I got with a couple of books of Green Shield stamps circa 1970 - I've used it for everything from musical instrument making through to joinery - it's one I don't take up on the roof though....
Another favourite is the knuckle jointed cap found as on the 18 and 65 - replacements are difficult to find in the UK, but I see on eBay.com in the US they sell for about $6 to $8 - a pity the postage to the UK is over twice as much as the cap iron..
-
Hi Billman49,
Thanks for checking in from across the pond! You may be the first international guest to submit a post to the thread. Now I could be wrong about that, but no others come to mind at the moment. If there are others, please accept my apologies. Anyway.... I'm very happy to hear that you're a frequent hand plane user. Block planes are by far one of the handiest and most useful tools ever created. You mentioned using a #118 on a roof or scaffolding. Are you employed as a roofer? A steel block plane like the #118 is ideal on a construction site. I probably wouldn't use that one for fine work. The others you mentioned (#60 1/2, #18, and #65) are a little more versatile, each having adjustable throats, and two (#18 and #65) are outfitted with the "comfortable to use" knuckle cap. A favorite feature of mine. Of the group, I believe that the #65 is one of the finest block planes that Stanley ever made. It excels at a variety of tasks, but because of its size, weight and features, it's perfectly suited for fine woodworking. All the planes you mentioned are wonderful tools in their own way. Thanks for stopping by and I hope you'll post a few pictures of your block planes. They don't all have to be Stanleys, we'd like to see the British made planes too!!
Jim C.
-
Well, back at the storage unit I found my Sears #45, in its leatherette case with both sets of arms and full box of blades. Unlike the Wards 45, the 45 is nowhere to be found on the casting. Strangely enough, it was in a box marked "planes." There was another 5 C in the box and a 5 1/4 (no knob on this one and the retaining bolt is snapped off level with the casting).
A while back there was some discussion on the 4 1/2, and I had read Leach's write up on that, wistfully thinking I'd like to try one out. Even tossed a couple of futile bids on ones that showed up on eBay. Well, at the bottom of the plane box I found a Stanley 4 1/2 C. Yay! (Good thing those bids were futile). So I got home and tried to get a fix on the date. No ring cast into the bed for the knob. Check. No "Stanley" stamped into the lateral adjust. Check. Later threading on the depth adjuster. Check. No "Bailey cast into the toe. Check. Blade is stamped with the triangular Stanley, New Britain, Conn, USA" mark. But the number isn't cast into the toe either. The tote (cracked, of course) and knob are beech. Hunh? The depth adjustment knob is 1 1/4 inch in diameter. No patent dates. "M 4 1/2 " is cast into the bed behind the frog, I'm confused now.
So Jim, what have I got? (other than a good 4 1/2 C that will work just fine with cleaning and de-rustification -- the blade even looks to be sharp)
Yeah, I know, photos. Not yet. storage hasn't been kind to these planes and they aren't ready for a public appearance.
Hi Branson,
I did a little research on your Stanley #4 ½C bench plane. In your prior post, you were wondering when your plane was manufactured. Well, I’m not sure that I have a definitive answer for you, but I think we can make a few educated guesses based on the information you provided above. I’ll try to present the information in pieces, and then add it all together to see what we get. So let’s get started with a general time frame. Stanley manufactured the #4 ½C between 1898 and 1961.
Main body casting:
You stated that your plane did not have a ring cast into its bed. That raised ring was added to provide support around the base of the front knob, and to prevent chipping/cracking to the knob itself. That ring first appeared on Type 14 bench planes, manufactured between 1929 and 1930. That narrows things down a little bit. You also stated that the name “Bailey” (in honor of the man who perfected the bench plane’s general design) was missing from the casting near the toe of the bed, and no patent dates were present. The Bailey name started appearing with Type 9 bench planes, manufactured between 1902 and 1907 as did patent dates immediately behind the frog. Okay, so maybe you have a really early (pre-1902) version of the #4 ½C. Here’s where things get a little cloudy. You stated that the plane’s size (4 ½) was not cast into the bed. Starting with Type 5 versions manufactured between 1885 and 1888, Stanley started including sizes on the main castings. Smaller bench plane sizes were cast near the toe, while #5 and larger planes had their sizes cast near the heel. If I haven’t totally confused you yet, in theory, your #4 ½C should have a size number cast near its toe. From what I can tell, Stanley started making the #4 ½C more than a decade AFTER they started adding sizes to the main castings, so I’d generally expect to see 4 ½ cast near the toe. Finally, you mentioned that “M 4 ½” was cast into the bed immediately behind the frog. I’m not at all familiar with that marking. Patent dates eventually made their way to that spot on the bed, but not until 1902. They remained there in some form until about 1931, when they were replaced with “MADE IN U.S.A.” On Type 1 (1867 – 1869) Stanley bench planes, the size was cast into the underside of the frog and lever cap, but not the main plane body.
So, there are clues to suggest that your plane’s main casting may be a very early Stanley #4 ½C. But then there are other factors that don’t match up to commonly known, conventional Stanley facts and figures. There are exceptions to every rule and perhaps you have something that’s extremely rare. Are you sure the corrugations on the sole are original Stanley factory applications?
Lateral adjusting lever on the frog:
You stated that “Stanley” was not stamped into the lateral adjustment lever of the frog. Stanley added a lateral adjustment lever starting with its Type 5 (1885 – 1888) bench planes. The stamping included two patent dates (2-8-76 and 10-21-84) and “STANLEY.” The Stanley #4 ½ (not #4 ½C) was introduced in 1884, or about 14 years prior to the #4 ½C. A frog from an extremely early #4 ½ could have existed without “STANLEY” being stamped on the lateral adjustment lever, and could be on your plane.
Cutting iron:
The triangle shaped logo on the dull end of the iron is more commonly known as the “V” trademark. It was routinely seen on plane irons and tools that were manufactured between 1912 and 1918. That logo was characteristically found on Stanley Type 11 bench planes (1910 – 1918). Although the iron is old, if we believe that your plane’s main casting and frog date to approximately pre-1902, then it’s probably a replacement iron.
Depth adjustment screw:
Your plane’s depth adjustment screw measures 1 ¼” in diameter. That became the standard on Stanley bench planes starting in approximately 1919, with Type 12 versions. Prior to that time, their diameters were smaller, measuring at closer to an inch or so. Your screw may be a later replacement.
Keyhole shape on the lever cap:
The keyhole shape on Stanley bench plane lever caps changed over to a kidney shape on most Type 16 examples beginning in 1933. The keyhole shape on your lever cap is consistent with earlier planes. Does the lever cap have “STANLEY” cast into it? If so, that could change things. In 1925, the word “STANLEY” in a notched rectangle made its debut on the lever cap, if your lever cap says Stanley on it, then it may be a later replacement part.
Knob and tote:
Stanley did manufacture some of its planes to include the #40 and #40 ½ scrub planes, #64 butcher’s block plane and #340 furring plane, with beech knobs and totes. As for Stanley bench planes (#1 - #8) with beech knobs and totes….. well I guess anything is possible, but I’ve never seen one. The “wood” on your plane may have been replaced at some point.
There you have it…. I’m not sure if we cleared anything up or not. I’m also not entirely convinced that all the parts on the plane are original to that specific example, but still, if your plane is entirely comprised of Stanley parts from top to bottom, then I’d say that it’s pre – 1919, with the latest part (depth adjustment screw) dating to about that time. A few pictures might help...... :smiley:
I really like digging into the history of old planes. A tool’s past can’t always be known, however, its future is yours to create. I hope you enjoy using your #4 ½C.
Jim C.
-
Hi again
Stanley (UK) and Record are the two main manufacturers in the UK - the Stanley UK range mirrored those made by Stanley USA - I believe the company started as an offshoot of the US firm, but later became independent of them... The Record planes are now made in China, and a shadow of their former quality.
Other Sheffield firms also made good qality hand planes, Wm Marples and Rapier being twi that come to mind - in the 1950's Marples came out with the X4, and cross between a No 4 and a Norris/Spiers/Matheison typw infill plane, about 50% heavier than the No4, and with and emclosed handle...
A firm called GTL (Good Tools Ltd???) of Sheffield also made a plane like a number 4, but with a Norris type adjustment they also made a brass bodied variant..
Jim C - I'm a retited teacher of craft, design and techenology (CDT) with a passion for DIY and old tools (mainly billhooks) - I probably have over 30 woodworking planes of various types scattered about various tool boxes and sheds...
-
Hey Billman49,
Thanks for stopping by again. Living in the UK, you must have had access to some of the best hand tools and planes ever made. Norris, Spiers, Matheison are well known for their infill planes. Nothing compares to them in terms of performance, and as a result, they're highly desired by collectors and/or users alike. You mentioned having several planes. Do you have an infill you could show us? If you've been reading along, you know that pictures of your planes will always be welcome, particularly those that were manufactured in England. As a retired "CDT" teacher and DIYer, it makes perfect sense that you'd have an interest in old tools. You'll fit in just fine around here. I hope you'll not only share your collection of hand planes with us, but also your experiences using them and collecting them.
You also mentioned having an interest in billhooks. I'll admit that I really didn't know what a billhook was, so I did a little research. The Internet is a wonderful educational tool. Anyway.... As soon as I saw a picture of a billhook, I immediately recognized the tool. My grandfather immigrated from "the old country" to the United States in the early 1900s. He had a nice little vegetable garden behind his house, and more than 100 rose bushes that he meticulously maintained. He had a real green thumb. One of his other passions was making his own red wine....from grapes that he grew along the back fence in his yard. He pruned those grape vines with a machete like tool that I believe he made at work. He was a tool and die maker. Now I realize what he made....a billhook. It had a single bevel, curved end, and measured about twelve inches long. It was a tool that I'm sure he fashioned from his memories of the "old country."
Jim C.
-
Sadly no Norris, Spiers or Matheison planes in my collection - I'm in the process of building a new tool shed - the structure is up, but the inside is work in progress - the idea is to empty the tools in my sheds, garage and workshop (plus my mum's attic) into one place.... It's slow going as currently my wife has health problems, involving bi-weekly hospital visits and me doing all shopping, cooking etc - I do draw the line at housework... Prognosis is good for about 6 months time, so maybe 2015 I'll get back on track.... As a result my tools are all over the place, so unable to get the planes out and photograph them...
Glad you found out what a billhook is - did you visit my website, www.billhooks.co.uk ????? It was (is??) a tool found throughout Europe, and was in most US immigrants tool kit, but for some reason in the 19th and early 20th centuries it almost disappeared from the US. Revolutionary War era fascine knives, another name for the same tool, appear very collectable, and some billhooks were still being made in the US (The American Axe Co listed them) - they may have just evolved into the US bush hook or brushing hook, or maybe the axe became 'king'....
Not technically a 'carpenter' tool' - although they were found in Dutch carpenters shops, and also specialist versions were used by European (but not British/UK) coopers - single and double edged, and with single or double bevels, they are a 'woodworking tool' - especially for green woodworking and coppice work.... Probably not the place to discuss them in 'woodworking planes', I'll start another thread... I tend to post mainly on the What's It forum, but maybe I need to branch out a bit...
Most of my plane are UK made Stanleys, plus a few Record - I do have a few European wooden planes as well, plus a few I picked up in Hong Kong 20+ years ago... The Stanley No 4 must be the most copied plane in the world, and made in most countries after the initial patents expired... In the UK there are also cheap imported copies from India and China - OK for rough work, e.g as a scrub plane, bu no good for fine woodworking, although the quality is improving.... It's cheaper to buy one of these just for the handles than it is to buy replacment wooden handles for a Stanley....
-
Very recently, a site member from England (Billman49) posted here in the Hand Plane thread mentioning that he has several internationally made hand planes, as well as an extensive collection of billhooks. (I checked out his billhook website and found it to be VERY impressive and extremely educational in terms of learning about a tool that I knew very little about. I encourage all of you to take a look.) Anyway, in an earlier post Billman49 listed several fairly well known manufacturers of English made hand planes. I’ve heard of them all, but have none in my collection. With so many USA made models to collect and use, I never really focused my attention on tools from outside the United States.
About a dozen or so years ago, I made an island/table and four stools for my kitchen. The stools feature concave seats. (See the last photo below.) Back when I made those stools, I rough cut the general shape of the seats on my band saw. I stayed pretty close to the layout lines, but in the end, I knew the seats were going to need some serious fine tuning to make them all uniform, and to make sure that the concave surface of the seats were smooth and free from the marks left behind by the band saw. Sandpaper, a card scraper and a curved sole spoke shave weren't going to get the concave arcs in the seats all the same. I needed a tool that could be set for the desired curve and could also produce it over and over. I needed a compass plane (also known as a circular plane) to fair the curves. Stanley made two versions, the #113 (1877 – 1942) and the #20 (1897 – 1958). Well, I needed the plane to finish the stools, and I didn’t really have a lead on a vintage Stanley version. As I recall, I turned to one of my woodworking supply magazines and came across an English made Record #020.
Record #020:
The Record #020 is very similar in every way to the Stanley #20, and was produced by Record between 1932 and 2004. It's ten inches long and weights approximately four pounds. The iron is 1 3/4" wide. Its basic dimensions are similar to a common #4 smoother. I purchased the plane depicted below in December, 2001. Interestingly, a sticker on the side of the plane’s original box reads “2-10-01.” Perhaps that’s the day it was assembled and packaged. I do know that it’s a later version and that the #020 was out of production within a few years. This is an extremely specialized plane that really excels at smoothing consistent/constant concave and convex curves. On concave work, the best technique is to start with the plane’s flexible sole set at an arc that’s slightly tighter than the desired arc. After several passes, the sole can be flattened little by little, via the large threaded knob, eventually “sneaking up” on the finished curve. On convex work, it’s the opposite. The arc of the plane’s sole should be more flat initially, and adjusted to the finished curve after several passes.
A compass plane’s frog and cutting iron assembly looks and functions much like that of a standard bench plane, with its double iron, depth adjustment screw mechanism, its lateral adjustment lever and screw operated pressure cap. The only real difference is that the frog’s base is riveted to the flexible sole and cannot be removed from the main body casting.
I probably wouldn’t recommend that a compass plane be among the first planes one might purchase. As I mentioned, it’s very specialized. Still, if you’re planning on doing any curved work where the arcs are consistent, then a compass plane becomes invaluable. If you’re planning to buy one to use, check the sole and frog to make sure they’re not coming apart at the rivets. The plane itself is sturdy, but not indestructible. Set the iron for a light pass and don’t over torque its settings. If possible, remove as much waste as you can with a band saw. I think the plane functions best as a finishing tool.
Jim C.
-
Currently 8 Record 020 planes for sale on the UK site of a well known auction site - they seem to go for about £120 sterling as Buy It Now, but who knows what you may get as a bid.... They also often appear online from secondhand tool dealers... A copy of the Stanley 113 is also made in Germany by Kunz - they appear to be a bit more expensive that a second hand Stanley (about the same price as a Record 020)....
Searching online, I have just found that Record also made a version of the 113... The Indian company Anant also make a version....
-
Billman49,
Thanks for the additional circular plane information. I'll have to admit, I had no idea that so many different overseas manufacturers were still producing a version of the Stanley #113. As a matter of fact, I didn't know anyone anywhere was still making that model.
Jim C.
-
Coulda had this Keen Kutter for $715.50 back in 2000!
Simmons Hardware Co., E.C. No. KK115: "Keen Kutter" Circ. Metallic Plane. Sim. To Stanley 113. Rare & Excellent. Length: 10.00 Inches. Given its ambitious, and successful, undertaking to produce nearly every imaginable tool and hardware item emblazoned with its "Keen Kutter" logo, it is likely that they also produced a similarly-marked line of canned goods that ran the gamut from soup to nuts. Keen Kutter collectors share the zeal of the Simmons Company for acquiring KK items. Simmons contracted with the principal manufacturers of the country to produce specially cast and marked items for the Keen Kutter line. Some of the KK products, such as bench planes, while other items, such as special-purpose planes, of which this is an example, are rare indeed. Most likely fitted out for Simmons by Stanley, this Keen Kutter circular plane is cast with the KK logo on the front adjustment knob and the cutting iron is also properly marked. A rare Keen Kutter item in top collector quality condition. (GOOD+). This item was sold on October 14, 2000 for $715.50.
-
Hi Papaw,
I vaguely remember that plane. It's definitely a Stanley product that was rebranded with the Simmons Keen Kutter logo. That's a hefty price tag to pay for a Stanley #113 with a KK logo, but collectors are collectors. With the volatile economy these past years, I wonder if the plane could still attain that same price at auction. Who knows? If two Keen Kutter collectors show up at the auction and both have their sights set on it, anything could happen. There's excitement in the air, no one wants to back down, neither one has seen that plane before, etc., etc. The next thing you know, someone has paid a lot (maybe too much) for an item.
It's interesting to note that the plane was listed as being in "top collector quality condition (GOOD+)." I've learned that a tool graded at (GOOD+) usually means that it's a really nice "user" quality item. $715 seems like a lot of money to pay for a user tool. As you know, condition is everything! Over the years I have occasionally overpaid for a tool that excited me enough to look (foolishly) beyond it's ACTUAL versus advertised condition. Inexperience, a lack of discipline, the thrill of the hunt, the exciting auction environment, etc., and in the end, there I was with a top quality "user" plane that I paid a top quality "collector" price for. From a pure collector's point of view, tools that are graded excellent to mint tend to hold their values over the long haul much better than those graded at good, regardless of how rare they may be. I don't know.... $715 seems like a lot money for that particular plane. Education can sometimes be an expensive proposition.
Jim C.
-
One of the most common and basic woodworking operations is to round over the edge of a board. Whether it be done on a finely crafted cabinet, or out on the job site, smoothing sharp edges is simply a part of handling and working wood. A smooth edge on a finished piece of wood really does have a great feel to it, and it invites one to run his/her hand across it. You might think twice if the edge were left square. The most common ways to accomplish that task would include using a block plane, a small sized bench plane (like a #3), or even with some sandpaper. An electric router with a round over bit will also do the trick. I usually go with a block plane and may follow up with one or two passes of 400 grit sandpaper. Well, if you’ve been reading along so far, you’ve heard me say many times that Stanley was always looking to fill a niche (real or imagined). Do you think Stanley was content to round over edges with block planes and sandpaper, when it could make a plane that was dedicated to that specific task?
Stanley #144:
This was Stanley’s answer to rounding over the sharp edges of a board. It’s a fairly basic tool consisting of three simple parts; the main body, the iron and a pressure screw. That’s it. The plane came in three different sizes that included ¼”, 3/8” and ½”. When referring to the plane sizes, I mean that the soles of the planes were manufactured with the various radiuses as were the business ends of their cutting irons. Stanley made the #144 series between 1925 and 1943. There were some minor variations that have do with being able to identify earlier versions of the plane from newer versions. None of these variations even remotely impacts the plane’s use or functionality. They’re all cosmetic. I’ll go over some of the variations now.
Earlier versions of the #144 were cast with “PAT APL’D FOR” while later examples were cast with “U.S. PAT 10-6-25”. The irons also were stamped with their respective sizes which typically read, “1/4 CIR” for example. Some irons, depending upon when they were produced, may have also included a Stanley logo at the top. Look carefully at the photos below and one will see the “Sweet Hart” logo. Some irons will only have the size of the plane and no Stanley logo at all. I have rarely seen some irons without any sort of size and/or logo stamps. It’s hard to say if they were original irons or something a previous owner made from metal stock that he/she had on hand. Finally looking at the plane’s skate, one will see that the size was also stamped along the bottom. I’ve never seen a #144 from any period of production that didn’t have its size stamped on the skate. From what I understand, the most common size is the 3/8” while the least common is the ¼” followed by the ½”. Ironically, I do not have the 3/8” size, so it’s hard to say for sure, but that’s what I’ve been told.
I know that was a lot of “collector” information. From a “user” standpoint, I’d give the #144 an average at best grade. It does get the job done, but I don’t believe it’s superior to the results that can be achieved with a standard block plane and a little fine grit sandpaper. These planes are somewhat scarce and that drives their prices up. If one were planning to buy a #144 to use, I’m not so sure that the results they produced would justify their costs. They can sell for a couple hundred dollars apiece. The #144 series of planes might be better left to the collectors. I don’t see these too often, but if you come across one and the price is right why not give it a try? Worst case scenario, you could always go back to using a block plane and some sandpaper to round over an edge.
Jim C.
-
I am not much of a woodworker, but I was always happy to just use some sandpaper or a scrubbing block to round edges.
-
I am not much of a woodworker, but I was always happy to just use some sandpaper or a scrubbing block to round edges.
Hi Papaw,
Thanks for stopping by. You're not alone when it comes to your choice of tools for rounding over the edges of a board. Low tech and simple is often the best method. As you saw in the post, Stanley's #144 series planes didn't stay in production for even twenty years. There's a reason for that. Block planes and sandpaper are still going strong. There's a reason for that too.
Jim C.
-
Great stuff guys! I have not read every thread, but I am working at it. Here is a link to an ebay item. It was made by a friend of mine, Russell Beebe. Planes can be fun projects too!
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Custom-hand-carved-vintage-hand-planes-by-Russell-Beebe-/181582863625?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item2a472e9d09 (http://www.ebay.com/itm/Custom-hand-carved-vintage-hand-planes-by-Russell-Beebe-/181582863625?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item2a472e9d09)
-
^^^^^ WOW!! What a great way to customize a hand plane, and what an amazing artist your friend is. Thanks for the link John.
Jim C.
-
Ref my post on another topic - the ebay link and image will soon disappear, so for those who come across this post in the future, her's the plane in question:
Personally I have a phobia for snakes, so will not be buying it - and certainly not at $2000.... Now if it was a nice dragon.....
-
This is a portion of some planes I've picked up over the years.
-
^^^^^^ Here's the understatement of the day...... "I get the feeling you've been holding out on us."
Okay gibsontool, now that you've teased us with a portion of what appears to a GREAT collection, you're going to have to post a few more pictures of your planes. I hope you'll occasionally feature them here in the Hand Planes thread. I'm looking forward to seeing more of what you have on those shelves!
Jim C.
-
& so many original boxes....
-
You will have to excuse the second picture it has no planes,today is my first attempt at posting pics without help from my wife, kids or others. I'll try to get some more detailed pics when I have some time.
-
You will have to excuse the second picture it has no planes,today is my first attempt at posting pics without help from my wife, kids or others. I'll try to get some more detailed pics when I have some time.
GREAT!! Now that you know you can post pictures on your own, we'll be looking forward to more! Thanks for stopping by.
Jim C.
-
I have been paying attention to your post since you started and it's full of great info. I will, as time permits ,post some detailed pics.
Jim.
-
I have been paying attention to your post since you started and it's full of great info. I will, as time permits ,post some detailed pics.
Jim.
Thanks. We're anxious to see more of your collection.
Jim C.
-
You will have to excuse the second picture it has no planes...
Like we might be disappointed? Hah! More good tools, a lot more.
-
You will have to excuse the second picture it has no planes...
Like we might be disappointed? Hah! More good tools, a lot more.
Right!! Yes, I'd like to keep the thread primarily dedicated to any and all hand planes. That being said, if someone wants to post pictures of their planes, and those planes are just a portion of a much larger hand tool collection, you won't hear a single complaint from me if some non-hand plane collection photos make it into the thread. I love good hand tools, particularly if they're vintage, so I'm always fascinated by extensive tool collection photos. I'm also hoping to see a lot more of gibsontool's hand planes, as well as those belonging to others who stop by the thread.
Jim C.
-
It’s fairly common that I will receive an old hand plane from someone I know. Pretty much anyone who knows me knows that I have a serious interest in them. Some are in better shape than others, but I always accept them. At the very least, there’s usually a part on them that can be used to fix up another plane that may be missing the same part. Anyway, the plane depicted below was a cast off from a fellow co-worker. I think he said it belonged to his great-grand father. I probably would have hung onto to it for that reason alone, but I guess people express their sentiments in different ways. So, the plane was mine, or on its way to the dump. On its surface it may look like it’s beyond saving or even worth the effort. I think that was my co-worker's thought. Okay. Yes, it’s a little rough around the edges, but with some attention and the acquisition of a couple common parts, this one can go back to work… and it will in my shop.
Stanley #180:
The #180 series of planes were some of Stanley’s earliest rabbet planes. There were three sizes (iron widths) starting with the #180 at 1½”, the #181 at 1¼” and the #182 at 1”. Stanley manufactured the 180s between 1886 and 1918. The latest versions are almost 100 years old!! They were simply designed having few parts that consisted of the main cast iron body, the cast iron pressure cap and screw, the cutting iron, and a cast iron depth adjustment stop that mounted to the right side of the plane with a thumbscrew. Unfortunately the plane was given to me without the depth adjustment stop and thumbscrew. (It should be noted that the depth stop and thumbscrew depicted below were borrowed from a Stanley #190 for purposes of showing the missing parts.) On the positive side however, that little depth stop and thumbscrew were used on MANY other Stanley produced rabbet planes in the decades that followed, to include the 190 series of rabbets and the extremely popular #78 to name a few… and there were other less common models that also employed those same two parts. I’m sure even back then, Stanley had accountants. Interchangeable parts meant production savings. I don’t usually like to chase parts, but in this case, they’re very easy to come by and relatively inexpensive. In this instance, I say “Thank you Stanley accountants.” (I’m sure the original designers and engineers factored in cost and production efficiency too.)
To use the #180, a thin scrap of thin straight stock had to be tacked to the work piece to act as a fence. Once a few passes were made and the shoulder of the rabbet joint was established, the temporary wooden strip/guide could be removed and the shoulder of the joint itself acted as the fence. With the stop set for a desired depth of cut, the #180 and its two narrower siblings (#181, #182) were easy to use and pretty accurate. So why were the 180 series of planes discontinued by Stanley. Well, Stanley also designed and produced a slightly different version with a scoring nicker (also known as a spur) for cutting across the grain. (See photo below comparing a #190 with the spur to the #180 without it.) The three legged spur was set into the body of the plane and rode just ahead of the iron, thus scoring the wood fibers before the iron got to them. That innovation greatly reduced tear-out and produced a smooth shouldered cross-grain cut. Instead of adding the spur to later versions of the 180 series planes, Stanley, created a parallel product line that included a spur, the 190 series of rabbet planes. Again, the 190 rabbets (#190, #191 and #192) were sized exactly as were the 180s listed above, and manufactured by Stanley from 1886 into the early 1960s. Basically, the introduction of the 190s, which also functioned exactly like the 180s, but with the spur, eventually led to an early end for the 180s. Perhaps another Stanley accounting department decision? Both the 180s and the 190s filled the same market niche. Adding to the demise of the 180 series, was the introduction of the Stanley #78 duplex/rabbet/fillister plane a couple years earlier in 1884. (See page 15, reply 220 above) It included two different seats for the iron, a spur, the same depth stop and a fence, thus eliminating the need to tack a strip of wood onto the work piece as a guide. The #78 was in production well into the 1980s and eventually outlasted the 190 series by approximately twenty years.
So why would anyone want to use a 180 series rabbet plane when other potentially better models are readily available? Well, that’s an easy answer for me. With just a little TLC, and the addition of a couple easy to find parts, I’ll be using a 100+ year old plane that’s covered with honest patina. The trademark (type J, 1874 – 1884) on the iron, and its other parts indicate that the plane was likely manufactured at some point not too long after its introduction into the market. I'd guess about 1890 to 1900. I probably won’t do much to clean any of the "history" from the plane’s surfaces. I’ll get to enjoy the process of re-grinding and sharpening its original iron for the first time in probably decades. They just don’t make common tools like that any more. Notice the handle of the plane with its ornately cast design. It’s just a great tool that deserves another chance…..
Jim C.
-
I could not agree more that the 78 is among the most useful planes.
Of course I really like all of the solid iron rabbet planes.
Hardly anyone else does, but I use them all the time. The 78, the 180 series and the 190 series too.
These are all very simple and practically bulletproof planes.
The era of the plane matters to me though. The later they get, the lesser the construction. The balance in your hand changes dramatically. A lot of difference to me.
For me the presence of a bottom spur on the tote is the cutoff point. While a few of the later models are better than the newest ones, its not as easy to tell the "good" ones at a glance.
Its come up before, so I already had a picture. If you look closely at this picture, you will see three different eras of the same kind of plane.
The top one is the first model. The first model has scrolls on the handle.
Notice the spur on the bottom of the tote, but also see the shape of the tote itself. Its serpentine shaped. Its connected to the plane by fairly long attachments both top and bottom.
Now look and the bottom plane in the picture. Its the newest model in the picture.
See the tote? It has all the shape of a billy club, and its connected to the plane by short attachments that not only change the angle of the tote in relation to the plane, but they limit the space for your hand inside.
Either of the top two models is a world better, to me.
yours Scott
Looking back to page 15, reply 221, Scottg added some great details regarding the Stanley 180s, 190s and the #78. His comments are certainly worth re-visiting and pertain directly to the recently featured Stanley #180 rabbet plane shown above. Go back and take a look because he included a picture that very clearly illustrated the information he provided.
Jim C.
-
I hope you all enjoy a very Happy Thanksgiving with family and friends.
Jim C.
-
At some point along the way, I probably mentioned that I’ve been replacing the sash on several windows in my house. There are 31 windows to be exact. I’d like to say that I’m restoring a 100 year old Victorian mansion back to its original glory, but unfortunately, that’s hardly the case. I’m actually just replacing rotted sash in “maintenance free” (that’s what the home builder told me) windows that are only fifteen years old. They’re the builder grade windows that were installed in my newly constructed home back in 1999. What I learned about eighteen months ago is that aluminum clad windows are NOT maintenance free, particularly when they’re poorly manufactured, and not properly caulked. Rain and snow also reminded me that once it gets behind aluminum cladding to the bare wood, that wood is going to turn black and rot away before you know it. (See last picture below.)
I discovered the problem in the spring of 2013 when I opened a window and the double paned glass slid down about an inch in the sash, and as I caught it, black damp crumbs of what used to be wood were pressed into my hand by the glass. I had to call a “window guy” who came out and informed me that most of my windows were in bad shape. He went on to explain that the manufacturer of my windows went out of business five or so years earlier and I’d need to have new sash made for the windows. The cost of new sash, rebuilding each window on site, and installation would run about $500 per window. Remember I mentioned having 31 windows? You can do the math on that. Well, I had to pay for that first window since it was literally falling apart and wouldn’t close. The “window guy” had the parts on his truck and me over a barrel. So, my introductory crash course in window sash replacement cost me $500. In the last eighteen months or so, I’ve repaired 21 windows with home made, exact copy, better than new sash. I won’t get into the whole process here, but with the help of a couple wood shapers, a set of custom made cope cutters, two table saws, a drill press and three or four hand planes, I’m actually getting pretty good at manufacturing window sash.
Most of my weekends are spent making sash. One part of the process involves making a rabbet joint along the bottom and top rails to accommodate a couple brackets. In order to increase speed, I cut that joint by making two passes through the table saw. Occasionally I’m a little bit off, leaving a small ridge in the corner of the joint where the cheek and shoulder meet. Rather than readjusting the saw to knock off the 1/32” – 1/16” wide ridge, it’s just easier and faster to make one pass with a hand plane to clean up the corner. There are a few small rabbet planes that will accomplish this task. Lately I’ve been using this one.
Stanley #75:
This is a small rabbet plane that is perfect for small cleanup operations, such as what I described above. The #75 was manufactured by Stanley from 1879 to 1983. It wasn’t designed as a high end plane, but it works and it incorporates an adjustable throat that allows it to make a precise, light pass, thus producing very acceptable results. Notice how the bull nose in front of the iron is connected to the arched section of the top casting. By loosening the screw on top of the plane, that top casting can be moved backwards and forwards along the bottom casting, thus closing down or opening up the throat. Also notice the elongated hole in the top casting that allows for such forward and backward movement. It’s a similar design much like the previously featured Stanley #90. (see page 2, reply 25) I see examples of this little rabbet plane regularly online, at tool shows and occasionally at flea markets. They’re fairly common and relatively inexpensive. Prior to buying one, inspect the top casting arches for cracks and/or repairs. Those arches are little bit fragile, but overall, the plane is certainly worth owning and more than capable of putting in a good day’s work out in the shop.
Jim C.
-
Welcome the the new, improved school of window sash. Somebody always thinks they know more than the old farts who worked on a thousand years of experiment and experience. They're almost always wrong -- and later, out of business. On the other hand, I went through all the windows of an 1887 Victorian, and every one was intact. One of the out buildings had a multi-pane window, probably salvaged, that was built somewhere around 1850, by hand.
I now have two of these little guys, and enjoy them both. They're sort of the #100 version of rabbet and bull nose planes. I recently got one by Sargent, and the other is an AMT with a brass body.
-
Hey Branson,
I wish I would have had you here back when this whole window sash project began. Your experience would have been welcomed and appreciated. My first prototype sash took me about a dozen hours to make. Fortunately I had the machinery and hand tools necessary to accomplish the task, but there was still a lot of trial and error early on. Other than paying the "window guy" for that first window, my only other real big expense was having a custom stacked cutter set made so I could reproduce the cope cuts on the ends of the sash rails. That set me back another $300. In terms of hand planes that I use to make some fine adjustments to the sash, I've found myself using a Stanley #75 rabbet plane (like the one featured immediately above), a Stanley #92 shoulder plane (not yet featured in the thread) the Sargent #507 (see page 11, reply #162 above) and a Lie-Nielsen #60 1/2 block plane (not yet featured in the thread) most of the time. Maybe I'll do a separate thread on my window sash project. It may not be of much interest, but I'll give it some thought.
And as always my friend......PICTURES......please post a few pictures of your planes...
Jim C.
-
Hey Jim I really appreciate this thread. I only have a few cheap planes but this is such a great thread. I enjoy reading it.
-
Hey Jim I really appreciate this thread. I only have a few cheap planes but this is such a great thread. I enjoy reading it.
Hello Nolatoolguy! Thanks for checking in and thanks for the feedback regarding the thread. I REALLY do appreciate your comments. I'm glad that you've been reading along so far. No need to minimize your hand plane collection. If they're working for you and getting the job done, then what more can you ask for? I hope the thread motivates you to keep using planes, and furthermore, motivates you to seek out and try a few new ones. Don't be afraid to post a few pictures. ALL hand planes are welcome here!!
Jim C.
-
Sometimes luck can be good and sometimes it can be bad…… and sometimes it can be GREAT! I was visiting with my parents today and as I was getting ready to leave, my dad suddenly remembered (with my mother’s prodding) to give me a plane that he had been given by an “old timer” at the VFW Hall pancake breakfast last weekend after church services were concluded. I have to laugh when my dad refers to someone as an old timer, since he himself is well into his 80s. Anyway, it’s pretty well known that I like to collect old planes, and my dad isn’t shy about telling people that when he starts talking about his kids. Well, I guess one of the “old timers” at church overheard him a few weeks ago and as a result, brought him a “junker” saying, “Give this to your son if he wants it.” That actually happens more than one might think. I tend to receive a lot of old hand planes and tools just by word of mouth.
So my dad went to the garage and came back with this Stanley #4C. It was dusty, grimy, and covered with a hardened coating of what must have been thick grease at one time. The plane was so dirty that I just put it into a plastic bag that my mom offered and headed for home. (Unfortunately I didn’t photograph it before I cleaned it, initially thinking it was going into the parts plane box.) When I got home, I pulled it out of the plastic bag, and my first impression was, “The tote is cracked, it’s covered in a hardened tar like glop, and it’s a parts plane.” It was just someone else's cast off like so many others I’ve received over the years. For some reason, my first impulse was still to take it apart just to see what I had, and to see how it had been mistreated by its previous owner. As I started disassembling it however, my excitement started to rise. It was in pretty good shape for its age. With just a little elbow grease and a small brass brush, the crud and dried on glop started coming off. I started to realize that the grime and gunk had actually preserved and protected the plane from years of neglect and inactivity. Most of the japanning was still intact, and the there wasn’t any rust on the bare cast iron. All the original parts were present and accounted for, and with the exception of the cracked tote and dinged up knob, the plane was a keeper for sure, and easily categorized as a top quality user tool. In my haste to clean up the plane and then bask in my good fortune, I nicked my left index finger on the still extremely sharp iron. I got careless. Normally, planes that I receive in similar condition are equipped with irons that are so dull, they wouldn’t cut through butter.
I wish I had photographed the plane before I took it apart and started cleaning it!! After I got into it, it was clear to me that I had badly misjudged the previous owner, who appeared to have made some kind of intentional attempt to protect the plane in grease or cosmoline or some other preservative substance. Everything was coated in the stuff as if it had been purposely applied. After about two hours of careful cleaning and lubrication, I ended up with a VERY nice Type 11 (1910 – 1918) Stanley #4C smoother.
Jim C. (who occasionally forgets the old saying, "Never judge a book by its cover.")
-
The military often coated tools in a thick grease like coating to preserve them - tools still turn up in the UK covered like this, and often wrapped in a canvas like cloth bandage - underneath they are in pristine factory condition.. As the military have downsized since WW2 less and less appears, but it still turns up as old stores are sold off as surplus.
-
The goop is cosmolene. It is a wax based coating that has a solvent in it that dries away after a few weeks. The military used to insist that tools, parts and even weapons be coated in it before shipment. Theory being that how long before the item was put in service was unknown. Any solvent will take it off, but it will protect metal pretty much indefinitely.
-
The military often coated tools in a thick grease like coating to preserve them - tools still turn up in the UK covered like this, and often wrapped in a canvas like cloth bandage - underneath they are in pristine factory condition.. As the military have downsized since WW2 less and less appears, but it still turns up as old stores are sold off as surplus.
Hi Billman49! Good to hear from you. You know, I've heard of such things happening, where old tools and such have been found in new condition and were sold as military surplus. I'm not so sure my recently acquired Stanley #4C falls into that category. A couple things that I didn't mention in the initial writeup included the fact that beneath the frog, various species of wood shavings (oak, pine, and cherry... I think) were accumulated and the iron itself had been sharpened and honed more than once or twice. I could tell that based on comparing the iron's length to other NOS irons from the same period of time. The NOS irons were longer by about 3/16" and the characteristics of the iron's edge (which I cut myself on) had a craftsman-made appearance versus a semi-dull factory grind. And then there's the matter of the tote. The tote was cracked completely in half and very poorly, and sloppily, repaired a long time ago. I think the blackish crud that coated the plane's surfaces was dried/hardened grease, and it was really applied heavily to the bottom and sides of the plane. The plane could not have been used with that crud on it, particularly on its sole. With the shavings jammed under the frog, the characteristics of the iron's edge and length, and the poorly repaired tote, I'd have to guess that the plane had been used for many years before it was finally put aside. Perhaps the person who applied the "glop" to it knew that the plane was going to sit for a long period of time and thought he/she would use it again someday. It seems that someone cared about it enough that he/she tried to protect and preserve it for a period of extended inactivity. It's hard to say.
Jim C. (playing detective)
-
During their most productive and diverse years of hand plane manufacturing, Stanley made several different variations of weather stripping planes. I guess before hand held electric routers were popular, and access to heavy machinery like shapers was available, craftsman used this type of plane to cut narrow grooves in window sash specifically to accommodate weather stripping. If you’ve been reading along, just a little while back, I mentioned that I was currently engaged (and still am) in a window sash project at my house. Since I’m at my own home fixing/replacing the sash on my own windows, I have the benefit of a shop that’s full of heavy machinery. My window sash project does involve cutting a groove the length of both stiles and both rails that will accept a piece of weather stripping. For purposes of time and given the amount of parts that I need to constantly make, I have a small router table set up and dedicated to the task. Outfitted with a 1/16” thick slot cutter, I can make those grooves pretty quickly. Yesterday while I was out in my shop plugging away at my sash project, I got to thinking about how different things might be sixty or seventy years earlier. Maybe I’d have a table saw to help me. Would I have had two? Probably not. Would I have had a shaper? An electric router? Hard to say, but again, probably not. For a craftsman of that bygone era, who was employed to fix one or two windows at someone’s home, lugging around heavy power tools probably didn’t make sense. Thinking in those terms, suddenly it’s much easier to see how a weather stripping plane may have been a necessity for various tradesmen. If one visits certain websites dealing with old hand planes, weather stripping planes tend to get a negative rap in terms of their usefulness and utility. Although they may not be as well known today, or as efficient when making multiple parts, they had their place back in the day. For any craftsman who went to a job site for purposes of repairing a window or two, they were the ideal specialty tool.
Stanley #238:
This plane was manufactured by Stanley between 1928 and 1938. It’s very easy to use and as one can see, it does a very respectable, neat job of cutting grooves for weather stripping. The #238 includes several features that are common to other “plough-like” planes such as a fence and depth stop. The #238 also employs a relatively unique method of securing its various sized cutting irons. The irons fit into a milled groove on the main casting, and slides back and forth in the groove to adjust the depth of cut. A light pass seems to produce the best results. Once the iron is positioned at the desired setting, it is held in place by the shoulders of two screws that pinch it (the iron) down into the groove of the main casting. It’s a little tedious to set up, but not too bad, and the iron does not move once the screws are tightened down. The fence is adjustable on rods that are threaded into the main body of the plane. Notice there are two other rods that are connected to the fence, but not to the main body casting. Those other two rods can be adjusted toward the main casting or away from it and then secured into position with screws. By setting those rods in a desired position on the fence itself, a secondary, repeatable fence location can be achieved. It’s a nice feature if two pieces of parallel weather stripping were used on the same piece of window sash. Also notice how those secondary rods have a piece of wire wrapped on one end to keep them from sliding out of the fence when they’re being adjusted.
The #238 works well as designed, but like many other planes that Stanley manufactured, it had several little parts and seven different width cutters ranging in size from 1/8” to 3/8” that could be easily lost. Most of the irons that I’ve seen have their respective sizes stamped on their sides with a Stanley trademark stamped on their opposite side. Prior to adding a #238 to your hand plane arsenal, do your homework and know what to look for. Make sure all the original/correct parts are present and accounted for. Some of the parts can be extremely difficult to locate separately. Most particularly the fence, the secondary rods with the wired ends, and the individual cutting irons are easy to misplace and expensive to replace…. if one can find them. Very often, the only iron that comes with originally equipped multi iron planes such as the #238, is the iron that was last used with the plane. Any weather stripping plane is probably not one that I’d recommend as a “must have” to use. Electric routers, shapers, table saws, etc. can get the job done pretty quick particularly if several parts need to be made over and over again. But for the one little job, or maybe for some straight inlay work, a plane like the #238 might be fun to tinker with.
Jim C.
-
> Electric routers, shapers, table saws, etc. can get the job done pretty quick particularly if several parts need to be made over and over again. But for the one little job, or maybe for some straight inlay work, a plane like the #238 might be fun to tinker with.
I strongly suspect that, given the time period, these were more likely front line tools, used for whole jobs of retro-fitting various weather strips on site. Factory produced weather-stripped sash and frame surely used power tools, but retro-fitting existing sash was its own industry, with carpenters and companies selling whole house weather-stripping. Do the job, take the money, and march on to the next customer.
Since the carpenter is setting up at the home (nobody wants to finish the day with a missing window!), a hand tool like this is at a premium. You work the windows one at a time, perhaps two, and work the day until there isn't time to start another and see it through to the end.
Some of these jobs were not very lovely when finished. I ran into one back in 2006, and just about lost my behind. A customer wanted all of the windows in his house re-roped. Sure, no problem. I bid the job at $50 for the first window, and $35 for each additional. Cheap, but I still stood to make a nice profit at the end. Then I discovered all the windows had been retro-fitted, and bad things had happened to the sash in several windows, and that removing the stripping without destroying it turned a 1 - 2 hour job into a 4 hour job at best. At the end of the first day I called up one of my old customers for replacement sash, and asked what he charged for dealing with these retroed sash. He answered $110 per window minimum. (What was that quote about the wisdom of learning from others' experience?)
All of the early systems presented some kind of problem. I think that people who had little real experience with window sash jumped on the retro-fit band wagon, and the job above was a case in point. They put in weather strip channels without regard to the rope channels in the double hung windows. As a result, the knot-retaining hole was destroyed, and the ropes had to be nailed in place, sometimes with 5 finish nails. The access plates for the weights were trashed.
It was very ugly. Fortunately, the home owner was both reasonable and understanding, and agreed to a bid change to $75 per hole, and in some cases, the old stripping was so damaged by the necessary removal that those windows went back in place without.
But back to the topic, retro-fitting had a big boom. it had to be done on site at a time when hand planing was thought to be the thing to do. These little planes made it all possible. Loss of the whole set of blades? Each company probably had one, maybe two sizes of weather stripping, and only needed a blade for each. Setting the plane up once probably did it for all time, so ease of re-setting didn't matter much. If it were me, I'd just have one of these for each blade I actually used, and the rest of the blades would go into a drawer in the shop or lie around the bottom of the tool box until I needed to grind one to replace one too worn to bother with.
-
Hey Branson, thanks for checking in and providing some GREAT historic background! I kind of figured that weather stripping planes did provide some real utility back in the day. Stanley and other manufacturer's didn't just make planes for fun. They made them for a targeted consumer and with a purpose in mind.... to sell planes and make money. Perhaps it didn't always work out that way, but there must have been some market for weather stripping planes. Without the benefit of your hands on experience, it would be more difficult to see just how useful and relied upon these planes actually were at one time in the construction industry. I think a lot of the value these planes provided was lost over the years and forgotten to some extent with the introduction of affordable hand held power tools. GREAT information!!! Thanks again for jumping in!!! Your comments are always welcome.
Jim C.
-
Branson said "It was very ugly. Fortunately, the home owner was both reasonable and understanding, and agreed to a bid change to $75 per hole, and in some cases, the old stripping was so damaged by the necessary removal that those windows went back in place without."
The home owner was right to pay. Ethically and somewhat (don't know the contract particulars, but it sounds like a handshake deal) legally any unknown existing conditions are an owners problem. You, as a workman, are responsible for what you should have reasonably known when you gave the owner your quote. In other words, you bid based on normal expected conditions. The basis of your price changed.
It would be different if you knew there was a problem and tried to gouge the homeowner after the fact. But you didn't. You informed the owner of the changed conditions, revised your price with a reasonable adjustment, and the owner agreed to take care of their part. It is great when both parties are honest and sincere.
Sorry for the off topic rant, Jim. But I have seen a lot of good people ( on both sides) get hurt by bad apples. I'll send you some pics of my planes (nothing special) early 2015 to try and make it up.
Chilly
-
Thanks, Chilly, for the perspective. I've been feeling stupid and foolish for years about the situation.
This really helped my peace of mind!
-
Branson said "It was very ugly. Fortunately, the home owner was both reasonable and understanding, and agreed to a bid change to $75 per hole, and in some cases, the old stripping was so damaged by the necessary removal that those windows went back in place without."
The home owner was right to pay. Ethically and somewhat (don't know the contract particulars, but it sounds like a handshake deal) legally any unknown existing conditions are an owners problem. You, as a workman, are responsible for what you should have reasonably known when you gave the owner your quote. In other words, you bid based on normal expected conditions. The basis of your price changed.
It would be different if you knew there was a problem and tried to gouge the homeowner after the fact. But you didn't. You informed the owner of the changed conditions, revised your price with a reasonable adjustment, and the owner agreed to take care of their part. It is great when both parties are honest and sincere.
Sorry for the off topic rant, Jim. But I have seen a lot of good people ( on both sides) get hurt by bad apples. I'll send you some pics of my planes (nothing special) early 2015 to try and make it up.
Chilly
Hi Chilly,
No need to apologize. Your comments and perspectives are always welcome here. If they stem from a hand plane topic that was raised earlier in the thread, I don't have a problem with it. Your recent thoughts are totally in line and related to my original weather stripping plane post and Branson's follow up post. I highly encourage, and hope for follow up discussion, opinions, experiences, corrections, etc. if they can be even remotely connected to using, buying, collecting, selling, restoring, making, etc., etc. hand planes. So I think you're good! Thanks for jumping in with your thoughts! Happy Holidays to you and your family. Also, since you mentioned it, if you have a few pictures to post, I'm looking forward to seeing them in 2015.
Jim C.
-
Thanks, Chilly, for the perspective. I've been feeling stupid and foolish for years about the situation.
This really helped my peace of mind!
Maybe you're being a little hard on yourself. My guess is the homeowner realized that he/she was still getting a fair price and a top quality finished product and was willing to pay an adjusted, equitable price for it. I think Chilly made some good points about respective responsibilities when unforeseen circumstances arise.
Jim C.
-
I hope you all enjoy a very Merry Christmas!
Jim C.
-
Since it’s almost the New Year, I thought I’d feature a simple block plane to bring in 2015.
Stanley #15:
Yes, the #15 in honor of 2015. This is another in the long line of block planes produced by Stanley over the years. It’s exactly like the #9 ½ (see page 11, reply 163) but only one inch longer. (See comparison photo below next to the #9 ½.) The Stanley #15 was manufactured from 1876 to 1955. It’s a solid worker. The plane depicted below was most likely made at some point near the end of production in the 1950s. I found it many years ago at a local garage sale. It cost me a few dollars and for a while, it was my “go to” block plane. As a matter of fact, for a short period of time, it might have been my only block plane. The box is pretty beat up, but the plane itself is in good condition. It’s not anything rare, but I’ve never seen another one in the box either.
I know that was short and sweet, but it's time to go celebrate the end of a pretty good year and the beginning of another one! So, Happy New Year! I hope 2015 is a great one for all of you, and I hope you’ll check in now and then. There’s a lot more planes to feature in the year to come. Stay tuned.....
Jim C.
-
There seems to be no end to the number of different block plane patterns produced by Stanley and their competitors throughout the years. As I’ve said in prior posts, some were very useful and still have a place on any craftsperson’s workbench today, while others didn’t stand the test of time for various reasons. Some just didn’t work well, while others were oddities that probably looked good on paper but fell short of the mark once produced.
Stanley #131:
This plane is a variation of Stanley’s #130 block plane. (See page 2, reply 15 above) As you may recall, the #130 was a double ended plane which employed an iron that had to be adjusted by hand, or with the assistance of a couple light taps from a small brass hammer. Although not my favorite block plane to use because of its bulky size, it works well enough and is capable of producing acceptable results. You may further recall that I mentioned the #130’s bull nose was relatively fragile. Well, all those things that I said about the #130 also apply to the #131. It’s a double ended block plane with one end being a bull nose (still fragile), it’s a little larger than I like a block plane to be, and it too, is capable of producing acceptable results. Here’s the twist. Where the #130’s iron must be adjusted manually, the #131’s iron is adjusted mechanically….. on both ends!! A relatively ingenious yoke mechanism pivots the iron adjustment between the two fixed frogs that are part of the main body casting. I love this plane purely for its “contraptionism.” In terms of functionality, well, that’s a different story. That pivoting yoke assembly, where the iron adjustment screw enters it, is VERY frequently cracked. I tried to take a few close up photos (see below) to illustrate how the yoke is attached to the plane, how it’s supposed to function, and how it’s constructed. As one can see, the yoke is nothing more than a small cast iron part. That yoke tends to snap easily if just a tiny amount of extra force is applied to it. For that single reason alone, the Stanley #131 is at the higher end of collectability, and the lower end of usability. It’s a tough plane to find in undamaged condition. Add the already fragile bull nose to the extremely fragile iron adjustment mechanism, and you’ve got the potential for a disaster. In an attempt to “improve“ on its #130, Stanley actually went backwards on this one. They created a double ended, doubly fragile block plane. (See the last two photos for a #130/#131 side by side comparison.)
The #131 did not replace the #130 in Stanley’s product line. The #130 was manufactured between 1884 and 1955, while the #131 was produced from 1905 to 1941. The #131 example depicted below is a Type 2 that was most likely manufactured between 1923 and 1929. If you run across a #131 and are thinking about buying it, take a VERY close look at the bull nose section of the main body (looking for cracks and/or repairs) and pay particularly close attention to the iron adjustment/yoke assembly (again looking for cracks and damage). Don’t buy a #131 with the expectation of using it. It’s really a collector tool now. If you want the experience of using a double ended block plane, stick with the #130. It’s certainly more durable. Finally, when I’m out hunting for planes, or know that I’ll be in an environment where high dollar planes will be available for sale/auction, I routinely have a small flashlight and magnifying glass, among other things, in my kit so that I can give planes such as the #131 a super close inspection. Little cracks can be hard to see without some help. As always, do your homework, and know what to look for.
Jim C.
-
............Finally, when I’m out hunting for planes, or know that I’ll be in an environment where high dollar planes will be available for sale/auction, I routinely have a small flashlight and magnifying glass, among other things, in my kit so that I can give planes such as the #131 a super close inspection. Little cracks can be hard to see without some help. As always, do your homework, and know what to look for.........
After my last post, I got to thinking that I casually mentioned keeping a flashlight and a magnifying glass in my “kit.” Upon reading that, maybe some of you wondered, “What kit? What’s he talking about?” Well, I’ll get to that in a moment. During the course of any year, I occasionally like to go to various auctions and/or tool meets where hand planes and other old tools are available for sale. If you’re into old tools, these events can be very exciting, and a lot of fun. Almost immediately upon walking into a convention center or large banquet hall lined with row after row of tables filled with old tools, it’s VERY easy to get carried away, and throw all discipline out the window. You have a “wish list” of tools that you’re looking for, you’ve done your homework, and you have some cash in your pocket. It’s time to go hunting! That’s how I feel every time I go to one of these events.
When I attend these functions, I usually do go with a shopping list. I don’t always find everything on the list, but when I do find something, it’s not enough to have just done my homework and basically know what to look for on a particular plane. That’s still VERY important, but now you’re there and that plane you’ve been looking for is actually in your hands. The price is right, the plane looks good, and the seller seems willing to negotiate a little. Well, this is where staying disciplined and having a “kit” comes into play. The actual discipline boils down to not making a snap emotional decision and taking the time to use the tools in your kit.
My kit is nothing more than a few simple tools and a couple other items that take a little of the guess work and stress out of buying an old tool. There’s no fun in buying a vintage tool to use, or as an addition to your collection, and then finding out later that it has some damage that wasn’t seen at the time of purchase, or that it’s missing a part. Sometimes lighting isn’t great, or grime/dust/gunk can hide a crack/alteration/repair. After suffering a couple disappointments along the way, I decided to make myself a kit.
Start out with a heavy duty, sturdy bag. Something that was made to carry at least twenty five pounds, and is large enough to haul around a few simple inspection tools/things as well as those tools you may purchase at the event. Notice my bag will accommodate a #6 size (18” long) bench plane. Also make sure that it has several internal pockets for various items in your kit. I’ve also found that a bag with a rigid bottom is easier to pack and keeps things from banging into each other. I like a bag with a full length zipper. It won’t open unless I open it. Snaps can come un-done. Things can fall out. When I’m walking around between tables and looking at tools, my bag is zipped up. Invest in a good bag. It protects your kit, keeps you organized, and safeguards your purchases.
As I said earlier, a magnifying glass is a critical item. Little tiny cracks in cast iron aren’t unusual. Particular planes like the Stanley #131 above are known to be fragile. Doing one’s homework and knowing where to look is just half the battle. Do you really trust your eyes to see a tiny crack in black japanning, or in dark patina, under less than optimal lighting? If you’re buying a user quality #9½ block plane for $10, I guess you could risk it. If you’re going to buy a #9 block plane for $1,000 (or more), you better get out the magnifying glass and look closely at all the potential weak spots. To be honest, I’d take the time to look BOTH planes over with equal attention to detail. That’s where discipline comes into play. Get in the habit of going through the same inspection routine with EVERY plane you buy. Most times, a magnifying glass is extremely helpful in seeing what my eyes alone would have missed. Now, add a little more illumination by shining a flashlight on the situation. The odds of detecting a hard to see problem have just been dramatically increased. Cracks, repairs, refinishing, etc. are usually detected with the help of both tools working together. Some magnifying glasses have a little light built in. Those can be handy.
Have a six inch square (at least) in your kit. Use it to check sole flatness. Are the sides of the plane ninety degrees perpendicular to the sole? For planes like those in the Stanley 90 series (#90, #92, #93, #94) that matters a lot. Those are precision tools, so the sides and soles need to be at 90 degree angles to each other. If a longer plane, like a #7 or #8 bench plane is on your wish list, take a longer square, like a twelve inch.
No plane with more than two parts can be adequately inspected without taking it apart. Most old planes have slotted screws holding some parts of them together. Don’t count on the seller to have or offer you a screwdriver. It’s good to take a few different sizes. I can’t think of anything worse than taking apart a plane that you haven’t bought yet, and buggering up a screw head with a screwdriver that didn’t properly fit in the slot. Some of those old screws haven’t been turned in decades. Use the properly fitted driver, and ALWAYS ask the seller if it’s okay to disassemble the plane BEFORE you attempt it. Upon approaching a plane, I usually ask the seller if it’s okay that I pick it up. If it passes my initial inspection, then I’ll ask if I can take it apart for a closer look.
Zip lock sandwich bags and a sharpie marker are great for storing small parts. If you need to take a tool apart so it fits into your bag, it’s a good idea to protect it and its associated screws, cutters, etc. from damage and/or loss. Use the sharpie marker to label the bag with the contents inside.
Bring a small pad of paper and a pen. When you’re looking at a lot of tools in a big banquet hall, it’s easy to forget where you saw something. Many times I’ll look at something that interests me, I’ll put it down, and walk around a little more looking for a better example, or to just think things over. More than once I’ve forgotten where I saw the tool, how much it cost, and/or notes about its condition, etc. An hour or so later, after wandering around literally looking at hundreds of tools, I ask myself, “Was that plane in this row of tables? How much was it?” Take some notes. For example, “Aisle 3, 2nd table on left, Stnly #4, $25”. Later, if I’m still interested, I can go back and see if the plane is still there without trying to remember exactly where it was. I also like to write down the name of the seller and his/her contact info after I make a purchase. I do that for my own records (which I’ll discuss in a future post).
It’s NEVER a bad idea to have some reference materials with you. Now it would be difficult to carry around every book, article, etc. that I have on the topic of hand planes, but a basic catalog/guide helps. Since I mostly look for and buy old Stanley planes, I like to carry the old Stanley #34 catalog. It gives me a general idea of what parts should be present on a particular plane, and includes exploded views. This can be extremely helpful when looking at a plane with numerous small parts/cutters, like the Stanley #45 or #55.
Finally, I like to have few old socks in my kit. They’re absolutely perfect for wiping away grime/dust/gunk. They also make GREAT protective covers, particularly for block planes, small tools, and parts. One could also slip a sock over both ends of a longer bench plane as well as over its tote. When I buy a plane or tool, slipping it into an old sock protects it from getting any unnecessary dings/chips/dents while it’s in my bag and I’m walking around at the tool meet.
I’m sure there are other items that could go into one’s “kit.” These are just a few of the things that I like to have in mine. Happy hunting!
Jim C.
-
Your first paragraph in your last post explains thinks very well and I'm sure the majority of us here feel the same way when we walk into a tool sale,yard sale, auction or whatever. I have an old Klien tool bag that I keep in my truck which has most of the items you carry. It can be kind of a pain to pack it around at a big sale but it it has stopped me from buying a few things that had flaws that weren't easy to spot with the naked eye.
I really enjoy reading your posts. Thanks.
-
Hi gibsontool,
Thanks for stopping by and many more thanks for your feedback!! It's not always easy to gauge how any particular post/topic went over with those who may be reading along. So, your comments are most appreciated. I'm glad to know that you're enjoying the thread, and as always, I invite you to feature here, any of the planes from your great collection.
As for having an old tool buying kit, well, I can't endorse them enough. A kit's actual contents may vary from person to person, but a good flashlight and a magnifying glass should at least be in every buyer's pocket when attending a tool buy/sell/trade event. The biggest "save" that I credit to my flashlight and magnifying glass occurred about five years ago when I was seriously looking at a Stanley #62 block plane. I knew those planes were prone to cracking near their throats, but I had one in my hands that looked sound. It wasn't a NOS mint condition plane, but still somewhere around the 95% range and worthy of a closer look. The sole had some minor scratches and wear, but nothing that was going to spoil the deal. Then I got out my magnifying glass and started to carefully inspect the sole. Well, there was one little "scratch" right near the outer back edge of the throat just behind the iron. So, I removed the pressure cap and iron so I could inspect the suspect location from the top side. Sure enough, there in the japanning was another "scratch" in the same spot as the scratch on the plane's sole. It was a crack for sure. I never would have seen it without my magnifying glass. As I recall, the plane had a $300 price tag on it. Anyway, I carefully re-assembled it and put back on the table. I told the seller I'd think about it and that was that. Had I not seen the crack, I would have made the guy a serious offer, probably bought the plane, and then eventually suffered a serious bout of buyer's remorse (which I do have some experience with.)
Jim C.
-
My "kit" is usually part of my camera bag, which is almost always with me. Contents change from time to time. Flashlight, tape measure, emery paper, photo loupe, etc.
-
My "kit" is usually part of my camera bag, which is almost always with me. Contents change from time to time. Flashlight, tape measure, emery paper, photo loupe, etc.
Emery paper..... Hey Papaw, why emery paper?
Jim C.
-
Some grunge can be taken off without disturbing the patina.
-
Jim,
I have a kit, but I need to make a couple of changes based upon some of your advice.
Biggest change: I need a bigger bag. I currently use an old, larger, laptop bag. I have never thought about using the kit bag to carry purchases in.
My bag doubles as a survey bag for work. I often need to measure old buildings where I am designing fire protection systems (sprinklers, alarms, extinguishers, standpipes, etc.) Since I don't need every tool every time, I have a short metal box I can put un-needed kit in. It fits under the back seat in my truck.
The big tip screwdriver I use has a t-handle. It was a vintage advertising give-a-way that came with other tools in an auction lot. It gives me additional leverage on harder screws and is especially handy on building access panels, which often have layers of paint over the screw heads.
I need to add a square to my kit, more good advice.
I used to have a small camera in my kit, but now I use my cell phone. I take my Nikon when I know I want a lot of pictures or higher quality pictures.
While thinking about your suggestions, I had an idea that I think I will try. The idea is to print up a sheet of business card size cards. One side I think I will have my name and contact info, with space to put the vendor info and notes. The other side will have space for tool particulars. Model, type, manufacturer, condition, price, date, picture number, etc.
I recieved my first (I think) Keen Kutter labeled plane last week. Pretty beefy and about the size of a #4. Corrugated sole. Pictures are in queue and waiting until I have regained hand use. Hopefully I can operate a mouse tomorrow evening, I have to see what my hand Dr. says tomorrow.
I really like this thread, by the way. Great Job!
Chilly
-
Hey Chilly,
I'm really glad that you found something of value in the "tool hunting kit" post. Thanks a ton for the feedback. It really helps me focus on what I might feature in the thread somewhere down the road. Your comments are always welcome. Sorry to hear that you injured your hand. I hope you're back to good soon!
Jim C.
-
Well, it happened again. I'm going through my storage unit, getting a look at a lot of things I forgot I had (still haven't found my 40 1/2 scrub plane GRRRR). I finally got a good look in one old carpenter's tool chest, which mostly contained wrenches and metal odds and ends. Digging through the bottom, I found two more block planes. They may have come with the chest. One Stanley that I have to figure which one it is, and a slightly shorter made by Union. Like the Stanley, it has an adjustable throat, but unlike any other I've seen, there is no adjusting lever for the throat piece. Any information about Union block planes? I haven't tried it out yet because the throat piece is frozen with light rust and I'm waiting for the Break Free to loosen it up. The Stanley is just as rusty, but I managed to give it a test, and it's still sharp enough to work.
-
Well, it happened again. I'm going through my storage unit, getting a look at a lot of things I forgot I had (still haven't found my 40 1/2 scrub plane GRRRR). I finally got a good look in one old carpenter's tool chest, which mostly contained wrenches and metal odds and ends. Digging through the bottom, I found two more block planes. They may have come with the chest. One Stanley that I have to figure which one it is, and a slightly shorter made by Union. Like the Stanley, it has an adjustable throat, but unlike any other I've seen, there is no adjusting lever for the throat piece. Any information about Union block planes? I haven't tried it out yet because the throat piece is frozen with light rust and I'm waiting for the Break Free to loosen it up. The Stanley is just as rusty, but I managed to give it a test, and it's still sharp enough to work.
Pictures my friend, pictures!!
-
Pictures my friend, pictures!!
Pictures will have to wait until a) I can afford a camera, or b) my stepson comes home from college.
-
Hey Branson,
Don't worry about the pictures. Still, as a regular visitor here, you know that I'm at least going to ask for them!! So what about your Union block plane? That's an interesting detail... no throat adjustment lever. I even hate to ask, but are you sure there's not a little hole right behind the front knob/finger rest that may have gotten muddled or unnoticed in the plane's patina/light surface rust? A little hole there would accommodate the adjustment lever's post, and suggest that a lever or adjustment mechanism was there at one time. I don't have a Union block plane, and I can't say that I'm too familiar with them, but if your plane was manufactured without that lever, I'd guess that it might be an early version that was made before such levers were popular (or invented)..... ????? Anyway, I included a few photos of a typical Stanley block plane (#18) so that others can see what we're talking about. It just seems like if a plane were made with an adjustable throat, its designers would have incorporated a way to make such adjustments. I'd love to see it since I've not seen something like that before. I'll keep poking around to see if I can find out what you have there. Unfortunately I don't have many reference materials pertaining to Union hand planes, and I'm not finding much on the internet either.
(As a side note, Stanley did make a #10 1/2 bench rabbet plane with an adjustable throat. I think the first version of the #10 1/2 was produced in 1885. To adjust the throat, the front knob was simply loosened and moved forward or backwards. The knob was threaded into the front of the plane's sole through an elongated hole in the plane's body, so as the knob was moved by the craftsperson, the front of the sole moved with it thus opening or closing the throat. What I'm getting at is that there was no adjustment lever on the #10 1/2 even though its throat was adjustable. Later versions of the #10 1/2 had a fixed throat.)
Jim C.
-
I really am going to have to get a photo of this plane. I just went out to the shop to check for that hole to be really certain, and yep, no hole. But
there's another oddity, something I've not seen before. The cam lock for the cap is Japanned and it extends out the back, behind the palm rest.
I drenched the throat plate with Break Free a couple of days ago and freed the plate yesterday. Everything very tight there. Gave it a try, and the blade is still sharp enough to do some work. Surprising, as the edge is as black with age as the rest of the plane. It's a pretty little thing that I am going to enjoy using.
-
I really am going to have to get a photo of this plane........
Okay, you said it this time, not me! (But I was thinking the same thing.) It sounds like a really neat and unique little plane. I'd love to see it.
Jim C.
-
Okay, you said it this time, not me! (But I was thinking the same thing.) It sounds like a really neat and unique little plane. I'd love to see it.
Jim C.
As luck would have it, Ray came to visit today and did grand things with his camera. First the plane all together. Second, disassembled: note the cam lever, and the lack of a hole for the throat lever. Third, looks like it is still using the original blade.
This one is going out on the bench where I will use it frequently!
-
Wow Branson!! That's a VERY original looking plane. Great patina. I like that a lot. It looks like the throat is adjusted exactly how I described it above regarding early versions of the Stanley #10 1/2..... The front knob is attached to the front part of the sole through an elongated hole in the body. What a great old block plane! Thanks for posting a few pictures!
Jim C.
-
What do you think of the long cam lock set *underneath* the cap? I've never seen anything like it.
And yes, the throat is adjusted exactly as you described the #10 1/2 early versions.
-
What do you think of the long cam lock set *underneath* the cap? I've never seen anything like it.
And yes, the throat is adjusted exactly as you described the #10 1/2 early versions.
Hi Branson,
Sorry I'm a little slow getting back to you. I've been working some unusual hours the last few days. Anyway, I'm with you on this one because I can't recall ever seeing a block plane with a pressure cap lever that is located beneath the cap itself. No doubt it's a unique little plane for sure. I wish I could tell you more about it. Just looking at it, one can see that it certainly has some age to it, and it's about as original as can be. Along with its unique features, I think I like it's originality the best. I'll keep an eye out for any info that may come my way. Because the plane is a little different than most block planes I've seen, I'm more likely to remember it when I'm out "hunting" or when some info comes my way. If I do find another one, or some good information pertaining to it, I'll be sure to let you know. Thanks again for posting a few pictures!
Jim C.
-
I've been subscribing to Taunton's Fine Wood Working magazine for several years. For the most part, I like the magazine, and over the years, it's provided me with some design ideas and smart construction techniques. Every now and then, the craftspeople who write the articles include some comments/photos of various hand planes and other hand tools they use in the creation of their projects. Occasionally an issue will feature an article dedicated to hand planes. Well, yesterday I received the latest issue, April 2015, No. 246, and it included an article entitled, "4 Planes for Joinery". The four planes featured are the shoulder, router, rabbet, and plow planes. I like the article because it's relatively concise, describes each plane's setup, and their respective uses. If you're already a Fine Wood Working subscriber, then maybe you've seen the article. What did you think of it? If you're not a subscriber but still a hand plane enthusiast, then this might be one issue to pick up at your local news stand.
Jim C.
-
I'll take a look for a copy. Thanks for the heads up.
-
Hi Branson,
You know I frequently see current issues of Fine Wood Working (FWW) and a few other wood working, landscaping, decorating, home improvement magazines at the big box (Home Depot, Lowes, Menards) stores usually by the checkouts. The piece itself is typical of many tool related articles, and some project articles that I find in each issue. There's just enough information and photos to peak one's interest, and plant a few seeds of inspiration. At the very least, I think the recent hand plane article in FWW has inspired my next featured plane here. Stay tuned.
Jim C.
-
A couple days ago I mentioned that I had recently seen a pretty good hand plane related article in the most current issue of Fine Wood Working magazine. One of the planes featured in the article was a plow plane. Well, after I read the article I got to thinking that I hadn’t thoroughly featured a plow plane here on the Hand Plane thread yet. Earlier in the thread, Les (Lewill2) was kind enough to show us several from his amazing collection, and I still really appreciate that. Les, if you’re reading this, we're always happy to see more! Anyway, today I thought I’d feature one of Stanley’s basic, yet most functional and reliable plow planes….. the #50. I gave some thought as to how I’d like to present the plane to you, and concluded that with its collection of parts and cutters, it might be best to break the topic into two, or possibly three separate posts. Although it’s not any where as complex as the #45 and/or #55 combination planes, the #50 is still worthy of more than a few pictures and one long winded explanation from me. Also, the plane depicted below has a story. Often times, I’ll buy a plane at an auction, or off of someone’s display table at a tool meet/show. But not always. That’s where the story begins……
Several years ago, not too long after I started chasing NOS planes, I was at an auction in the Midwest. I had my eye on a few different planes and took my seat in the gallery with the other attendees. I got into a couple scrums but dropped out when it became clear that two other guys wanted the planes more than I did, and furthermore, they were both willing to slug it out to the point of overpaying for them. It’s not unusual to pay the hammer price plus an additional auctioneer’s premium of 10% - 15% at such events. After missing out on a few good ones, and nearing the end of the auction, a gem mint, still in the box, japanned (think WWII version) #50 came up. The bidding got under way with four or five of us going at it. Well, eventually it boiled down to me and one other gentleman, and my ego had already carried my last bid beyond the plane’s actual value. I looked across the room at my opponent, and as we made eye contact, he sort of smiled and then blurted out a number that was WELL beyond my determination to have the plane and beyond my budget. It was definitely the knockout punch. So I had to let it go for two reasons. First, I didn’t think the plane was worth going any higher (not to mention the additional 15% auctioneer’s premium) and second, I didn’t have the money in my pocket to go any higher. (Looking back I guess that was a blessing.) I was most certainly disappointed, but also a little relieved to be honest. We both got a little round of applause and that was that. Deflated, I sat through the rest of the auction and didn’t place another bid.
When the auction ended, I got up from my chair, said goodbye to a few friends and started heading for the door. Two steps into the parking lot, an older man approached me and said he had been watching the auction. He told me I was smart to let the other guy have that #50 and then asked if I had a second. Sure. So he lead me to a pretty tired looking pick up truck out in the lot with a cap over the bed. I had no clue where he was going with this, other than the fact that he said he wanted to show me something. We walked to the rear of the truck where he swung up the cap door and lowered the tailgate. He then pulled back an old blanket and I could see a few good sized heavy duty cardboard boxes beneath it. As he rooted through the boxes, I caught a glimpse of what I knew were Stanley boxes. After just a few seconds, he turned around and handed me a box… a yellow Stanley box with a green label on it. He closed up the back of the truck and told me, “Hang on to this.” He walked past me, opened the driver’s side door and got in. He started the truck, and backed out of the parking spot. When he pulled even with where I was standing, he rolled down the window and told me to “take care of that.” He pointed to the box in my hands and then just drove away. I never saw that man again. What he handed me is the #50 you see below. A gem mint, NOS in the box, Type 9 (1936 – 1942) #50 Stanley plow plane. He didn’t stick around long enough for me to get his name or to even thank him. I regret that. When I pull out this plane, I think of him and wonder why….. Then I wonder what ever became of that kind old man.
Stanley #50 (part 1):
In this post, I’d like to just introduce readers to the #50, which was manufactured by Stanley between 1884 and 1962. Most were nickel plated except those made during WWII. As we’ve discussed in the past, WWII versions of many traditionally nickel plated tools were japanned. Over the years, the #50 was supplied with between seven and seventeen cutters. The cutters that I've seen are usually stamped with their respective sizes. As one can see, it was produced with several small parts that were not all necessary to use the plane during various operations. You know what that means. If the parts weren’t physically connected to the plane, the chance of them being permanently misplaced (lost) was fairly high. If you’re considering one of these planes for your shop, do your homework. In an effort to help you, not only did I photograph the parts, but I also included pictures of the original instruction manual (that was in the box with the plane) so its parts could be identified and the plane’s functions could be described. Sometimes it’s easier if Stanley tells you how to operate the plane, and what parts to use during various operations, versus me trying to do it and then confusing the heck out of you. In Stanley #50 (part 2) and possibly (part 3), I’ll set the plane up and try to show you generally how it functions.
Jim C.
-
An amazing story and what a great thing he did. I'm sure he would be happy to know you gave it a good home and are sharing it with others who appreciate good quality tools. Love your posts.
-
An amazing story and what a great thing he did. I'm sure he would be happy to know you gave it a good home and are sharing it with others who appreciate good quality tools. Love your posts.
Hi gibson,
Thanks for stopping by! I'm really glad to know that you've been enjoying the thread. I hope you'll keep coming back, and if you feel like it, occasionally post a few pictures of planes from your "hoard."
About that #50.... The circumstances under which I ended up with that plane is still one of the biggest mysteries I've ever experienced, and at the same time, probably the single nicest thing a total stranger has ever done for me. I have a few other planes in my collection that came with some good back stories which I'll eventually get to, but that #50 was really one of kind. Over the years, I've just wondered WHY. I NEVER handle that plane without thinking about that gentleman. As odd as it might sound, and while I was thrilled to receive the plane, once I digested what had happened and as I played things back in my head, parts of the incident bought on feelings of regret, and well, sadness I guess. I never got the man's name, we didn't shake hands, and I didn't even get to say "thank you." What still seems to stick with me was his fragility. I got the feeling that perhaps he wasn't in the best of health, and when he pointed to the plane in my hands and told me to take care of it, the words didn't seem to come easy to him, like he was getting choked up. Then he just drove away. I can't help but wonder what happened to that man and I always wonder why he did what he did. Needless to say, in some ways, I treasure that particular plane like no other in my collection.
Jim C.
-
My wife and I will be moving in the not to distant future so I have started packing up my collection. I'm at 118 boxes and have about another 40 or so to go. It will be a while before I have it all out on display again but when that happens I'll post more pictures. One problem I'm having is finding suitable sturdy boxes long enough to fit the longer planes,handsaws,breast drills etc. A bigger problem may be finding some young strong guys to help me getting it all upstairs and onto a truck or trailer.
-
Wow!!!! That's really a "hoard." 150+ boxes of old tools?!?!? I hope you're not downsizing. As for sturdy moving containers, I've found that "banker" style cardboard boxes work well. They're long enough to accommodate an average length jointer (22" - 24") and they're strong enough to hold a lot of paper, which can be heavy. They're actually designed to hold several reams of paper. I also like them because they have hand holds cut into their sides for easier lifting. Good luck with your move and thanks again for keeping up with the thread.
Jim C.
-
Banana boxes and tomato boxes from your local supermarket also work well. Best of all they're free!!
Just ask in the produce department.
Mike
-
Thanks for the info on the boxes. I have been after produce boxes but today at Costco all I found were 2 boxes and these produce boxes tend to not have lids. I don't know if I've ever seen a bankers box but I'll pursue that lead.
-
Banker boxes usually have lids.
-
Hey gibson,
I took a look at a typical Bankers Box here at work. The inside dimensions of the boxes are 24.25" long, 12" wide and 9.75" high. We dump a lot of paper, records, and other stuff into these type of boxes all the time and they seem to hold up. They're sturdy and they're durable. The lids fit snuggly and the pre-cut hand holds on the sides don't tear, making them a lot easier to lift. They also stack nicely. I really think this type of box would work for well for your application. I'll post a few pictures this evening. Please check back here tonight.
Jim C.
(If you have some time today, maybe you can check out this web site..... www.bankersbox.com)
-
Wasn't sure what you meant by Bankers boxes until I looked at your link. We used many of these when we were in business and up here we must maintain company records for a period of 7 years so I have been saving the empty boxes when ever we shred the paper but all we ever used was the smaller ones which are now full of tools I just referred to them as file boxes and didn't know the proper name, and didn't realize that they came in different sizes. My wife looked after that aspect of the business and she kind of laughed at me when I asked her about bankers boxes as she knew all about them.The length is still shy of what I need for some items but I lucked out at Costco this morning and managed to fill the cab of truck with boxes all 22' or longer. Probably still not enough but I'm getting closer day by day. Thanks for the input guys.
-
Wasn't sure what you meant by Bankers boxes until I looked at your link. We used many of these when we were in business and up here we must maintain company records for a period of 7 years so I have been saving the empty boxes when ever we shred the paper but all we ever used was the smaller ones which are now full of tools I just referred to them as file boxes and didn't know the proper name, and didn't realize that they came in different sizes. My wife looked after that aspect of the business and she kind of laughed at me when I asked her about bankers boxes as she knew all about them.The length is still shy of what I need for some items but I lucked out at Costco this morning and managed to fill the cab of truck with boxes all 22' or longer. Probably still not enough but I'm getting closer day by day. Thanks for the input guys.
Hi gibson,
It sounds like you have things under control. Still, for those who may not have gotten around to checking out the link above, here's a few photos of a "bankers box" as promised.
Jim C.
-
I can't recall ever seeing a block plane with a pressure cap lever that is located beneath the cap itself. No doubt it's a unique little plane for sure.
Jim C.
Look what just showed up this morning on eBay:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/OLD-UNION-TOOL-COMPANY-WOOD-PLANE-LOW-ANGLE-BLOCK-PLANE-WITH-ADJUSTABLE-THROAT-/291379934173?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item43d798f3dd
-
That is a decent price for what may be fairly rare plane. I considered bidding but I think it's time to back off a bit at least until our move is complete and we're settled in. I think his shipping costs are a little out of line
-
I can't recall ever seeing a block plane with a pressure cap lever that is located beneath the cap itself. No doubt it's a unique little plane for sure.
Jim C.
Look what just showed up this morning on eBay:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/OLD-UNION-TOOL-COMPANY-WOOD-PLANE-LOW-ANGLE-BLOCK-PLANE-WITH-ADJUSTABLE-THROAT-/291379934173?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item43d798f3dd
Hey Branson,
That little Union block plane looks familiar! Right? I was hoping that the seller would have included some information about it, like its model number, approximate dates of production, etc. I don't really buy too many hand planes from Ebay. There have been a few, but usually I buy from sellers that I know and have done business with in the past. For the most part, I really like to closely examine a plane, even a "user" before I buy it. If I'm planning to use it, then it has to feel good in my hand, and the parts have to be present and undamaged. Even a common plane that's missing parts or doesn't function properly can be a hassle to deal with. Mostly, I'm insane about looking for tiny cracks and/or hard to see damage. If I'm buying something for my collection, then I MUST physically see the plane and hold it in my hands first. There was one Ebay seller that I had gotten to know over time, and consequently bought several planes from him without physically holding them first. His stuff was top quality and he offered a no questions asked return policy. I never had a problem. Then, a few years ago, he lost interest in Stanley and sold everything he had. I think he got hooked on high end wooden plow planes. Anyway, I'm gonna have to start trolling on Ebay again. It looks like there's still some good planes to be had.
Jim C.
-
A couple of weeks ago, we hadn't heard of a Union block plane, but now there is a later model on eBay:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/ANTIQUE-OLD-VINTAGE-WOODWORKING-TOOLS-RARE-UNION-BLOCK-PLANE-NICE-SHAPE-/351318189500?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item51cc3225bc
It has the same under-lever, but this one has an adjustment to open the throat. If nobody else is interested, I might toss a bid on this one.
-
Jim,
Another great source for boxes is your local printer. They are glad to get rid of them because they empty many of them every day. They have lids like the bankers boxes and if the contents are heavy, just put a lid on the bottom.
-
Good thought John, Thank you, I have a good friend who has a print shop, I'll give him a call today.
-
Stanley #50 (part 2):
The #50 is far from being Stanley’s most complex plane. Actually, I think it’s a user friendly plane and is relatively easy to set up and operate without too much fuss. If I had to pick only one plow plane that was capable of creating accurate grooves, dados, rabbets and beads, I’d give the #50 some serious consideration. It’s compact, light weight but durable, and straight forward in comparison to a few other Stanley offerings. Over the years, it was outfitted with a sufficient assortment of cutters that allowed any craftsperson the ability to make a few basic joints without the expense, weight and complexity associated with some other plow and/or combination planes. The major drawback to this plane is the unavoidable fact that it was equipped with several small parts and cutters that often go missing in action, and can be expensive to replace. Know what parts and cutters were with the plane when it left the factory and make sure they’re all present and accounted for prior to making a purchase. The #50 is frequently missing the chip deflector (used while creating a tongue and groove joint) and the screw used to hold narrow (specifically 1/8” and 3/16” wide) cutters in place. Do your homework.
In this post, I’ll try to show you the #50 as it would be set up to cut basic dados and grooves. The plane incorporates several features that we’ve discussed on other planes to include a fence, scoring spurs (nickers), depth stop, and a lever used to advance or retract a cutter from the work piece. One part that we haven’t covered in the past, because it hasn’t been integral to any planes discussed in prior posts, is the cast iron “sliding section” that runs on the two arms that thread into the main body of the plane. The sliding section is mounted on the arms between the fence on the left and the main body of the plane on the right. When cutting dados and grooves, the sliding section sandwiches the cutter between the plane’s main body and the sliding section itself. I’ve found it to be an effective way to hold the cutter firmly in place, while still being able to adjust the cutter with the cutter lever. This sliding section incorporates a threaded stud that passes through the main body, and is drawn together, thus sandwiching the cutter in place, via a unique looking wing nut/thumb screw. This method works for every cutter except the two narrowest (1/8” and 3/16”) as mentioned above. (Also note that the narrow cutters were included with the #50 beginning in 1936.) Because the sliding section cannot be drawn close enough to the body of the plane to secure the cutters, a special screw was designed to hold them in place. Years later, many examples of the #50 are commonly missing that screw.
When attempting to cut a dado across the grain of a work piece, the #50 allows the user to install spurs just ahead of the cutter. One such spur mounts directly to the main body of the plane, while the other mounts to the sliding section. A well conceived design feature in my opinion. When cutting a groove with the grain, the fence would guide the plane as it was pressed against the edge of the work piece. There's no need to employ the spurs. For a dado cutting across the grain, a thin wooden batten tacked in place would substitute as the fence and the spurs would be installed to prevent any tearout from the cutter. The #50 is also outfitted with a depth stop that can be attached to the plane’s main body, or its sliding section. Finally, with the addition of the two narrow cutters in 1936, Stanley also added a small toothed cutter adjustment lever to the plane’s design. The little teeth on the lever engaged perpendicular grooves on the back of each cutter, allowing the user to advance or retract the cutter. Don’t be fooled when looking at a #50…. If the plane is equipped with that little toothed lever, make sure that the included cutters also have grooves on their backs, otherwise they’re useless and cannot be used without removing the lever.
I guess that’s it for now. Thanks for hanging in there. I was thinking about adding one more post pertaining to the Stanley #50. If you’ve had enough of this one, don’t be afraid to speak up and I’ll move on to another topic. We still have a good ways to go and several more planes and plane related topics to discuss. And as always, feedback (positive and/or constructively negative) is more than welcome. Also, if you have a plane to feature here in the Hand Plane thread, don't let me slow you down. Post a few photos and let's see what you have.
Jim C.
-
At the expense of making more enemies I guess I have to make a few comments. First, I agree with the posts and the comments about those that collect mainly Stanley planes. However, many other manufacturers made good planes and most of them did a creditable job even if that job was not fine furniture. I started collecting planes after I ran out of wrenches I could afford. I now have a couple hundred planes and if it is nice that is the way it stays. However, if it is rusty with lots of chipping I will restore it to a level that lost me a friend who feels I shouldn't do what I do. I'm a collector of makers, and thus I have many off brand somewhat uncommon planes others do not want. So, what do I do to a junk plane? First I completely disassemble it and then I put it on my coarse wire wheel and remove all the rust, paint and dirt on the bare steel parts. Then I apply blue painting tape to those portions being careful to cut the tape to cover all the surface to prevent any damage when I take it to my blasting cabinet. I use Skat Blasé in my cabinet and take off all the japanning on the inside of the body. The Skat Blasé leaves a surface that loves paint, and then I apply four to six coats of gloss black rust retarding paint which somewhat looks like japanning. Then I clean up the rest of the parts as best I can and then sharpen the blade. I determine the original angle as best as possible and use one of my angle blocks to hold the blade and run it on my belt sander. Once the blade is trued and all nicks removed I finish it on an oil stone. I feel that I'm saving many uncommon planes for posterity while my ex friend thinks I'm a butthead. Oh yes, I am a woodworker and do use a number of planes in my shop.
-
No need to apologize for your methods. They are your planes and you restore them to your own liking. The fact that you also use many of them is in your favor.
-
Coolford, Interesting post, I started my serious collecting just the opposite. I started collecting screw arm plow planes. I was up to about 130 and the prices kept rising and I started looking on the dark side as one of my acquaintances once told me. I started collecting wrenches because the quick adjust wrenches caught my eye. I now have over 300 wrenches in my collection but like plow planes I am beginning to spend to much on them and I have to slow down or else sell the house. Regardless, no mater how you take care of your collectable tools not everyone will agree with you. As far as I am concerned as long as you don't paint a covered bridge on them or drill a hole in them to make a lamp they can still be useable and collectable to future collectors or users.
-
At the expense of making more enemies I guess I have to make a few comments. First, I agree with the posts and the comments about those that collect mainly Stanley planes. However, many other manufacturers made good planes and most of them did a creditable job even if that job was not fine furniture. I started collecting planes after I ran out of wrenches I could afford. I now have a couple hundred planes and if it is nice that is the way it stays. However, if it is rusty with lots of chipping I will restore it to a level that lost me a friend who feels I shouldn't do what I do. I'm a collector of makers, and thus I have many off brand somewhat uncommon planes others do not want. So, what do I do to a junk plane? First I completely disassemble it and then I put it on my coarse wire wheel and remove all the rust, paint and dirt on the bare steel parts. Then I apply blue painting tape to those portions being careful to cut the tape to cover all the surface to prevent any damage when I take it to my blasting cabinet. I use Skat Blasé in my cabinet and take off all the japanning on the inside of the body. The Skat Blasé leaves a surface that loves paint, and then I apply four to six coats of gloss black rust retarding paint which somewhat looks like japanning. Then I clean up the rest of the parts as best I can and then sharpen the blade. I determine the original angle as best as possible and use one of my angle blocks to hold the blade and run it on my belt sander. Once the blade is trued and all nicks removed I finish it on an oil stone. I feel that I'm saving many uncommon planes for posterity while my ex friend thinks I'm a butthead. Oh yes, I am a woodworker and do use a number of planes in my shop.
Hi coolford,
Thanks for visiting the thread and more importantly, thanks for jumping in with both feet!! I really appreciate the feedback and I absolutely respect the fact that you took the time to post your opinion. ANY hand plane enthusiast is WELCOME HERE!!! I sincerely hope that you don't see yourself as an enemy or foe, because I certainly don't. I started the thread for those who collect, use, make, restore, and have an interest in hand planes. That's pretty much it. The only thing I ask is that the conversation stays related to hand planes. If it strays a little that's okay too. Just try to keep it about hand planes.
As for restoring old planes, well, that's a matter of personal choice. I'm sorry your friend doesn't see it that way. If you're using them, enjoying them and preserving them, then more power to you. If you've read through the thread, you know that I'm mostly a Stanley collector. A good majority of my "user" quality planes are Stanleys with a few Sargents and Lie Nielsens mixed in. It's not been my habit to do full restorations to the old planes I come across, as I prefer them to look their age and show their patina, regardless of how advanced the "patina" may be. I'll give them a gentle cleaning but that's about it. When I feature a plane in the thread, I like to pick the best one that I have for purposes of clarity, and so that readers can see what the tool looked like and how it was equipped when it left Stanley's factory. That's how I enjoy the hobby. If we disagree on some things, then so be it. Live and let live. One thing is for sure, we both like hand planes, so I hope you'll keep stopping by the thread, and furthermore, I hope you'll contribute more to the conversation. I'd love to see and hear about a restoration from start to finish. Take us through the steps with some photos and commentary. You also mentioned having some lesser known planes. I'd really appreciate seeing them and learning more about them. With a couple hundred planes in your collection, I invite you to share a few with us. So, thanks for stopping by and I hope you'll continue to add some content here at the Hand Plane thread.
Jim C.
-
However, if it is rusty with lots of chipping I will restore it to a level that lost me a friend who feels I shouldn't do what I do. I'm a collector of makers, and thus I have many off brand somewhat uncommon planes others do not want. So, what do I do to a junk plane?
A friend lost because you pretty up junk planes wasn't much of a friend, IMO. Even a user-only Stanley isn't above being made back into a pretty plane is no problem as far as I'm concerned. My current favorite #5 (a type 8) had been given a coat of maroon paint at some time in its life. Nobody wanted it on eBay, so for about $9 I got a plane that loves to work!
What do you do? Why, you make a rusty unloved junker into a good looking working tool. Who's to complain about that? Someone doesn't
like it? Let them buy it from you to preserve the rust.
Welcome to the world of workers with tools.
-
However, if it is rusty with lots of chipping I will restore it to a level that lost me a friend who feels I shouldn't do what I do. I'm a collector of makers, and thus I have many off brand somewhat uncommon planes others do not want. So, what do I do to a junk plane?
A friend lost because you pretty up junk planes wasn't much of a friend, IMO. Even a user-only Stanley isn't above being made back into a pretty plane is no problem as far as I'm concerned. My current favorite #5 (a type 8) had been given a coat of maroon paint at some time in its life. Nobody wanted it on eBay, so for about $9 I got a plane that loves to work!
What do you do? Why, you make a rusty unloved junker into a good looking working tool. Who's to complain about that? Someone doesn't
like it? Let them buy it from you to preserve the rust.
Welcome to the world of workers with tools.
Exactly. Enjoy old tools and hand planes the way YOU want to enjoy them.......(just make sure to include us!!). :smiley:
Jim C.
-
Thanx for the posts, I feel a little better now. My planes and I are not together at the moment but will be soon. I picked up a wood plane with H. Harron, N. York stamped on the end last week for $5.00, great condition but missing the blade. I have a blade that fits. Is anyone familiar with this maker??
-
Coolford, there is a R. Harron listed that was a plane maker active from 1843-1844 at 182 Chrystie St New York City The 1850 census showed him having 3 employees and making 1200 planes worth $2100 annually. He is believed to have had a son that was also a plane maker from 1863-1917 also from New York. Info found in American Wooden Planes 4th edition.
2 line mark R. HARRON
N. YORK
and a single line mark R. HARRON
Both marks rated as frequently found.
-
Thanks Les. You're way ahead of me when it comes to wooden planes and plow planes. Good info.
Jim C.
-
Thanx! Did not realize it might be that old. As I mentioned, I collect makers, and I did not have this one. Plane is nice with original finish, will not touch this one. When I get the picture sizing figured out I will start sending some pictures. Coolford is actually a nosed and decked 1956 Mercury Montclair hardtop.
-
......When I get the picture sizing figured out I will start sending some pictures......
That would be great!!! I think I can safely speak for everyone when I say, "We like pictures!"
Jim C.
-
I was out in my shop last night tinkering with an old 1948 Delta Unisaw. While moving a few things around on my work bench in order to accommodate some heavy cast iron table saw parts, I noticed a little block plane that I’ve been using on and off for several years. I bought this plane a long time ago from a serious collector who was in the process of downsizing. Looking back, I think I over paid a little for it, but looking back again, I can say that it’s been one of my favorites to use and worth every penny.
Stanley #60:
In case you haven’t heard me say it before, Stanley made dozens of block plane patterns during its golden years of hand plane production. In my opinion, some of the best ones to use featured an iron bedded at a low angle and an adjustable throat. The #60 has both. As I very distinctly recall, I was initially attracted to this plane because of its nickel-plated pressure cap and throat adjustment screw. I’m kind of a sucker for nickel-plating on hand planes. I really like the look of it when contrasted against the black japanning of other parts. Believe it or not, Stanley also made a #60 ½ block plane, which was identical to the #60, but for the fact that the pressure cap is finished in black japanning and the throat adjustment screw is made of brass.
I like the #60 not only for some of its physical features and its overall esthetics, but also for its size. At just six inches long and about one and one half inches wide, it seems to fit into my hand perfectly. Prior to writing this post, I picked the plane up and held it for a minute or two. As my hand warmed the pressure cap and indents on the side of the body, it just felt good. Every now and then I’ll find a tool that just feels exactly right, and the #60 is one of them.
Stanley manufactured the #60 block plane between 1898 and 1950. The example depicted below is a Type 5 that was produced at some point between 1924 and 1930. As you can see in the last photo, the #60 was so popular and functional that it inspired later manufacturers (Lie Nielsen in this case) to make their own versions.
Jim C.
-
I have to agree with you Jim, the No 60 is a nice little plane that really seems to fit my hand quite well, as I mentioned before my collection is now packed up but I have kept out a few to use and a Number 60 is in that group. Yours looks to be be in nice condition, mine is quite rough in physical appearance but it still is one of my favorite users. We have finally found a house after 2 years of looking and we get possession in a couple of weeks. The house needs a lot of work so it will be a while before I have my stuff sorted out. The shop is what sold me on the place it's 25' x 42' inside dimensions with a 15' ceiling and a small mezzanine floor 6' x 25' with a small 6' x 6' room with a toilet and sink tucked into a corner under the raised floor. No stairs up to the upper level, no workbenches, no cupboards ,no shelves but that's good, now I can build what I want. I'll post some pics when we are given the keys.
-
Hi gibson,
Thanks for checking in. I was wondering how things went in terms of packing up your massive hand plane collection. I'm glad to hear you have everything under control. When you get your new shop set up, and a few planes on the shelves, definitely post a few pictures! Good luck with your move.
Jim C.
-
> Believe it or not, Stanley also made a #60 ½ block plane, which was identical to the #60, but for the fact that the pressure cap is finished in black japanning and the throat adjustment screw is made of brass.
Oh, I believe it. I have at least one of each. Um, and a few others... I'm just a sucker for block planes. I've kept finding them for around $5 apiece, and sometimes even less. And I keep finding them in odd places where I have squirrelled the odd one away. Dependable little workhorses!
-
For those inspired by this conversation about the Stanley No. 60 plane to go find one for themselves: the evolution of the 60 (1/2) followed that of other Stanley block planes, in that the tools got less substantial as Stanley "value engineered" the tools away from their glory days. In the case of the block plane, the bedding for the iron got smaller over time. Toward the very end, it was less than 1/4" wide*. Jim's is a Sweetheart era plane - note the extensive bedding for the iron in the photos. The models between Jim's and the pitiful later models (in particular, the pre-war models) had pretty decent bedding, too, though not quite as extensive as on the Sweetheart model shown. If you want a No. 60 (or 60-1/2; they're functionally the same plane) for yourself, check out the bedding; if planes show up in your neighborhood frequently, watch for one with better bedding.
The later planes work OK; it's just that the earlier ones work more OK than the later ones.
Another point is that the consensus is that Stanley's planes got worse after World War II, reaching dreadful about the same time that blue paint replaced the black japanning, and then dreadful plus when the maroon paint replaced the blue paint. This does not seem to have happened quite so fast with the block planes. I had a blue-painted 60-1/2 and a maroon 60-1/2 at the same time. Now, cases aren't statistics, so my observations of these two don't demonstrate anything in general about the earlier/later quality. But the blue-painted plane was better, with a flatter sole, and performed better. Still, the maroon plane, with a sharp iron, did well on pine end grain (one of the tests of blade sharpness and plane quality). So, if you find a blue-painted 60-1/2 at a good price, don't ignore it.
In this area, I can generally find one in the range from $1 to $5. It appears these prices are lower than in some places, though.
-----------
*Interestingly, Stanley's English-built redesign of the block plane - not the most recent "Sweetheart" models, but the model in between, looking like ths
(http://home.comcast.net/~kvaughn65/current_stanley_block.jpg)
has returned to pretty substantial bedding for the iron. One of the engineers must have been a woodworker. If I found one of those at a yard sale for a good price, and it was the first one I'd found, I'd probably buy it, replacing the iron with an aftermarket iron (I like Lee Valley's irons, which come pretty well dead flat on the back, and sharp enough to cut wood, and your fingers, right out of the box).
-
I've ended up with three of the English Stanley block planes. Two were left me by a friend who passed away, and the third was in a good sized tool lot I picked up for $20. I have been really impressed with their substantial weight and truly great performance. They are a delight to use.
-
After featuring the Stanley #60 block plane, I got to thinking about how the feature sort of turned into an accounting of my affinity for nickel plating. Well, Stanley also put a premium on it too. Earlier I mentioned that the #60 (with nickel plated parts) was identical to the #60 1/2 (with japanned and brass parts). Functionally the two planes were identical. Cosmetically, well, the #60 1/2 is a little less fancy. Below I've included a photo of from the 1915 Stanley #34 tool catalog. Take a look at the price list at the bottom of the page. Notice how the #60 cost $1.25 and the #60 1/2 cost $1.10. Back in the day, a little extra pizzaz would cost you 15 cents!! It was the same story for the #65 and #65 1/2. The second photo depicts the #60 (Type 5, 1924 to 1930) in the foreground and the #60 1/2 (Type 4, 1914 to 1924) in the background. See the cosmetic differences? In the end however, the #60 1/2 far outlasted the #60. While the #60 was produced from 1898 to 1950, the #60 1/2 was manufactured from 1902 until the mid 1980s.
Jim C.
(I'd also like to thank you guys for adding some GREAT content to the thread regarding the Stanley #60 and #60 1/2 block planes. I really like reading your comments and seeing what you have in your collections. Thanks for checking in and chipping in!)
-
I'll buy No. 62 planes for $2.85 all day long!
-
I'll buy No. 62 planes for $2.85 all day long!
Me too Bill. Now if you move the decimal point two places to the right, you'd be in the ball park for a nice one in good user condition.....however, using that particular model could be risky!! The throats on those were extremely fragile and prone to cracking. If you'd like a #62 in pristine collector condition, again move the decimal point two places to the right and then multiply by about 2.5 or so. Want a really nice one in its original box.....Multiply by 4 or 5. If I only had a time machine.....
Jim C.
-
I've got a 62 that's very clean except for a hanging hole that ruins its collectibility. I figure that makes it a user.
-
I've got a 62 that's very clean except for a hanging hole that ruins its collectibility. I figure that makes it a user.
Hey Bill,
Over the years, I've seen many hand planes with owner added hang holes, among other things. It happened. If you bought it as an investment, well, the hole probably won't appeal to a collector, but if you bought it for the experience and enjoyment of using a relatively rare vintage tool, then I'd say you're probably okay. Just be careful with that throat!! A hang hole won't even remotely effect its functionality. A cracked throat is a different story.
Jim C.
-
A couple weeks ago we were talking about Stanley block planes and at some point the topic took a turn from the #60 and to the #62. Well, it seemed like a perfect segue that was too easy to pass up. If any of you were wondering (or not), I really don’t have any specific plan/outline/agenda in terms of what plane I feature, and when I feature it. I was just sort of hoping that one thing would lead to another and a logical flow would simply occur. Sometimes I’ll choose a plane to feature because I’m using it out in the shop, or I read something about it, or it came up in conversation here or in another thread. Anyway, there’s really no rhyme or reason to it.
Stanley #62:
This is probably one of Stanley’s best and worst designed block planes. Yes, it’s a block plane! Although it’s 14” long like a common jack plane and it kind of resembles a bench plane, it’s still a block plane. The cutter is bedded at about 12 degrees and it has an adjustable throat giving it the basic characteristics of a block plane. Notice that it also has a pressure cap holding the iron in place versus the double iron/lever cap configuration found on most bench planes. The low angle and adjustable throat combine to make it a great tool for slicing end grain on larger work pieces, and for performing other larger scale block plane related applications.
The problem with the #62 is its throat. The sole immediately behind the point where the cutter protrudes through the bottom of the body tapers to practically nothing. With the low bedding angle to accommodate the iron, that section of the sole just behind the cutter is really thin. Taking too deep a cut and then accidentally getting a shaving jammed between the iron and the sole is a guarantee for that back section of the throat just behind the iron to crack right off. More than half of those I’ve seen are cracked or chipped in the same general location. Unfortunately, for that reason alone, the #62 is probably not a plane that one would want to use. They’re just too expensive to risk cracking and ruining. Even a user quality #62 will be relatively costly, so be careful, set the iron and throat for a really light pass, and take it easy. Make absolutely sure the iron is super sharp so that it cuts easily and you're not forcing the plane across the surface of the work piece as may happen when the iron gets dull. A dull iron tends to dig into the work piece creating a lot of extra downward force which translates to additional downward force on the throat of the plane just below the iron itself. That's another reason they crack.
Other aspects of the #62 that make it unique are some of its parts. Notice the front knob is seated on a nickel plated disk with two little nubs protruding from it. Those nubs fit into corresponding indentations in the bottom of the knob itself. By slightly loosening the knob, the disk turns with the knob (because the nubs and indentations fit together) taking pressure off the throat adjustment lever, thus allowing the user to open or close the throat. The nickel plated screw holding the knob also threads through the disk into a boss in the front section of the sole. So, just by twisting the knob counter clockwise to loosen, and clockwise to tighten, no tools are needed and adjustment is easy. Here’s where doing some research is helpful before buying one of these……Know that the front knob, the cast nickel plated disk, and the throat adjustment lever are all unique to the #62. The same can also be said of the rear tote. Notice how short its foot is when compared to a standard tote take from a #5 jack plane. The foot is short intentionally, so that it doesn't interfere with the iron adjustment mechanism/screw. On most other block plane designs, the iron adjustment is at the very rear of the tool, and there's nothing nothing behind it to obstruct its use. Don't buy a #62 that's damaged in any way, and/or is missing any parts. Individual parts for a #62 are tough to come by! If you're going to spend the money, get one that's 100% complete. Don't fool yourself into thinking that the parts will be easy to find.
The #62 is theoretically one of the best planes Stanley ever made in terms of its intended functionality. The trouble is that it was too fragile to stand up to the test of time. Stanley produced the #62 from 1905 to 1942. The example depicted below was probably manufactured somewhere around 1923.
Jim C.
-
Stanley #62 continued:
I wanted to add a couple pictures of the fragile area around the throat, just so everyone is clear about where to look for cracks, chipping, and damage. Sometimes the damage is plainly evident, while other times it's not so easy to see, and then a good idea to closely examine the throat with the magnifying glass you have in your "kit." (Remember that?)
Jim C.
-
Hi Everyone,
I hope you've been well. Sorry I haven't posted lately. A few weeks back my computer asked me to "upgrade" something and I said "okay." Well, whatever happened has me baffled, because now I have absolutely no clue how to resize photos. I'm trying to resize the photos because they're too big for the established parameters of the website. Anyway, I recently enlisted some expert help, so hopefully I'll be back to posting (with photos) very soon. Thanks for your patience.
Jim C.
-
Download Irfanview- http://www.irfanview.com/ (http://www.irfanview.com/)
-
Anyway, I recently enlisted some expert help, so hopefully I'll be back to posting (with photos) very soon. Thanks for your patience.
Jim C.
And is your expert help under the age of 16? That seems typical these days. Young whippersnappers.
-
About those Stanley #62's. They were designed primarily for end grain work so you didn't really make a true shaving, hence you shouldn't have a problem with grain raising to possibly crack the thin part. We all know it only takes one time to take a shortcut and use this plane because it's the one that is handy. There is really no use in spending big bucks for a bad(cracked) #62 if you're looking for a user. Lee Valley has an excellent low angle Jack plane for a reasonable price. They also sell steeper angle blades and toothing blades.
-
About those Stanley #62's. They were designed primarily for end grain work so you didn't really make a true shaving, hence you shouldn't have a problem with grain raising to possibly crack the thin part. We all know it only takes one time to take a shortcut and use this plane because it's the one that is handy. There is really no use in spending big bucks for a bad(cracked) #62 if you're looking for a user. Lee Valley has an excellent low angle Jack plane for a reasonable price. They also sell steeper angle blades and toothing blades.
Hi donald,
Thanks for stopping by. Yes, the #62 is just a big block plane designed for end grain, but like other more traditional looking, smaller block planes, woodworkers will use a #62 for all sorts of applications to include cutting long grain. It happens all the time, and as we know, some applications caused them to crack. I avoid using a vintage Stanley for that reason alone. I'd never forgive myself if I cracked one. Instead, I have a Lie Nielsen #62 that I use all the time, to include cutting with the grain. It works great and produces nice results. It's also significantly more durable than an original Stanley, so I never worry about using it for any reason.
Jim C.
-
Hello fellow hand plane enthusiasts,
Where do I even start? I guess with an apology. My troubles began a year or so ago with some computer difficulties that precluded me from posting photos. That short term problem morphed into a long term (and unexcused) absence. I'm not entirely sure why, but I guess I needed a break. During the past year, I got a new computer which I'm getting better at using, and continued to add to my hand plane collection. Somewhere right about the time I last posted here, my interest in old Craftsman =V= era hand tools went through the roof. I'm not entirely sure I know why that happened either, but it did. I got on this Craftsman teardrop ratchet kick that almost entirely dominated my OCD motivated tool collecting tendencies. Collecting ratchets evolved into collecting wrenches and all other Craftsman brand =V= era mechanics tools (sockets, etc., etc.). That's a whole different story..... Anyway, I do intend to start posting here again. I'm gonna try to pace myself a little too. I hope you'll accept my apology. I've included a photo (to make sure I can post them) of the Stanley #112 scraper. It's a great plane. Stay tuned.
Jim C.
-
No need to apologize, Jim. Your series has been great, and I'm looking forward to some more; but I always understand people to be making a gift with posts like yours, not meeting an obligation.
Craftsman, eh? I'll have to look at my wrench and socket ratholes to see if I've got any Craftsman stuff from that period.
-
Jim-Sometimes we just have to step back and regroup. No need to apologize.
-
Welcome back Jim, good to hear your still out there. As the others said, no need to apologize. I've always enjoyed your posts and am looking forward to seeing more. Don't feel pressured, do them at your pace.
-
Hi Jim, Glad to see you back. You have been missed for sure. I've always enjoyed your articles on the different Stanley planes.
I managed to get a No. 62, a 10 1/2, a 45, a 55, an A5, an A6, and a boatload of different block planes this summer. And I almost forgot the no. 46.
Mike
-
Jim, I'm with the others glad to see you back and I also look forward to additional posts. Bird might have a few questions on her tool haul from this years Donnelly open house auction. She got another truck load to sort and sell.
-
Thanks guys! The messages are much appreciated. I'm looking forward to talking hand planes with you again and seeing any additions you've made to your collections during the past year or so. Okay, let's get going. I had to check the index to see where I left off. Just to re-cap, I never really had a plan or specific road map regarding the direction of this thread. Nothing much more than all hand planes all the time. Where ever the conversation takes us is where we're going. Anyway, between going on a SERIOUS Craftsman =V= tool buying binge, and churning out a couple more projects in the shop, I managed to add a few more planes to my collection. There's still a lot more planes to talk about. One of the planes I found myself using very recently was actually a scraper. If you go back and take a look, we talked a little about scrapers earlier in the thread. Stanley being Stanley, they made several versions over the years, some of which were very common and simple in design, and a few that are more complex (but still useful) and among some of the most rare and difficult tools to find as a collector and/or user. Scrapers are great tools for smoothing irregular grain that swirls, changes direction and often leads to tear out and headaches. Some projects look great with straight grain and clean lines, while others with unique characteristics in the wood are very desirable. If you're having trouble with smoothing ornery grain, try a scraper. The iron on a scraper requires a that a burr be created on its edge for it to cut properly. The technique to make that burr involves a few simple steps and a couple basic hand tools to include a small flat file, hand saw jointer, a sharpening stone and a burnisher. I'd love to say that I have some easy method for rolling out a burr on a scraper, but I don't. It takes a little time and practice. The first time I tried it, I referred exclusively to Garrett Hack's description, illustrations and photographs, all found in Chapter 9 of his GREAT book entitled, "The Hand Plane Book." Mr. Hack's instructions are clear and easy to follow. If you're interested, check out his book, that's where I learned how to make a nice burr on a scraper.
Stanley #112:
I know I said we were going to talk about scrapers in this post, but the tool depicted below still somewhat resembles a traditional bench plane. Well, that's true, but it is a scraper. Actually, it may be the single best scraper ever made by any manufacturer. Notice how the iron is mounted in the plane's frog, well forward of ninety degrees. In order for that burr to work, the angle of the iron is important. Since a good burr sort of curls back toward the iron itself, the iron must be tilted forward past ninety degrees, and MUCH further forward than the forty five to fifty five degrees most irons are bedded at on standard bench planes. If you take a look at the photo below, you'll see that the frog is captive on a pin that extends across the plane's main body. That's the pivot point that allows for fine adjustments forward and back so that burr is exactly at the perfect angle for producing lace like shavings on ANY crazy/difficult grain, as well as straight grain. The engineers at Stanley created a very simple but effective iron adjustment mechanism that's easy to operate, allowing the user to lock the iron in place at the perfect position by means of two knurled nuts mounted on a threaded rod. No matter what the burr angle is, the plane can be adjusted to get the precise cut desired. The other huge advantage in using a scraper plane versus a simple scraper card is the elimination of hand fatigue and the burning of one's thumbs. On small workpieces, a scraper card is probably still the way to go, but on a medium to large flat workpiece, some sort of mechanical "holder" like the #112 makes all the difference between suffering and absolute pleasure. Shop time should be fun.
After acquiring a few basic bench planes and block planes, I'd very seriously consider something more than a simple card scraper. Even the common Stanley #80 scraper, discussed in a prior post, is a step up and highly recommended. Still, if you're thinking about working on table tops and large slabs for instance, the #112 is the way to go. Stanley produced the #112 between 1885 and 1943. The plane depicted below was probably manufactured at some point right around 1922 - 1925. Back in the day, a craftsperson could also outfit the #112 with toothed irons that were very handy for veneer work. The toothed irons came with 22, 28 and 32 teeth per inch (tpi). Original Stanley tpi irons are VERY rare. I've seen several #112 irons with and without Stanley trademarks. Obviously, an iron with a trademark is more desirable to collectors. The #112 isn't unusually rare, but I also don't see them at garage/estate sales or flea markets. They were used by cabinet makers and those who were engaged in fine woodworking. The average "do it yourselfer" probably wouldn't have a need for a #112, or more likely would have settled for a scraper card and possibly a #80 model at most. My grandfather was a handy guy, and I do recall him using a card scraper occasionally on various large (remembering a basement bar top) and small (remembering doll furniture) projects. He was extremely frugal too. It wasn't in his DNA to buy "luxury tools." In his mind, a #80 would have been a luxury, and a #112, well, simply out of the question. That bar top would have been a perfect project for the #112. Anyway, in terms of user tools, the the #112 is still relatively affordable and generally available. In my opinion, the #112 should be on most woodworkers top twelve list of planes to own and use. In future posts, I'll show you a few Stanley scrapers that are better left to the collectors.
Finally, thanks again for your kind comments.
Jim C.
-
No need to apologize, Jim. Your series has been great, and I'm looking forward to some more; but I always understand people to be making a gift with posts like yours, not meeting an obligation.
Craftsman, eh? I'll have to look at my wrench and socket ratholes to see if I've got any Craftsman stuff from that period.
Thanks Bill...... Yes, Craftsman =V= tools. It was a buying binge that bordered on recklessness. Absolutely insane. I can't even say for sure what triggered it. It was literally a one year "buying everything in sight" binge. When I started thinking about seeking out professional counseling, I knew I had to slow down. :embarrassed: I'll eventually post a few pictures in the Craftsman =V= tools thread.
Jim C.
-
Hi Jim, Glad to see you back. You have been missed for sure. I've always enjoyed your articles on the different Stanley planes.
I managed to get a No. 62, a 10 1/2, a 45, a 55, an A5, an A6, and a boatload of different block planes this summer. And I almost forgot the no. 46.
Mike
Like I always said Mike, let's see what you have. You picked up a bunch of high end stuff. Post a few pictures, tell us where you found them, etc. Sounds like you went on a binge of your own!!
Jim C.
-
Hi All,
In my recent post pertaining to the Stanley#112 scraper plane, I initially left out a few tidbits at the end of the write up regarding my grandfather, which I have since gone back and included in the #112 post above. When I was writing the post, I had some recollection of my "gramps" building a bar in his basement. This would have been in the mid to late 1960s. I was a grade schooler at the time. As I was writing, I had flashes of him scraping that solid oak bar top by hand using a scraper card. His thumbs must have been on fire from the friction. The boards he used were face joined and glued together leaving their edges exposed as the top surface. It was kind of like a butcher block, only instead seeing exposed end grain, it was edge grain. (I'm 100% sure the boards he used were salvaged from pallets he saved from the local grocery store dumpster. Like I said, he was very frugal.) Essentially the bar top was a big lamination, so after the final glue up, there must have been high spots and low spots, some of which he removed and smoothed with a scraper card. Making that sort of lamination must have resulted in grain going in every direction imaginable from one board to the next. Traditional smoothing with a bench plane may have resulted to tear out under those circumstances. Anyway, I checked my recollections with my parents, and my mom was able to find one old black and white photo of my grandfather, engaged in what appears to be him hand sanding the bar top with a sanding block. In the corner of the photo on the bar top, almost out of the frame, is what looks like a scraper card.
Okay, but then I got to thinking, Stanley discontinued the #112 about twenty years earlier. Would my gramps have even known such a tool existed? Even if he had, how would he have gotten access to one? There was no internet available to track one down, and if he didn't know anybody who had one to loan, he was out of luck. Still, the #80, which was a great improvement over a standard scraper card, was available well into the 1980s. In the 1960s, he could have gone to any local hardware store and bought one..... but I don't think he did. After he died, I went through his tools and didn't find a #80 or even a scraper card anywhere in his tiny basement shop. The point is, he seemed to know the value and utility of a simple scraping tool on wood, and that when sharpened and used properly, it could produce some very nice results.
Jim C.
-
Hi All,
You know, while planning my next addition to the thread, I got to thinking that while discussing the #112 I really didn't discuss its availability and cost. I sort of skimmed over it, but didn't give it the time it deserved. This is a great tool to have, and again, since I personally believe it should be in every serious (or even kind of serious) woodworker's USER arsenal, I thought I better cover this matter. Several manufacturers made a version of the #112 over the years, to include Stanley, Sargent, and currently Lie-Nielsen. There may have been others. Like I said earlier, it's not a plane that I've ever seen at a garage sale or flea market. Original Sargent versions are not common. When I do see them, they're pricey. I see a lot more Stanleys at tool meets and advertised in online auctions. As a matter of fact, I saw a couple Stanleys online last night. What I've noticed is that top quality "user" condition Stanley 112s are approximately the same price, or a little less in most cases, than the currently manufactured Lie-Nielsen version.
While I don't consider the Stanley #112 to be a rare plane, I do catagorize it somewhere between scarce and common, leaning just a little toward scarce. A lot of times, original vintage tools such as this generally seem to cost more than their currently manufactured Lie-Nielsen cousins. For the experience and pleasure of using such a tool, I'd recommend Lie-Nielsen for their immediate availability and cost savings. In this particular instance I'd say otherwise. Unless you need a #112 right now, I'd search for an original Stanley. I believe a nice Stanley "user" can be had for less than the cost of a Lie-Nielsen, and they are still relatively available. Do your homework, know what you're looking at, and make an informed purchase. Remember, I'm talking about a nice user quality plane. A top collector quality plane will exceed the cost of a Lie-Nielsen. The reason I'm going into this kind of detail regarding the 112's availability, cost, etc., is for the simple reason that this is one to own and use out in your shop. I also think the original Stanley's that I've seen as of late are priced right.
Jim C. (Who's possibly beating a dead horse)
-
I’ve mentioned more than once that I often receive old hand planes and tools from family, friends, co-workers, neighbors, etc. It happens more than one would think. Some of the tools I receive take very little effort to make useable again, while others are lost causes. I always appreciate getting those donations, and can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard, “This belonged to my dad…..” or, “This was my grandfather’s…….” In those instances, I really make an effort to save those planes and make them usable again, if possible. I guess I appreciate their sentimental value to the donor, but then also wonder why they’re giving the plane up in the first place. Who knows? More than once, I’ve rehabbed a donated plane and tried to return it to the donor saying something like, “Try it out, your dad might like that.” or “Maybe a grandchild would like to have this.” On every such occasion, the donor is happy that the tool ended up with someone who would appreciate it. (I actually received a 1947 Delta table saw under similar conditions……which started my love for vintage Delta woodworking machinery. That’s another story.) Anyway, the plane depicted below was one of those, “This belonged to my dad.” planes. The donor was actually a man who attends Sunday mass with my parents. According to my dad, the man told him the plane “doesn’t cut worth a damn” (hardly church talk) and “it might be missing a few parts.”
When I got the plane, it was obviously missing its lever cap (which had been replaced by an ill fitting section of ¼” thick steel bar stock), the iron was extremely dull, and the rear tote was cracked. Of course it didn’t cut worth a damn (darn). I studied the plane a little and came to the conclusion that it was worthy of a rehab and an attempted return to the donor. After figuring out what I had, the first order of business was finding a period correct, patina matching lever cap. That took a while, but I did manage to track one down thanks to eBay. I didn’t want to spend a lot of money, but for about $12 (which included shipping costs), I got an original part from the correct era, with just the right amount of “character” to match the rest of the plane's physical/cosmetic condition. I was pretty happy about that. The rear tote presented another problem. There was a clean through and through crack right at the base of the tote. Finding good front knobs and rear totes for Stanley planes can be tough and usually expensive. Finding “original wood” for less common Millers Falls planes was harder than I thought it would be. I couldn’t find one. Still, based on the nature of the crack, I thought I had a good chance to repair it, particularly since no one had attempted to fix it in the past. That was lucky.
Over the years I’ve seen some botched hand plane tote repairs. They’re frequently ugly and usually don’t hold up to normal use. Once a repair attempt has been made, it’s a hard thing to undo it and try it again. Many times, the "fix" is worse than the break itself. After glue gets into the wood’s grain, the pores are sealed. Future gluing attempts will be almost futile and provide a weak bond at best. In this instance, with such a clean break and no previous gluing efforts to contend with, I carefully spread glue on both sides of the broken tote and clamped the pieces together for twenty four hours. The trick is to make sure both pieces realign perfectly and don’t move during the clamping process. After the glued dried, I drilled two strategically placed holes into the bottom of the tote, past the break, and inserted (glued in) two small oak dowels. That does the trick and adds a lot more strength and stability to the repair.
So, after about a month of fooling around with the plane, I returned it to my dad, asking that he offer it back to the man at church. The following Sunday, my dad made the offer, but the guy wouldn't take it. According to my dad, the man thought the plane would be in better hands if it stayed with me. Okay...... I'm not going to argue.
Millers Falls 14” jack plane:
Millers Falls was one of Stanley’s competitors. I can’t say that I’m very familiar with Millers Falls tools. The plane itself seems to be well made and capable of doing an honest day’s work. Based on a little research I did, the plane shown below is on the higher end of the Millers Falls product line. A version of this plane was offered by Millers Falls between 1929 and 1978. The plane shown below is a Type 3 and was likely manufactured at some point between 1941 and 1949. It does have some telltale features that lead me to believe it was manufactured during WWII. Most notably, its cutting iron adjustment screw is made of steel, versus brass, which was used on pre and post WWII versions of the plane. Also, threaded rods and cylindrical brass nuts, used to attach the front knob and rear tote to the plane’s main body, were replaced by blued steel slotted head screws. The plane was also originally equipped with a hinged lever cap (which was missing when I initially received the plane). I’m not sure what the hinge was designed to do. Perhaps it provided better contact across the iron preventing/reducing chatter during use, or maybe it took stress off the weak point of the lever cap itself, preventing the cap from cracking if over tightened. I’ve seen more than one lever cap that was cracked and repaired due to over tightening. At some point after 1936, Millers Falls started stamping the length of the plane’s sole on its left exterior cheek. (see photo below) Although I don’t collect Millers Falls planes, I like this one and plan to test it out this winter. I have a couple projects in mind for it. I'll let you know how it cuts.....stay tuned.
Jim C.
-
Jim,
As to the 112, I have no experience with Lee Valley's version of this plane, but their tools are respected; and the LV scraping plane is $55 cheaper than Lie-Nielsen's. See http://www.leevalley.com/us/wood/page.aspx?p=48431&cat=1,41182,68491 (http://www.leevalley.com/us/wood/page.aspx?p=48431&cat=1,41182,68491) for a description.
-
Hi Bill,
Thanks for stopping by and adding a link to the Lee-Valley (LV) site. I guess I should start by saying that I've never owned or used a Veritas hand plane. Everything I've read about Veritas planes has been generally positive. After thinking about it for a while, I started to ask myself why I have zero experience with Veritas planes. I have a few other LV hand tools that I'm very happy with. So why no Veritas hand planes? They've been around for years, but I've never had any inclination to pick one up and try it out. I guess there's a reason for that.....
It's no secret that I'm a hardcore Stanley collector/user. I like Sargent Autosets a lot. If given a choice I'd choose to use a vintage plane most of the time. I have a couple Lie-Nielsen planes that I'm really fond of too. So what about those Veritas planes? Although I hesitate to say this, knowing full well that it might be the dumbest reason ever, it boils down to simple aesthetic appeal. Seriously, I really don't like the visual appearance of Veritas hand planes. I guess they deviate from the classic style of the original Stanleys just enough to turn me off. Like I said, I've read and heard a lot of good things about LV/Veritas planes, however, being honest with myself, and you, I don't like how they look. That's it.
The old Stanleys are things of beauty in my eyes. That certainly might not be true in someone else's opinion. It's just a matter of personal preference. In terms of currently manufactured planes, that might be why I'm still drawn to Lie-Nielsen made planes. They just seem to more faithfully follow the classic Stanley lines and details.
Even after honestly writing this reply (and feeling dumb about it), I had some reservations about actually posting it. I most certainly don't want to alienate Veritas hand plane owners/users from stopping by and/or posting in the thread. I also don't want to discourage anyone from trying out a Veritas plane. As much as I appreciate a good tool that performs at or above my expectations, I guess I've been subconsciously judging them on their eye appeal too.
Jim C.
-
You are not alone in your reaction to the aesthetics of Veritas planes; others feel that way too. I have no affiliation with Lee Valley, other than as a customer (except that they started making aftermarket spokeshave irons at my suggestion, and I got two irons as a thank you for the idea). I've never had a lot of confidence in their bench plane design; it seems like a weak design. I have their plow plane, and like it a lot; the look stopped mattering after I used it the first time.
But I do like the old Stanley planes, and most of my planes are Stanleys, with a few Sargents thrown in (the Sargent dado plane is a superior design to the Stanley, for instance). When I win the lottery and can build a bigger shop and then stock it with whatever tools I want regardless of price, I might buy some LN and LV planes.
-
Hi Bill,
After I posted my comments about Veritas planes, I went to the Lee Valley website and took a closer look at their plane offerings. Thinking that I might see things a little differently this time, and feeling like I shouldn't be so close minded for a silly shallow reason, I spent some time checking out LV Veritas planes. Maybe I'd see things I hadn't seen before. Well, to make a long story short, I came away feeling the same, if not more committed to my original comments. I can't get past their visual appearance. As good as the Veritas planes may cut/function, I have no real desire to buy one strictly because I really dislike the way they look.
Part of the fun of woodworking is the process and tools I use in attempting to create something that I'm satisfied with at the end of the project. I love using old classic tools. Not just hand planes, but any old tool. That feeling has even strongly influenced the machines I use. Maybe it's the connection to the past. Maybe it's the perceived quality I think exists in old USA made machinery and tools. There's definitely an enormous sense of satisfaction in finding an old tool, cleaning/rehabilitating it, and then using it after decades and decades of neglect/inactivity. I guess a lot of that initial attraction is visual. It is for me anyway. Can I see myself using that tool? What about it makes me want to hold it in my hand? I'm not really a Millers Falls collector, but even when I look at that Millers Falls #14 I discussed above, I want to pick it up. I want to rehab it, resharpen its iron. I want to try out a plane that was sitting dormant for the last 60+ years. There's a basic visual appeal. Unfortunately I don't get that same attraction to the "funky sort of modern looking kind of retro based design" I see in the Veritas planes. I could keep rambling but I'm sure you get the point. Anyway......
As for your collection of planes, I'd love to see what you have. And no need to ever minimize the nature or contents of your collection. The old Stanleys and Sargents are GREAT tools! Although I do have a few Lie-Nielsens planes which also produce nice results, my ultimate preference is the old school stuff. Many times when I mention LN planes, I'm doing so in an effort to at least point out another option, particularly when the "old school" Stanleys and Sargents are too expensive/fragile/unavailable, etc. Thanks for your comments. Like I've said in the past, I'm not always sure who's reading this thread or how they feel about the things I'm writing. Any feedback at all is much appreciated, so thanks again and stay tuned.
Jim C.
-
Back in the Millers Falls #14 post above, I mentioned the hinged lever cap and surmised a couple reasons why the hinge was added to the cap in the first place. You might recall that I thought the hinge could have provided greater surface contact with the cutting iron assembly thus reducing chatter when using the plane, or perhaps the hinge was strategically located to relieve stress and prevent cracking should the lever cap be over tightened. Well, having done a little more research, I was correct on the former account. The hinged lever cap was designed by Millers Falls employee, Charles H. Fox, and was created for purposes of providing three contact points between the cap itself and the cutting iron versus the traditional two contact points provided by more conventional bench plane lever caps. Although I couldn’t find anything in writing, the hinge may have had an unintended benefit too, being that its positioning on the cap may have prevented accidental cracking from over aggressive tightening. Okay, so we cleared that up.
About a dozen years ago, I received a cardboard box containing old hand planes and other tools from a co-worker who was retiring. On her last day at work, she said she had some old tools out in her car that belonged to her dad. She had been meaning to bring them to work but always kept putting it off. Since it was her last day, I guess she figured it was now or never. Anyway, I accompanied her to her car and unloaded the box from the trunk into my car’s trunk. I thanked her, we hugged, and that was that. She moved out of state a year later and I never saw her again. When I got home, I took the box out of my trunk and carried it into my shop. Upon opening it, I saw five or six planes, a collection of old rusty wrenches and some other miscellaneous stuff. Of course I went for the planes first. All the planes (and other tools) were in well used (and abused) condition, and upon closer inspection, each and every one was broken in some way, shape, or form. Still, I had hope for one plane in particular. I could tell it was a #8 size jointer. When I got it into the light, I was surprised to see that it was an early Stanley Bedrock #608. The front knob was missing and the rear tote was cracked in two places. One of the cracks was actually at the top of the tote, and the piece was missing. More inspection revealed that the main body sidewall casting had been chipped off near the toe, and the lever cap had been cracked in half but subsequently repaired. Had I not gotten this plane for free, I would have passed on it, and to be honest, when compared to the other planes in the box, it was in the best condition of the lot. At some point, I’ll do a full feature on this particular plane. I will say that I did chase and buy some parts (which I don’t particularly like doing), and got the plane back into good working order. Without giving too much away, the future post will deal with the #608 itself and how “free” planes aren’t necessarily free.
Since we were discussing the potential benefits of that Millers Falls hinged lever cap, I just wanted to demonstrate what happens when one over tightens the lever cap on a traditional bench plane. The cap depicted below is the lever cap, as found, on that Bedrock #608 I mentioned above. It was clearly over tightened and it cracked. I only wonder what words were spoken by the plane’s user when that happened. I can just imagine. At some point, someone took the time to repair the cap, and did a good job of making it serviceable again. Purely from a user’s standpoint, the cracked and repaired lever cap works fine. But from a slightly more critical perspective, and from someone who recently admitted that visual aesthetics do matter, that lever cap wasn’t going to work....for me that is.
The #608 discussed above is a Type 4 (1908 – 1910) Stanley Bedrock. The cap was only produced between approximately 1908 and 1912, so it could be difficult to find a 100+ year old replacement. Large jointers, particularly #8 sizes are a little less common. Since the cap was on a less common (sort of scarce), larger jointer, that made the search for a replacement cap even more difficult. To date, I haven’t found another correct cap for a Type 4 #608 Bedrock, and instead settled for one that was used on earlier Bedrock Types 1, 2 and 3 between 1898 and 1908 (It's the cap on the left in the second two photos). I'm mostly okay with the earlier cap because Stanley frequently used parts until they were gone. So, finding an earlier produced part on a later Type isn't unusual. Still, I KNOW what was originally on my #608....... See why I don’t like chasing parts? Anyway, I’ll have more to say about parts chasing when I feature the #608.
Jim C.
-
Jim,
Thanks for the invitation to post pics of my herd of planes; but I'm running so hard right now to get somewhat behind (rather than hopelessly behind) that I doubt I'll have time any time soon.
Bill
-
That's okay Bill. I hope you'll keep checking in. If you see something you like, or not, add your two cents either way. It's always appreciated.
Jim C.
-
I’m not entirely sure anyone will really understand what was going on at Stanley when new planes were being designed, or considerations being made in terms of what models to add to the product lineup, delete from the product lineup, improve, etc. When talking about hand planes, you’ve heard me say more than once that Stanley had a habit of attempting to fill every plane niche that existed, real or perceived. That trend seemed particularly true of block planes. I was thinking that I’d feature a block plane this time and started looking for the right one. Nothing jumped out at me, but while in the process of carefully sorting through some planes (which are stored in VERY close, but not touching proximity to each other), I pulled out a few weather stripping planes. I got to thinking that I had a few different models in my collection, and kind of muttered, “Man, Stanley made a lot of weather stripping planes over the years.” At that moment I happened to have a #238 in my left hand and a #248 in my right hand. I held them up a little, side-by-side, then suddenly realized, “Hey, these two planes are practically the same.”
From a quick glance, the #238 and #248 look almost entirely different. I guess that’s why I never really connected the dots. Although their respective main body castings look almost nothing alike, particularly around the handles, the actual working aspects of the plane are 100% identical in every way! All the hardware, removable parts, cutters, etc. are interchangeable with each other. The screw bosses, threaded holes, cutter attachment/securing mechanisms, depth stops, fence configurations, etc. all line up and function in exactly the same way. If you go back in the thread to page 34, reply 506, you might recall that I featured the #238. In terms of function, I think the plane does a nice job of doing precisely what it was designed to do. Without going into another demonstration, and because the #248 is identical to the #238 from a mechanical perspective, I’d say the #248 will also produce the same nice results. So what was the point of making another plane (the #248) that incorporates the exact same mechanical features as its predecessor (the #238)?
Here’s my theory. When comparing these two seemingly identical functioning planes, I believe the engineers/designers at Stanley were possibly aiming for improved ergonomics and comfort. When looking at the #238, notice the index finger hole forward of the handle. When I grasp the plane, that hole is slightly too far away from the handle for me to hold the plane comfortably. If I avoid trying to put my index finger through that hole and attempt to wrap all four fingers around the handle, that’s also uncomfortable because the handle opening really isn’t big enough to accommodate my average sized hand. The handle is also a little thin. A more rounded, fatter handle would be more comfortable to hold and use. Perhaps someone at Stanley realized that. When looking at the #248, one will notice that it incorporates a more traditional, comfortable, handle. The #248 is also two inches longer than the #238 (9.5” versus 7.5” respectively), and was supplied with two cutters (1/8” and 5/32” wide) as compared to seven that were included with the #238. I suppose that providing five less cutters was a cost savings measure taken by Stanley. Maybe the accountants asked, "Why are we giving away a set of cutters with our weather stripping planes, when we can provide one or two and then sell the rest individually for more money?" Okay, maybe I'm overthinking that. (Eventually Stanley came up with a better idea. See "Edit" paragraph below.)
Besides the obvious changes to ergonomics and styling, the only functional parts of the two planes that varied slightly between both of them were the pre-set rods connected to the fence, which allow the user to make repeatable cuts. By setting those rods in a desired position on the fence itself, a secondary, repeatable fence location could be achieved quickly even if the fence had been removed from the plane and then later reattached. The feature to notice is how the rods were manufactured so they would not accidentally slide out of the fence. The #238 rods incorporated a thin wire recessed into a shallow groove to keep them from sliding, while the correct rods for the #248 incorporated two burrs set at 180 degrees from each other to keep the rods from sliding. Again, those little rods, like ALL the other parts on both planes are interchangeable. I suspect that adding little burrs was easier (and cheaper) to do than wrapping wire into those little milled grooves. Only collectors care about that stuff, but I thought I had better at least mention it.
Stanley #248:
This plane was manufactured by Stanley between 1936 and 1943. Recall that the #238 was manufactured between 1928 and 1938. Except for the two year over lap between 1936 and 1938, the #248 appears to have been manufactured specifically for purposes of replacing the #238 in the Stanley product line. The #248, like #238, has several little parts that can get lost. Before buying either one of these guys, make sure all the parts are present and accounted for. Do your homework.
Edit: The day after adding this post to the thread, I started thinking that Stanley made another weather stripping plane that was a variation of the #238 and/or the #248. I checked, and sure enough, Stanley did offer a #248A. The #248A was produced between 1939 and 1958. The #248A and its associated parts are IDENTICAL to the #248. The ONLY difference is the re-inclusion of the five cutters that were dropped from the #248 but were initially offered with the #238. Basically, the #248A combined the best features of the #238 (7 cutters) and the #248 (better ergonomics). The main body casting of the #248A is marked "248" not "248A". Again, the cutters included with the #248 were 1/8" and 5/32" wide. The cutters included with the #238 and #248A were 1/8", 5/32", 3/16", 7/32", 1/4", 5/16" and 3/8" wide.
Jim C.
-
A few more comparison photos of the Stanley #248 and #238 weather strip planes.
Jim C.
-
Last week the current issue of Fine Woodworking arrived in the mail. I hadn't gotten around to paging through it, so this morning I sat down with a cup of coffee and decided to give it a look. Usually when I read Fine Woodworking, I like to check out the back cover first. There's always a photo of an amazing project that someone made, and then an accompanying article inside the magazine about the project, the craftsperson who created it, techniques employed, tools used, etc. Anyway, this month the back cover depicted an advertisement...... I found a little humor in it, particularly after my recent comments about Lee Valley/Veritas hand planes. Maybe the hand plane Gods are exacting revenge for my blasphemous remarks. Instead of a great project and article, I got this....... :rolleyes:
Jim C.
-
Occasionally I'll come across a New Old Stock (NOS) plane that's too good to be true. The plane is in its original box and in mint condition, showing little or no sign of use. To a collector, that's the ultimate find. What really makes those discoveries special isn't just the plane itself, but also the box its in, as well as the inclusion of small paper envelopes containing the parts they were supposed to hold, cardboard/paper packaging and instruction manual/advertising materials. Although a plane may be NOS and its original box is present and in good condition, the internal packaging and manuals/advertising my not have survived. Every now and then, it's all there. Those moments are priceless.
The reason I'm bring this up now ties in with my recent weather stripping plane post above. Several years ago I had the good fortune to find a NOS Stanley #289 rabbet plane, un-used in its original box, and complete with its original packaging and a four page single fold advertisement for weather stripping planes and associated weather stripping tools. Besides being an uncommon rarity, the advertisement brochure gives us a glimpse into Stanley's constant attempts to market its products. It also provides clues as to when the #289 was produced by generally comparing the #289 to the other tools shown in the advertisement brochure. I don't know.....Maybe that kind of stuff doesn't matter too much, but to me, it's one of the reasons I enjoy collecting. I love knowing as much as I can about a tool and its history, etc. whenever possible.
Anyway, I thought I'd end the weather stripping plane discussion (for now) with the advertisement brochure depicted below. As for the #289 briefly discussed above, well, stay tuned. I'll get to it.
Jim C.
-
I hope everyone has a Happy Thanksgiving with family and friends.
Jim C.
-
Hi Hand Plane fans,
The last time I was thinking about adding some new content to the thread, I thought I’d feature a block plane. Somehow I got side tracked and started talking about a couple different weather strip planes. Judging by the responses, I’m not sure that was a wise choice on my part. Anyway, today I’m going with one of the simplest block planes Stanley ever made. What I believe started out as a tool marketed as toy for children, this plane eventually ended up being a long term offering in Stanley’s product line.
Stanley #101:
Manufactured by Stanley between 1877 and 1962, and at approximately 3.5 inches long, the #101 was likely a good size for a child’s hand, and might have made a nice little “toy” for the right child. As a little kid I personally didn’t have access to anything like it, but looking back, I might have enjoyed one to fool around with nonetheless. I have no clue what I would have done with it, however, I can imagine the armrests on a few chairs or some coffee table legs getting "re-styled.” Probably a good thing I didn’t have one and possibly why my parents didn’t make one available to me. They knew me and they knew better than to let me have that. Well, at some point along the line, Stanley decided the #101 should be more than a trinket for kids and started advertising it as a legitimate tool in their catalogs. Looking at a few old Stanley catalogs, the #101 appeared (as a real tool) in the August, 1900 printing, and in the 1915 catalog when it was described as,
". . . . a very handy little plane for household use and many mechanics carry one in their kits for odds and ends of light work. . . . “
It's not the block plane I would reach for in almost any circumstance, but with a sharp iron, it will produce a cut. Set for a light pass, it might be okay on pine or other less dense woods. All I can say is give it a try. Even today, a user quality #101 will only cost a few dollars at most. You have nothing to lose. Back in 1915, the #101 was priced at twenty cents. Other manufacturers produced versions of the #101 over the years and some are still being made today. Stanley was still manufacturing a cheap version of the #101 well into the 1990s. It was model #12-101. Although I don't own one, Lie-Nielsen currently makes a small block plane that's "loosely based" on the #101. It's advertised as a violin maker's plane and priced at $95. Like most L-N tools, it's probably a great plane right out of the box and it incorporates a mechanical cutting iron adjustment adding some weight, which isn't a bad thing. Still, I'd be more inclined to use something a little bigger, like a #60 for instance. If you really have an itch to try a #101, or have a use for one, I'd try to find an original Stanley first. It'll cost a lot less than the L-N version.
In terms of pin pointing an era of production, prior to about 1950, the main body on all Stanley #101 block planes was japanned black inside and out. After 1950, they were grey. The only bare surface on the main body of the plane is its sole. Unlike most block planes whose exterior walls are machined/ground flat and remain unfinished, the #101’s exterior walls are japanned. From the several examples that I’ve seen, not much attention was paid to the sidewalls of the plane’s body. The castings were a little bumpy and the japanning was applied right over the imperfections. This plane was not designed to be a precision tool, so laying the plane on its side and using it with a shooting board wasn’t really an issue.
Early versions of the plane (pre-1940) also included a japanned pressure cap, while those that were produced later came with a pressure cap that was painted red. I have no idea why. I personally like the plane in all black, and from a collector’s point of view, believe the earlier versions with the black japanned caps are somewhat more desirable. Several years ago I had the opportunity to buy an early pristine example with a black pressure cap and a Sweethart (mid 1920’s) logo on its cutting iron. I passed on it because I thought the price was too high and I figured I’d for sure find another one. (Without jumping ahead, you’ll notice the example depicted below features the later red colored cap and has a post 1935 logo on its cutting iron.) I was dead wrong, as I haven’t seen another one since. Examples with red caps and later logos are fairly common, as one can see, but those with black caps and Sweethart logos are not. What the heck was I thinking? That was another one of many instances were I didn’t do enough homework and then over estimated my knowledge when I had the plane IN MY HAND!!!! I’m still kicking myself for that one. Ironically, most of my mistakes have come about from misjudging a plane’s condition, quality, rarity, etc., and then overspending on it. In this instance, I tried to underpay and ended up missing out on a good one that I HAD IN MY HAND!!! As I recall, I believe the seller and I were about $15 - $20 apart on the price. I thought I knew what I was looking at, but I didn’t have a clue……. A classic example of "live and learn."
Jim C. (who’s still looking for an early #101)
-
I had a No. 101 in the late-model clown colors for a while - picked up for 87 cents (averaged price from a group of tools purchased at a yard sale). I never did find a use for it, and the local ReStore eventually got it. I did more recently pick up a No. 100, with the squirrel tail handle, which fits my hand better; but even that has yet to see any service.
-
Hey Bill,
Thanks for stopping by! I have the feeling a lot of #101s were sold over the years that were used a few times and then left to sit untouched for decades in favor of other models that were more versatile, accurate, user friendly, etc. Like I said above, the #101 isn't the block plane I'd reach for in almost any circumstance, although I might have had fun with it as a kid. It may not be a bad tool, but I think its capabilities are limited at best and other basic, fixed throat block planes would deliver better overall results. Maybe I'm wrong...... If anyone reading along has some experience using a #101, please join the conversation and let us know what you think of it.
The traditional looking #101 depicted above was dropped by Stanley in the early 1960s, however, Stanley continued to offer a similar version of the plane well into the 1990s, and perhaps later. The post 1960s versions of the #101 were cheaply made, eventually featuring stamped steel bodies and pressure caps, versus cast iron. I know that Stanley also manufactured inexpensive stamped steel versions of the #101 for various retailers to include Sears/Craftsman. I think I have a few such planes out in my shop. I'll dig them out and post a few photos this evening so you can see what I'm talking about. Stay tuned and thanks for joining in the conversation.
Jim C.
-
Hello, Jim. I believe that Stanley made a Handyman stamped steel version. I may have one around here somewhere. Regards, Lou
-
It's interesting, Jim: when I think of "block plane," I think of planes on which the cutting iron is low enough that the bevel is placed upward; that's how I was taught, back when I was taught these things (dinosaurs could be seen out the living room window in those days). Your use of the term seems to incorporate little planes like the 101 into the block plane group. It's hard to think of the 100, 100-1/2, or 101 as bench planes. Maybe we need a new general category.
-
Okay, continuing our discussion from this afternoon, depicted below are two planes, both manufactured by Stanley and somewhat modeled after the #101. Although the original #101s were out of production around 1962, Stanley must have thought there was still a market for a small 3.5” block plane. Other retailers, like Sears for example, must have thought so too.
Take a look at the first photo. The plane in the background, painted green with the red pressure cap is actually a Sears/Craftsman model that has a Craftsman “crown” logo on its cutting iron (model #187.37057). I suspect the plane was manufactured by Stanley during the mid 1960s to early 1970s, shortly after the demise of the original #101. Notice that the red pressure cap is still cast iron, just like of it’s immediate predecessor, the Stanley #101. Long gone was the cast iron body however. The body is now just stamped steel with a couple strategically located steel pins running perpendicular through the side walls of the plane, which take the place of a more traditional block plane frog. The plane’s devolution didn’t end there.
The plane in the fore ground was also manufactured by Stanley at some point during the 1990s (Stanley model #12-101). If it was even possible, one can see that it’s more cheaply made than the earlier Craftsman branded plane. Now gone is the cast iron pressure cap, which was replaced by a stamped steel cap. The steel pins are also gone, replaced by stamped inward pointing tabs that were part of the plane’s side walls. Parallel slots were also cut into the side walls to accommodate the cutting iron and stamped steel pressure cap. Where the Craftsman branded example was constructed of a stamped steel body and two steel pins, the later version of the plane was made from one stamped piece of steel. All cost saving measures for sure. There was no attempt to leave the sole bare either. Notice that it’s painted black like the rest of the plane.
The last photo shows the #101 as compared to some of its successors. Just to be clear, I’m not really recommending that any of these planes be used if you can avoid them. Inexpensive, yet much better block planes were made by Stanley and others. In an effort to create a comprehensive study of as many Stanley planes as I can, I only wanted to present the #101 and its stamped steel cousins for purposes of completeness.
Jim C.
-
Hello, Jim. I believe that Stanley made a Handyman stamped steel version. I may have one around here somewhere. Regards, Lou
I'd love to see it Lou. Maybe you could post a few pictures of it. Thanks.
Jim C.
-
It's interesting, Jim: when I think of "block plane," I think of planes on which the cutting iron is low enough that the bevel is placed upward; that's how I was taught, back when I was taught these things (dinosaurs could be seen out the living room window in those days). Your use of the term seems to incorporate little planes like the 101 into the block plane group. It's hard to think of the 100, 100-1/2, or 101 as bench planes. Maybe we need a new general category.
Hi Bill,
Yes, I agree the Stanley #100, #100 1/2 and #101 planes are not bench planes. I guess I got caught up referring to them as "block planes" mostly because Stanley does so. I attached a photo from the Stanley catalogue No. 26, published in August, 1900. As for mounting the irons bevel side up, you're absolutely correct. It's a little hard to see in the photos above, but if you look closely, both the Craftsman and later Stanley plane irons are stamped on the bevel side with "THIS SIDE UP." (see second photo below)
Jim C.
-
Ah. I didn't know that, Jim. Here it is, the end of the day, and I learned my "something new for the day."
-
Ah. I didn't know that, Jim. Here it is, the end of the day, and I learned my "something new for the day."
Hey Bill,
A good rule of thumb when mounting a cutting iron on a plane is logo side up. On a few rare occasions, I've seen the logo stamped on the wrong side of the iron. Honestly, prior to posting those last couple pictures, I had to check the cutting irons just to make sure I was providing accurate information and I also wanted to make sure Stanley did in fact advertise those little planes as block planes. I think we got it right. Thanks again for adding to the conversation.
Jim C.
-
Twice, now, if memory serves, I've found irons stamped on both sides. Those would confuse a newcomer to woodworking who was following the "logo side up" rule. Better, I suspect, to teach the logic for when it's up and when down.
And it's really odd that Stanley would have stamped "this side up" on the bevel side of those irons. I just went out and looked at my remaining plane of that series, a No. 100 (notched logo, japanned - not sure what that says as far as age), and the logo is opposite the bevel, with no "this side up" stamp on either face; so it wasn't universal.
If we're talking about the 100/101 series planes, their irons are set somewhere around 45 degrees, so putting the bevel side up would present the edge at about 70 degrees - almost scraping territory. Maybe that would make sense for planing some of the exotic woods, but Stanley never focused much on that market.
So I'm puzzled.
-
Hello, Jim, Bill. Stanley planes can be confusing/mis-leading. Bench planes with a cap iron, are usually bevel down. I see a lot of these at a table assembled the wrong way. Label up? A very good rule of thumb. I am looking at a No. 65 Knuckle Joint Block Plane, label up, bevel up, notches on back, impossible to install incorrectly. I am looking at a No. 75 Rabbet Plane, label up bevel down, but this blade will fit the plane either way. I grabbed a No. 92 , notched back, bevel up, no markings on the blade!!!! I have included pics of a stamped steel block plane, I am guessing it is a Handyman, H102 on the blade. Unusual design, 2 piece iron, both pieces marked "This Side Up" , and is bevel up .Regards, Lou
-
Twice, now, if memory serves, I've found irons stamped on both sides. Those would confuse a newcomer to woodworking who was following the "logo side up" rule. Better, I suspect, to teach the logic for when it's up and when down.
And it's really odd that Stanley would have stamped "this side up" on the bevel side of those irons. I just went out and looked at my remaining plane of that series, a No. 100 (notched logo, japanned - not sure what that says as far as age), and the logo is opposite the bevel, with no "this side up" stamp on either face; so it wasn't universal.
If we're talking about the 100/101 series planes, their irons are set somewhere around 45 degrees, so putting the bevel side up would present the edge at about 70 degrees - almost scraping territory. Maybe that would make sense for planing some of the exotic woods, but Stanley never focused much on that market.
Hi Bill,
Sorry I didn't get back to you a little sooner. It didn't really dawn on me until you said in part, ".....about 70 degrees - almost scraping territory....." That rung a bell with me and I got to thinking about it. Throughout this discussion, you've made some great points. Although Stanley advertised the #100, #100 1/2, and #101 as block planes, they really are unusual. Their irons are bedded at a high angle to begin with. By installing the iron bevel side up, you're right, the planes really do start to approach scraper status. As a result, the bevels need to be facing down, like one would see on a traditional bench plane. I agree with you that hand plane users should know which way (bevel up or bevel down) to mount a cutting iron as it relates to the type of plane being used. But I'll stick to my general "rule of thumb" and say, "logo faces up" when installing the iron onto a plane body. I went out into my shop and studied a Stanley #100, #100 1/2, and #101. All three planes have the Stanley logo stamped on the non-bevel side of the iron, exactly like you observed on your planes. That's no accident. The 100 series "block planes" as Stanley calls them, were designed to cut bevel down. I really should have caught that sooner. I do use the #100 1/2 occasionally to add a scalloped finish to the inside and bottom of drawers, and upon checking the iron in that plane, I have it mounted bevel side down. So, great points Bill. I'll post a few photos so others can see what we're talking about.
Jim C.
-
I've attached a few photos hopefully showing what we've been talking about. Notice the first photo. In the background you'll see the Stanley #101. In the fore ground, you'll see the 1990s version of the #101. See how steep the iron is bedded on the original #101 and how low the angle is on the later version in the fore ground. That later version of the plane, with its bevel up iron is what one would expect to see on a traditional block plane. Mounting the bevel down on a block plane is not typical, so it's interesting that Stanley advertised its #100, #100 1/2 and #101 (second photo) as block planes. They were certainly unusual in terms of the way their cutting irons were mounted (being bevel down). I still believe the "logo up" rule of thumb generally holds true. At least it does in this instance. I'm convinced that Stanley intended the respective irons in the #100, #100 1/2 and #101 "block planes" to be mounted bevel side down.
Jim C. (who likes learning new stuff about Stanley planes)
-
Hello, Jim, Bill. Stanley planes can be confusing/mis-leading. Bench planes with a cap iron, are usually bevel down. I see a lot of these at a table assembled the wrong way. Label up? A very good rule of thumb. I am looking at a No. 65 Knuckle Joint Block Plane, label up, bevel up, notches on back, impossible to install incorrectly. I am looking at a No. 75 Rabbet Plane, label up bevel down, but this blade will fit the plane either way. I grabbed a No. 92 , notched back, bevel up, no markings on the blade!!!! I have included pics of a stamped steel block plane, I am guessing it is a Handyman, H102 on the blade. Unusual design, 2 piece iron, both pieces marked "This Side Up" , and is bevel up .Regards, Lou
Hi Lou,
Thanks for joining in the conversation and thanks for posting a couple photos too! Your plane is definitely a low angle block plane with a traditional bevel up mounted cutting iron, but the double iron assembly isn't so common. Most block planes employ a single iron and pressure cap of some sort. It's also interesting that plane manufacturers felt the need to stamp "THIS SIDE UP" on their plane irons. There must have been some confusion among users, otherwise, why would Stanley and others take the time and effort to do that? Thanks again for jumping in with some great content!
Jim C.
-
Just a little way back in the thread, I mentioned getting a Stanley Bedrock #608 jointer from a former co-worker who said the plane, and a few other tools she had given me, belonged to father. Remember? If you’d like to refresh your memory, turn back to page 41, reply #600. The reason that particular plane came up in the discussion had to do with my intention to not only feature the #608, but to also revisit Bedrock frog construction (which is unique) and “parts chasing.” The #608 depicted below is to date, the most expensive “free” plane I’ve ever received. We’ll definitely get into that story. Also, immediately proceeding this post, I “reserved” the next two posts so that I can discuss the similarities and differences of Bedrock frog design between early models and later models, and the joy of chasing parts. I wanted to keep the topics close together within the thread since they will generally relate to the #608. I’ll probably go off on a few tangents too. Like I’ve said many times before, I really appreciate your comments, etc. So even though I set aside the next two posts, please feel free to join in the conversation at ANY TIME!! You don’t need to wait until I’ve finished all three posts. Join in!
The earliest Bedrock bench planes were offered by Stanley beginning in approximately 1898 and various models stayed in production until about 1943. For a little more detail on this, refer back in the thread to page 11, reply #162. There, we talked about the #604 and a little bit of Bedrock history. Bedrocks were the “Cadillac standard” of bench planes in Stanley’s product line, and were touted as the best bench planes on the market. Whether or not that’s true is really up to the individual craftsperson. I still think that a super sharp cutting iron mounted in a properly tuned non-Bedrock bench plane and set for a light pass will produce the same results that can be achieved with a Bedrock outfitted and set in a similar fashion. With the exception of how the frog mates to the main plane body (which is sort of a gimmick that a lot of people bought into and seem to like), every feature of a Bedrock plane mimics its non-Bedrock cousin. So, the only difference between a standard #4 and a #604 is the frog design. Like I was saying, go back and take a look at the featured #604 on page 11. All that being said, I, like so many others, am totally drawn into the Bedrock hype. If given a choice, I’d go for the Bedrock every time. There’s something about the theory that went into their design that I like. I’m fascinated by the multiple precision machining processes that went into manufacturing them, and as a result, I’ll pay the extra price for a vintage Bedrock whenever I see a good one for sale.
Stanley #608:
The #608, like the standard #8 is the longest cast iron jointer plane (24”) that Stanley made. It was manufactured between 1898 and 1935 and weighed in at about nine pounds. It’s heavy and was basically designed to leave large surfaces dead flat by initially working down the high spots while the sole’s length allowed the tool to ride over the low spots. Pushing the plane in a calculated pattern over the large work piece, the high spots would eventually be reduced down to the level of the low spots resulting in the entire surface being brought into a coplanar dimension across its length and width. When working with really large slabs for instance, a #8 sized jointer is invaluable and does an amazing job of making things flat. Pushing the plane along the uneven edge of a board or plank, knocking down the high spots and riding over the low ones, will also produce a dead flat edge that can be edge joined to another board or plank dressed with a similarly planed dead flat edge. (If one needs a little help making sure the plane is producing an edge that’s 90 degrees to the board’s face, a jointer gauge might help. I use one mounted on a Stanley #7. Remember we talked about those? (Refer back in the thread to page 16, reply #225 and #226.)
The #608 depicted below is a Type 4 Bedrock and was manufactured between 1908 and 1910. The early Bedrock planes had rounded side walls, while later version Bedrocks (post 1910) had squared off side walls, making them distinctive and easily identified. Interestingly, right about the time the sidewalls were changed, Stanley also changed the way Bedrock frogs were joined to the main body of the plane. We’ll discuss that topic in a little more detail during the next post.
While I like my #608 and have it ready to go in my “user” arsenal of planes, it doesn’t see too much action. Like I said before, it’s heavy, and there hasn’t been many projects where I’ve felt like I needed it. For purposes of edge joining, I almost exclusively rely on my #7 equipped with a #386 jointer gauge. Over the years I’ve had opportunities to buy a few nice #7 and #8 sized jointers, but I haven’t. They take up a lot of space. The #608 shown below is the only #8 sized plane in my entire collection, and the #7 mentioned earlier is my only #7 sized bench plane. In terms of rarity, the larger Bedrocks, like the #608, are sort of scare and certainly not as common as their smaller siblings like the #603, #604 and #605. To be honest, at approximately 18” long, I much prefer a #6 sized bench plane (called a “fore plane”) for medium to large surface area flat joining. To me, it just seems to be the right size and weight for those types of jobs. I have a few of those and I’m always looking for more. My all time favorite larger plane to use, however, is a Stanley Bedrock #605 ½ jack plane. I seem to pick up that plane more than any other bench plane. I’ll definitely feature it at some point in the future. Take a look at the last picture. From top to bottom there’s the #608, the #7, a #6 and my favorite, the #605 ½. They're 24", 22", 18" and 15" long respectively. Those are Stanley’s longest cast iron, jointer bench planes.
Stay tuned for more on Bedrock frog design and chasing parts.
Jim C.
-
Thanks for your patience..... When I was finishing the discussion about the Stanley Bedrock #608 jointer, I remembered that I had presented some Bedrock related material earlier in the thread. If you go back to page 11, reply 162, you’ll see that we did discuss the #604 Bedrock smoothing plane. What I failed to mention then was the difference in frog configurations between early Bedrocks (Types 1 through 4) and later versions. Looking back at the #604 discussion, you might recall that I wrote this:
“What makes the Bedrock bench plane different from its standard counter part is the unique way in which the frog and bed are designed, milled, and mated together within extremely close tolerances. The frog and bed on most standard bench planes contact each other on the front and back of both parts. The area in between does not touch, leaving significant air space between the parts, which are connected together via two slotted head screws passing through the frog into the bed. The bearing surfaces are very small in comparison to the full contact surfaces of the Bedrock models. The Bedrock frog and bed are in full contact with each other across their entire length and width as a result of carefully milling both parts. To accomplish the union, the two parts are connected via two pins that pass through the frog into the bed. Then screws with tapered ends, running at a perpendicular angle through the back of the bed, go into tapered dimples in the pins. The pins are drawn downward by the tapered ends of the screws going into the pin dimples, pulling the frog and the bed together to form a solid union, hence their name, Bedrock.”
Okay, that’s still true, but prior to 1911, early Bedrock bench plane frogs were mated to their beds via basic slotted screws, just like on standard non-Bedrock bench planes. There were no pins with dimples and tapered set screws creating the union. The bearing surfaces between the frog and bed were still milled to close tolerances and were in full contact across their entire lengths and widths. The only difference was the method of attachment. I think the three photos below will show the differences. (In all three photos, the early frog is depicted on the left, while the later frog is on the right.) Interestingly, the method of attaching the frog to the bed of the plane changed along with the visual styling of the plane’s main body. Older version (pre-Type 5) Bedrocks had rounded sidewalls and used slotted screws to attach the frog to the bed. Later versions, beginning in 1911 (Type 5 and up) had flat top sidewalls and employed the pin and tapered set screw method of joining the frog to the bed. Again, I think the photos will be beneficial in clarifying my explanation.
In terms of function, I’m not sure one method of attaching the frog to the bed is better or worse than the other. Honestly, I prefer the Type 3 and Type 4 versions with their simple to use slotted screws and rounded sidewalls. I also like the classic look of the rounded sidewalls. While I do like the “contraptionism factor” of the pins and tapered sets screws, and think it’s a clever design, I’m not so sure that method of joining the frog to the bed made any significant difference in the plane’s performance. I’m also not so sure Stanley always added “improvements” for the sake of enhanced tool function. In the case of pins and tapered set screws, I believed they created a unique design that might attract customers to spend a little more money on what was marketed as an upgrade from the standard bench plane. Changing the sidewalls from round to flat made the plane easily identifiable, while the pin/tapered set screw method of frog/bed attachment certainly made them one of a kind, thus separating them from everything else on the market. While I know a well tuned standard non-Bedrock bench plane will produce great results, I’m still drawn to the Bedrock hype.
Jim C.
(This post was added on 12/23/16)
-
Future post on chasing parts.....stay tuned. :rolleyes:
Jim C.
EDIT on January 2, 2017: Although it was my intent to add the "Chasing Parts" post here, I found it was easier to do so below. Please go to page 43, replies 643 and 644. Thanks and sorry for any confusion.
Jim C.
-
Jim,
If you count the "transitional" wood/metal hybrid planes, Stanley's longest plane is actually the No. 34 jointer, 30" long, with the shorter 32 (26") and 33 (28") also being longer than the No. 8 or 608.
I owned, some years back, either a 32 or 33 - can't now remember the length, but it was long. It also twisted in its length enough to be useless; I joke that it was optimized for planing airplane propellers.
-
:
Jim,
If you count the "transitional" wood/metal hybrid planes, Stanley's longest plane is actually the No. 34 jointer, 30" long, with the shorter 32 (26") and 33 (28") also being longer than the No. 8 or 608.
I owned, some years back, either a 32 or 33 - can't now remember the length, but it was long. It also twisted in its length enough to be useless; I joke that it was optimized for planing airplane propellers.
Thanks Bill! Good thing I have someone fact checking me! I better edit my write up to say longest "cast iron" plane. You know, I never considered the transitional planes when I was writing about Stanley jointers. Good catch!!!
It's funny that you mentioned the inaccuracy of your long transitional plane. I have zero experience using them and always wondered how much care, if any, Stanley took in choosing the best wood with grain oriented (like quarter sawn perhaps) for the least amount of twist, warp, etc. I'm no cast iron expert, but I'd think that when exposed to moisture or changing conditions, the worst that will happen is rust. With wood, moisture means potential movement.
Jim C.
-
Great info! Keep it coming!
-
Thanks Yadda! Good to know you're reading along. Feel free to join in any time.
Jim C.
-
It's snowing pretty good here so I spent the afternoon out in the shop working on a small walnut slab coffee table. The legs and stretchers are maple. I had to do a little trimming on some maple end grain with one of my favorite block planes. I have it set for a light pass and the iron is super sharp..... There's nothing like a few good hours out in the shop.
Jim C.
-
Jim,
About the stability of the long transitional planes: I got rid of that twisted Stanley, but last summer I got, for free on the giveaway day of a contractor's retirement sale*, a Sargent transitional jointer, 30" long, that appears to be pretty close to straight (it went into storage, awaiting its turn for attention). As you know, warp in wood can come about from instability in the wood or poor storage conditions, so my new-to-me transitional is resting on top of three 3/4" stickers on a mechanic's rollaway with a close-enough flat top. Cast iron can go warpy, too, although less so than wood; at least with wood, the average home mechanic can correct the warp.
-------
*That was a heck of a sale. I got a Sweetheart era Stanley No. 7 jointer and a Columbian bench vise for $5 each on the first day, and some other stuff that can't be named because I can't remember. When I went back on the second, giveaway day, in addition to the Sargent plane, I got a set of Starrett 50A trammel points (missing the pencil holder) and a bunch of miscellaneous stuff.
-
Jim,
About the stability of the long transitional planes: I got rid of that twisted Stanley, but last summer I got, for free on the giveaway day of a contractor's retirement sale*, a Sargent transitional jointer, 30" long, that appears to be pretty close to straight (it went into storage, awaiting its turn for attention). As you know, warp in wood can come about from instability in the wood or poor storage conditions, so my new-to-me transitional is resting on top of three 3/4" stickers on a mechanic's rollaway with a close-enough flat top. Cast iron can go warpy, too, although less so than wood; at least with wood, the average home mechanic can correct the warp.
-------
*That was a heck of a sale. I got a Sweetheart era Stanley No. 7 jointer and a Columbian bench vise for $5 each on the first day, and some other stuff that can't be named because I can't remember. When I went back on the second, giveaway day, in addition to the Sargent plane, I got a set of Starrett 50A trammel points (missing the pencil holder) and a bunch of miscellaneous stuff.
Hi Bill,
Thanks for checking in. You know, another guy once told me that cast iron planes can warp. I guess I didn't give it much thought at the time because none of my "user" planes had contorted or become misshaped...... at least not enough for me to notice. I would imagine a cast iron plane could be knocked out of whack if it were dropped or abused in some way, or if it was exposed to extreme heat. I'm definitely no cast iron authority. I know (or thought) for instance that old Stanley's were not necessarily dead flat from the factory. There's occasionally high and low spots on a plane's sole that become apparent with just a little lapping. Do you think those imperfections naturally occurred in the cast iron after being manufactured, but not because of the manufacturing process? If a component like the level cap, or frog, was over tightened and it put undue pressure somewhere, then the plane was left to sit for decades under stress, warping could occur. Yes? No? Usually, at least from my experience, cast iron parts that are over tightened to such a degree, just crack.
In response to your comments about getting great deals on a few planes last summer, well, let's see what you got! How about a few pictures? You can't just leave us hanging, and although I'd like to keep the thread mostly dedicated to hand planes and associated topics, you got a Colombian vise for five dollars? I'm envious. :angry:
Jim C.
-
I got the vise; haven't had time to install it.
-
I got the vise; haven't had time to install it.
In my continual hunt for hand planes, I'm always on the lookout for a quality old vise (a Wilton bullet would be nice) and an arbor press. Good ones are about as easy to find as an old Stanley still in the box!
Jim C. (Who's still envious..... )
-
Hi Hand Plane Enthusiasts,
You might recall that I was going to add a post regarding the two Bedrock frog designs. Well, I finally got to it, so if you go back to page 42, reply 624, it's there for your review......
Finally, I'd like to wish you all a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Yew with family and friends.
Jim C.
-
Jim, Be very careful in searching for old vises. I had a worn vise, and went to an auction, came home with 3 more, auctioneer said all for the money. Took two damaged ones home from work, that they had tossed out back. Then dug dads blacksmith post vise out of the barn, and found he had stashed a 5 inch post vise in there too. Then the junk shop in town had a post vise for sale. The big "barrel" part with the female threads is cast in bronze, had to have it. Stopped at a tiny antique shop, literally tripped over another one, post vise, jaws almost six inches, got it cheap. Owner said he couldn't hardly move it, it scales at 122lbs. Then got a couple of little bench vises at a house sale for a buck. Started counting one day and I'm up to 13, and didn't dig under the bench in the barn. I think I have enough. They creep up on one.
-
Jim, Be very careful in searching for old vises. I had a worn vise, and went to an auction, came home with 3 more, auctioneer said all for the money. Took two damaged ones home from work, that they had tossed out back. Then dug dads blacksmith post vise out of the barn, and found he had stashed a 5 inch post vise in there too. Then the junk shop in town had a post vise for sale. The big "barrel" part with the female threads is cast in bronze, had to have it. Stopped at a tiny antique shop, literally tripped over another one, post vise, jaws almost six inches, got it cheap. Owner said he couldn't hardly move it, it scales at 122lbs. Then got a couple of little bench vises at a house sale for a buck. Started counting one day and I'm up to 13, and didn't dig under the bench in the barn. I think I have enough. They creep up on one.
The people at GJ would say 13 is not nearly enough. :grin:
-
Jim, Be very careful in searching for old vises. I had a worn vise, and went to an auction, came home with 3 more, auctioneer said all for the money. Took two damaged ones home from work, that they had tossed out back. Then dug dads blacksmith post vise out of the barn, and found he had stashed a 5 inch post vise in there too. Then the junk shop in town had a post vise for sale. The big "barrel" part with the female threads is cast in bronze, had to have it. Stopped at a tiny antique shop, literally tripped over another one, post vise, jaws almost six inches, got it cheap. Owner said he couldn't hardly move it, it scales at 122lbs. Then got a couple of little bench vises at a house sale for a buck. Started counting one day and I'm up to 13, and didn't dig under the bench in the barn. I think I have enough. They creep up on one.
Hi John,
Thanks for the word of caution. If all your vises were hand planes, I'd say you were right on track. It's probably safe to say that we're all hand tool enthusiasts of some sort. The fascinating thing to me is how people (including me) lock into a certain type, brand, etc., of tool. For me it's hand planes. I also like Craftsman =V= tools too, and then there's those Williams obstruction wrenches which recently caught my attention...... It sounds like you go all in for vises. I know for sure you're not alone. Right now I don't think I'd get hooked on vises, but a few years ago I didn't see myself getting hooked on Craftsman =V= tools either. For years, I was fully and exclusively committed to Stanley hand planes. That was it. Over the last two years or so, however, I went on a MAJOR Craftsman =V= tool binge. I slowed down a little, but I haven't completely stopped. Anyway, I'd like to track down a nice (preferably unrestored) Wilton bullet vise to use. Who knows what that might trigger? One might lead to another, and another...... I'm willing to risk it!
Jim C.
-
Jim, Be very careful in searching for old vises. I had a worn vise, and went to an auction, came home with 3 more, auctioneer said all for the money. Took two damaged ones home from work, that they had tossed out back. Then dug dads blacksmith post vise out of the barn, and found he had stashed a 5 inch post vise in there too. Then the junk shop in town had a post vise for sale. The big "barrel" part with the female threads is cast in bronze, had to have it. Stopped at a tiny antique shop, literally tripped over another one, post vise, jaws almost six inches, got it cheap. Owner said he couldn't hardly move it, it scales at 122lbs. Then got a couple of little bench vises at a house sale for a buck. Started counting one day and I'm up to 13, and didn't dig under the bench in the barn. I think I have enough. They creep up on one.
The people at GJ would say 13 is not nearly enough. :grin:
I've been over there and you're absolutely right. There's a few guys who have some serious vise collections.
Jim C. (Who "thinks" he could stop at one Wilton bullet)
-
I was cleaning up my father's shop. I found a post vise in the corner. I remember mentioning that I would like to own one. I suspect he ran across it and brought it home to give to me or sell it to me. Either way it is now mine. I brought it home. I haven't had time to look at it or clean it. Dad died the day after Christmas last year. I purchased all of his woodworking tools from Mom. Of all of the tools, I cherish that rusty old post vise the most
-
I was cleaning up my father's shop. I found a post vise in the corner. I remember mentioning that I would like to own one. I suspect he ran across it and brought it home to give to me or sell it to me. Either way it is now mine. I brought it home. I haven't had time to look at it or clean it. Dad died the day after Christmas last year. I purchased all of his woodworking tools from Mom. Of all of the tools, I cherish that rusty old post vise the most
Hi Yadda,
It's great that you were able to hang on to your dad's woodworking tools. I hope my kids will hold on to some of my tools and machines when I'm gone. As a woodworker, I'm guessing your dad probably had a few hand planes in his tool arsenal. If so, tell us what he had. Pictures would be great too!
Jim C.
(500th post)
-
Yadda,
As time goes along, you'll find yourself thinking of him every time you use one of his tools. Dad's been gone for 12 years, and my Uncle Charlie, from whom I inherited a lot of tools, even longer; and I still thank them when I'm using one of their tools.
-
Happy New Year to everyone and I hope you all enjoyed a great holiday season with friends and family. I have several topics I’d like to cover in 2017. I’m not sure how many I’ll get to, but I’ll try to hit as many as I can between now and 2018. As always, I HIGHLY ENCOURAGE you to jump into the conversation at any time and to post some pictures, etc. I’d like to keep the content as close to hand planes as possible, but if we veer off course a little bit, that’s okay too.
Chasing Parts:
If you’ve been following the thread with any regularity, you’ve heard me say that I frequently receive old planes (and a few other tools) from family, friends, neighbors, co-workers, etc. Over the years I’ve received dozens of old hand planes and I accept them all with sincere gratitude and many thanks. Unfortunately, more often than not, many of the old planes I receive never really make it back to work. Some are just too far gone in terms of condition/damage incurred, and others sit neglected in storage boxes out in my shop for another reason…… MISSING PARTS!!!!
Seldom do I receive an old plane that’s not without some issues. Missing and/or broken parts is commonly the problem. While it’s always nice to receive an old tool for free, I’ve found that very few of them really are free. There are always exceptions however. You may recall a Stanley #6C that I received from my uncle a couple summers ago. (See page 26, reply 379) Although it had incurred some minor damage over the years, it was still in good working order and complete with all of its original vintage correct parts. With some well applied elbow grease and a dose of TLC on a rainy Saturday afternoon, the plane was good to go in a few hours. Thankfully I didn’t have to chase parts and spend a lot of money to make it “right” again. I guess “right” has different meanings to different people. In my case, “right” means undamaged parts that are manufacturer and vintage correct. That adds another level of complication to the situation. Stanley and other manufacturers were actually pretty good about making parts that would fit and work on planes that were separated by many decades. Plane irons are an obvious example. An iron produced for a common #4 in 1900 will also work on a #4 made in 1950. That probably works for rational people and that makes things “right.” Then there are those of us with OCD who think, not only must the iron fit the plane but the iron must also be vintage correct. Suddenly the logo on the iron matters too. In my insane mind, logos can be differentiated and it’s one of the first things I look at when evaluating a “user” or “collector” quality plane. Do the parts match? Are they all the correct vintage? Over the years logos changed, lever caps were redesigned, the shapes of totes and knobs were slightly restyled, hardware (screws, nuts, spurs,) changed. Finding some of these parts can be difficult and expensive. That's why I don't like chasing parts.
Not too long ago, I talked about acquiring a Stanley #608 from a former co-worker. (See page 41, reply 600 and page 42, reply 623) The plane was given to me for “free” and I was happy to have it. It had a few issues, but I thought it would be worth saving from the dreaded boxes of other parts planes sitting in the corner of my shop. Well, it became the most expensive free plane I ever received. It was missing its knob, the rear tote was badly cracked in a couple places, the lever cap was broken and repaired, and the iron was badly pitted and unmarked (no logo). In the end, after some searching, I found vintage correct parts (except for the lever cap) and paid a total of $115 for them! (Knob and correct hardware $20, Tote and correct hardware $25, correct iron $25, almost correct lever cap $45) Yikes!!! The cost of spare parts can add up quickly. And don’t forget to factor in shipping costs. Part of my problem is a sense of responsibility I have to try and preserve old tools that are given to me. I hate to be the one who scraps a 100 year old tool. On the other hand, that #608 taught me a lesson. At some point one needs to know when enough is enough. Now when I receive an old plane in need of parts, I'm VERY picky about how far I'll go (that means how much I'll spend) to fix it. Anyway.....
If you take a look below, included are a few photos providing some examples of the planes I’ve received over the years. This is just a small sampling of the things you may encounter when “free” planes come your way. Be critical of the planes before you start putting good money into them. Ask yourself, "Are parts available? Are parts expensive? Will I spend more on parts versus just waiting for a complete example to show up?" What I've found is that very few of the planes I receive from people are uncommon. They were basic planes used by individuals to get the job done. Therefore, there's tons of good used COMPLETE examples still out there. More and more, the used planes I receive that are in need of parts, become "parts planes" themselves. While there is some satisfaction in rehabbing an old plane, time and economics now have some influence on my decision to go forward or not. Let's look at a few pictures. (It should be noted that the planes and parts depicted below are in the same condition they were in when I received them.)
The first photo depicts two common bench planes. Notice the plane in the background is missing its double iron assembly and lever cap, while the plane in the fore ground is missing its knob but strangely enough, the screw is still there. The tote is clearly attached to the body with unusual, and probably not manufacturer original hardware. It’s really unlikely that I’m going to chase any of those parts to correct the problems. Neither plane really warrants the time or expense.
The second photo is probably the least complete plane I ever received. A co-worker recently told me his father had an old hand plane in his tool box. My associate didn’t want it and asked if I was interested. I think I said something like “Sure! I’d be glad to have it.” He said the plane might be missing a few parts, but he’d give it to me anyway. I wish he had told me it was missing parts before I said I’d take it. Anyway, the second photo sums up EXACTLY what my co-worker gave me. Nothing more. Nothing less. I guess he did say it was missing a few parts. I'm pretty sure I could buy a complete example in good used condition for less than the cost of buying all the parts necessary to essentially rebuild the plane.
Looking at the third and fourth photos, one will see that the plane's frog was altered at some point and for reasons I can’t even imagine. Notice how the screw that adjusts the lever cap tension extends all the way through the frog. Normally, the screw is threaded into the frog and can be adjusted with a turn of a screwdriver. Never have I seen that screw pass all the way through the frog, and I don't think I've seen a manufacturer use a square nut to secure anything on a plane. Upon further examination with a flashlight and magnifying glass from my kit (See page 35, reply 516), it’s clear the hole was drilled larger by someone for some reason. Inside the hole, remnants of the original threads still exist as applied most probably by the manufacturer. It’s doubtful that I’ll go “frog hunting” any time soon. Frog assemblies tend to be expensive.
In the immediately following post I added a few more photos of parts related issues that are not uncommon. Remember the broken and repaired lever cap from that Stanley #608? I'm still looking for a vintage correct example, and already paid $45 for one that's almost right. And the two cracked totes next to it are more often the rule than not when old planes come my way. Generally speaking, replacing the knob and/or tote is going to cost a few bucks. If you recall our discussion about the Millers Falls 14” jack plane (See page 40, reply 595) you’ll remember that the tote was cracked and I tried to find a correct replacement, but could not. Sometimes parts just aren’t available.
More than once I’ve cautioned readers to know what they’re looking at and to do their homework when it comes to knowing which parts go on which planes, and to also know that some parts are rare and therefore expensive…..if they can be found at all. Take a look at the second and third photos below. The theme of those two pictures is a little spur and accompanying screw. Several years ago I bought a complete Stanley #444 dovetail plane. Well almost complete. It’s got a lot of little parts, and while examining the plane, I missed the spur that attaches to the left side on the main plane body. Stanley used that little spur on several of their planes, most of which are today considered extremely collectable and scarce. It was clearly my oversight. While I trusted the seller, it was still up to me to know what I was looking at. I missed it, and have had a lot of trouble replacing it. As a result, I took the spur off of my user #289 and attached it to my #444. Now the more scarce #444 is complete, but my #289 is missing a spur. For the last few years, I’ve been “chasing” that little spur and screw. I did see one on eBay a while ago and bid $30 thinking that would do the trick. It didn’t. Looks like someone else made a similar mistake and wanted it more than I did. I’m still searching.
The forth photo again depicts the Millers Falls jack plane discussed above. Although I could not find a tote, I did need to find a lever cap. It cost me about $12. Finally the last photo depicts a Stanley #180 (See page 33 reply 494). The plane was also given to me without the depth stop and appropriate hardware. Eventually I was able to find good replacements for about $25. That's one of those that might have been cheaper had I just waited for a complete example versus buying a correct depth stop, thumb screw and washer..... and don't forget a couple bucks for shipping.
I’m always happy to receive old hand planes and I’ll continue to take every single one of them always hoping for a gem. Every now and then I do get lucky. I’ll show you a few of those too. For now, however, just remember that free planes usually come with a cost. If you see a “great deal” at a garage sale, flea market etc. and it’s missing a part or two, know what you're looking at, and think twice before shelling out any money for it…………..
Jim C. (who does not like chasing parts)
-
Additional photos regarding "Chasing Parts" post.
Jim C.
-
I just went back and read the "Chasing Parts" post......Wow! That was a long one. I always like to go back after writing these things and edit them as necessary. This time I went back and tried to cut out some stuff, but actually ended up adding more to it!!! Anyway, if you made it through the whole thing, many congratulations! And to all, my apologies for being so long winded. I'll try to keep them shorter in the future.
Jim C.
-
Jim- Even those of us who don't collect planes or even use them often, enjoy this thread.
Keep it up!
-
Jim- Even those of us who don't collect planes or even use them often, enjoy this thread.
Keep it up!
Thanks Papaw. I'm not always sure what topics are successes and which ones missed the mark. Hopefully I can keep it interesting and encourage people to keep coming back for more.
Jim C.
-
I wholeheartedly agree. I know that I had not thought about or knew much about this genre of the tool world. Now that I've been following along with this thread I will stop and look at them and test what little knowlege i have. And in a couple of years when I figure out how to pick out the good ones they will all be gone. Que Sera, Sera, thats life.
No need to worry Jim. You tell the story well.
-
I wholeheartedly agree. I know that I had not thought about or knew much about this genre of the tool world. Now that I've been following along with this thread I will stop and look at them and test what little knowlege i have. And in a couple of years when I figure out how to pick out the good ones they will all be gone. Que Sera, Sera, thats life.
No need to worry Jim. You tell the story well.
Hi bill300d,
Thanks for reading along. I hope the "Chasing Parts" post didn't scare you away from picking out "the good ones." Don't be afraid to try out an old hand plane that might not be perfect. Stanley and other manufacturers produced millions of planes between 1890 and 1960, and a lot of them are still out there on the used tool market at very affordable prices. If you do just a little homework, and make sure to get one with all of its parts, you almost can't go wrong.
Jim C.
-
I liked it, too. Thanks and keep it up. :-)
-
Hello, Jim. Thanks for taking the time for your very insightful posts. I have more planes here than I know what to do with, and yet I am still learning. Regards, Lou
-
I liked it, too. Thanks and keep it up. :-)
Hi p_toad,
Thanks for the feedback. I noticed that you're relatively new to the site. You found a great place to talk about old tools. Welcome to the site and welcome to the Hand Plane thread. I hope you'll stop by regularly and add some content, pictures, etc. if you're so inclined. Thanks again.
Jim C.
-
Hello, Jim. Thanks for taking the time for your very insightful posts. I have more planes here than I know what to do with, and yet I am still learning. Regards, Lou
Hey Lou,
Thanks for reading along. I know there are more than a few of you following the thread who are sitting on a hoard of hand planes. I'd love to see what you have. Post a few pictures if you get a chance. I'm sure we'd all like to see your collection or at least a couple of your favorites. As far as having more planes than you know what to do with, well, can you ever really have too many? I will admit that I'm trying to be a little more selective about what I buy these days based mostly on storage space concerns. I really ran out of room in my shop about two years ago, and now I have planes "puzzled" into every available spot I can find, while still leaving just enough room to actually work out there. That being said, I'm still taking in "orphans" every time one comes my way, and I'm still buying planes too. I guess there are worse things I could be doing. Thanks for sticking with the thread. There's a lot more to come.
Jim C.
-
It's raining cats, dogs, and elephants here on California's North Coast, so I've got some time for some show and tell.
First, I'd like to show two knuckle joint block planes. Jim's talked about the most famous of Stanley's knuckle joint planes, the No. 65 (page 16, reply 238 in this thread). But Stanley also offered knuckle joint planes in standard angle (20 degree bedding; effective cutting angle, with a 25 degree bevel on the cutting iron, 45 degrees, the same as the standard bench planes). If you're not familiar with the knuckle joint lever cap, let me refer you to Jim's description here: http://www.papawswrench.com/vboard/index.php?topic=9443.msg69366#msg69366 (http://www.papawswrench.com/vboard/index.php?topic=9443.msg69366#msg69366).
For reasons that escape my understanding, Stanley offered many more or less identical standard angle block planes in two sizes, 6" long and 7" long (there were also some other sizes, smaller and maybe a touch bigger). The Stanley No. 18, basically a Stanley No. 9-1/2 with the knuckle joint cap, was 6" long; the No. 19, basically a No. 15 or No. 17 but with the knuckle joint cap, is 7" long.
(http://www.papawswrench.com/vboard/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=9443.0;attach=44440;image)
I actually converted a No. 15 into the No. 19 shown below by replacing the lever cap screw with the longer one needed for the knuckle joint cap.
I don't find the No. 19 terribly useful, and the cap has a tendency to lift when I use the plane; so I may, down the line, switch back to a regular cam-type cap before releasing it into the wild. The No. 18 has its uses, although I'll confess I reach for the No. 60 about 95% of the time. The 6" length of the No. 18 makes it a good one-handed tool, with a slightly wider iron than the No. 60.
-----------
Jim's talked about the No. 90 bull nose shoulder plane (page 2, reply 25; http://www.papawswrench.com/vboard/index.php?topic=9443.msg60648#msg60648 (http://www.papawswrench.com/vboard/index.php?topic=9443.msg60648#msg60648)). Stanley played some variations on this design. Featuring, today, the No. 90J.
(http://www.papawswrench.com/vboard/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=9443.0;attach=44442;image)
This is vastly simpler than the No. 90: one-piece body, adjustment by feel, four pieces total (body, cutting iron, lever cap, and tightening screw).
(http://www.papawswrench.com/vboard/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=9443.0;attach=44444;image)
The lever cap slips under the body casting, where it is held in place by the tightening screw. There's a nice depression in the top of the body for your index finger, and the lever cap tucks into your palm; so it's a fairly comfortable plane in the hand. I own two bull nose shoulder planes, the other being a Record 077A with adjustable mouth opening and a nut to adjust the depth of cut; but I find I use this one about as often, because it's more comfortable. Stanley produced this tool in the U.S., according to Patrick Leach (an authority on the subject), from 1937 to 1943 only. But Stanley of England liked the design, and you could get them into the late 80s or even the 90s. There used to be a mail order supplier, John Alden, who brought over the English Stanley line. I could have had one of these, brand new, in the 80s for less, allowing for inflation, than I'd paid for the awful Stanley 75 I bought in the mid-70s; alas, money was still tight then, and the example I own came from eBay in recent years.
-
There's no particular sequence or logic to the planes I'm featuring, by the way; just what I found on the shelf that looked interesting.
First, another one of Stanley's simplest planes, the 110. This is a long-pattern (7-1/2" long) high-angle block plane.
(http://www.papawswrench.com/vboard/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=9443.0;attach=44446;image)
People assert that Stanley's block planes came in standard angle (20 degree bedding) and low angle (12 degree bedding); but, oddly, some of the cheap block planes came with higher bedding than the standard angle. I forgot to bring the protractor in, and am NOT going out to the shop in this rain, but other high-angle planes I've measured have been about 23 degrees.
This, at any rate, was surely marketed to the homeowner who was convinced s/he needed a block plane but didn't want to, or couldn't, spend real money on one. There are five parts: body, wooden knob on the front that screws onto a threaded boss on the front, cutting iron, lever cap, and the screw that tightens the lever cap down. Adjustment is by feel, and the iron, not needing any slots for adjustment mechanisms, is just a piece of steel: tempered, flattened, logo stamped at the top, bevel ground. The knob, surprisingly, is rosewood in the early years, slowly becoming a cheaper, coarser piece made from cheap wood.
(http://www.papawswrench.com/vboard/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=9443.0;attach=44448;image)
I picked this one up a few years ago for 50 cents or so because one of my maybe-someday projects is to make a piece of furniture or two with the simplest kit I can assemble, and this is the ideal block plane for such a project. First, of course, I have to finish all the projects on the house (ha!). Woodworkers get all over themselves with Have to Have the Very Best - I'm not immune - and I think it would be fun to find out how good a piece of furniture I can make with Less Than the Best.
----------
John, of johnsironsanctuary, has posted about one of the "transitional" planes from Stanley, the No. 27 (page 3, reply 34: http://www.papawswrench.com/vboard/index.php?topic=9443.msg63036#msg63036 (http://www.papawswrench.com/vboard/index.php?topic=9443.msg63036#msg63036)). I don't much like the term "transitional," because Stanley actually offered these concurrently with the metal-bodied planes. Stanley's catalog No. 110 introduces them by saying, "Every Carpenter needs two or more wood planes in his kit, for rough outside work." I think the reality is that some carpenters preferred the feel of the wood body in general; and the jointer planes are a lot lighter than the all-metal ones. I consider "hybrid" a more accurate term, as they combine a wood body with the Bailey adjusting and lever cap mechanisms.
At any rate, let me show off what I consider the prettiest of the hybrid planes, the No. 36 smoothing plane:
(http://www.papawswrench.com/vboard/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=9443.0;attach=44450;image)
Notice the "razee" mounting of the tote, dropping it down lower than the rest of the body, presumably to focus the thrust on the cutting edge (I believe "razee" is adopted from shipbuilding, where it refers to a ship with one or more decks removed). This, and the coffin - curved - shape of the body, make for a really pretty plane. I found this at a rummage sale at the local historical society years ago, under a table until I saw it, at which point it was magically in my hands. I haven't actually used it, other than to try it out; it's one of many planes I want to try out when I get out from under this fix-the-house project that's been going on forever.
Some years back, my bride and I went to a silent auction fund-raiser of some sort. On the wall was a photo-realistic painting of a No. 36, lit for maximum romance. I can't recall what the bid was when I saw the painting, but it was a lot more than the $10 I paid for my cellulose-and-iron version. I tried to gloat just quietly to myself.
The iron beds on the wooden bed and the modified Bailey frog, both; so the frog's adjustment slots are there just to get the iron frog aligned with the wooden bed. There's no mouth adjustment; for a tighter mouth, you'd have to put in a patch; looser would require a rasp and file.
(http://www.papawswrench.com/vboard/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=9443.0;attach=44452;image)
People say sarcastic things about these, which puzzles me, since a lot of woodworkers are fanatical about all-wood planes, which have the same issues with warpage as these but more awkward adjustments for the iron.
-
One last Stanley plane, and then I'm going to wander off into non-Stanley tools for a bit.
Stanley did some real mix-and-match with their bench planes. Not counting the Nos. 1 and 2, which are silly small, the bench planes had irons in several widths: 1-3/4", 2", 2-1/4" (only on one model, and not for its entire life), 2-3/8", and (on the No. 8 only) 2-5/8". They were trying so hard to offer (nearly) all possibilities to the customer that they jammed themselves up in the middle of the bench plane series and had to introduce fractional model numbers. The No. 5 jack plane had it worst: there was the standard No. 5 (2" wide iron, 14" long). But then they introduced the jumbo sized No. 5-1/2 (2-1/4" iron until 1939, then 2-3/8" to be the same as the Nos. 6 and 7; 15" long); and the No. 5-1/4, apparently developed for shop classes, where the lads (and maybe lasses in progressive schools) needed a lighter plane (1-3/4" iron, 11-1/2" long). Here's a No. 5-1/4:
(http://www.papawswrench.com/vboard/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=9443.0;attach=44453;image)
Stanley offered, as an option, an aluminum tote (back handle, for those unfamiliar with weird plane terminology). These were, apparently, most popular on planes used in shop classes, since the lads/lasses tended to be rough on wooden totes. When I decided I really needed just one 5-1/4 (if that), I held on to the one with the aluminum tote, for its historical interest.
Some modern woodworkers find these useful for small scale work. Me, I'm holding onto mine in case one of the boys produces a grandchild, or I somehow acquire an informal grandchild.
-----------
OK, here's a strange one. The McAller patent plane, manufactured, according to the Interweb, by Shelton, introduces a novel method of just about everything. You can find information on the patent here: http://www.datamp.org/patents/displayPatent.php?number=1914609&typeCode=0 (http://www.datamp.org/patents/displayPatent.php?number=1914609&typeCode=0).
(http://www.papawswrench.com/vboard/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=9443.0;attach=44455;image)
The patent application refers to it as a "carpenter's plane," which is about right. The construction is far too coarse for fine cabinetmaking work. The screw-tightened lever cap carries the depth adjustment, a screw that moves a pin-on-a-nut up and down. The pin fits in a hole in the cutting iron (see below), and the top side of the nut has a stubby little lever that can be used to move the top of the iron sideways for lateral adjustment. The lever cap also serves as a chipbreaker, reaching almost all the way to the sole of the plane. A slot in the lever cap registers against a cross-pin in the body, and the lever cap is tightened by the knurled screw visible just at the height of the plane's sides, which screw (brass, fortunately) presses directly on the cutting iron, tensioning it between the bedding for the iron at the sole and a ridge running across the body of the plane just behind the high point of the sides. There's no adjustment for the mouth.
(http://www.papawswrench.com/vboard/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=9443.0;attach=44457;image)
There must have been some market for these, as this is the second one I've found. The first one, purchased some years back, had lost a battle with exposure to water. When I found this one at the Habitat ReStore for $5, the ReStore got the rusty one, and this one stayed with me (for no good reason except it's interesting). I think it's worth noting, though, that both this one and the rusty one have almost no wear on the cutting iron. Apparently, when their proud new owners got them home, they didn't use them much.
I've picked up a decent number of nearly unused planes over the years that I suspect were purchased by homeowners because you just have to have a plane in your toolkit; but who never actually found a use for a plane. This may be another one. Or maybe it's not a usable design; this is another tool I've never had the time to play with.
The battery on the camera is just about flat (I think I need a new battery), so this is it for today. If it keeps storming tomorrow, I may have some more show and tell.
-
Hi Bill,
I read through your recent posts and can't say "thank you" enough!!! It's just great to see some outstanding content added to the thread, particularly coming from one of the guys who visits here often. I also like the fact that you took the time to talk about the planes and post a few photos. It looks like you have a really nice collection, and I can't wait to see more of it!! I'm sure you don't necessarily like the rain, and while I know there were probably other things you could be doing, the effort that went into your posts is noted and much appreciated. Thanks for sharing your time with us. Great stuff and I strongly encourage you to add posts when you have the time or when it starts raining.
I gotta say, the McAller plane is not one I've seen before. The lever cap kind of reminds me of the Sargent Autoset caps. Very nice that you added the the patent link too. I love looking at stuff like that. It must sound like I'm gushing, but I really do like this stuff and I do enjoy being, for lack of a better term, "entertained" by seeing and reading about planes that others have in their shops, collections, etc., and if there's a back story, all the better. I'm going back to the top so I can read yours posts again! Nice job!
Jim C.
-
"at which point it was magically in my hands"
Yeah, i know how that happens... :grin:
Unfortunately for me, the half dozen restores that i've been in haven't had much at all in the way of planes (although I've found a few braces and things which said "take me home".... :embarrassed:
-
Some home-made planes today.
First, one I made, a hinge mortise (or butt hinge mortise) plane:
(http://www.papawswrench.com/vboard/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=9443.0;attach=44505;image)
These are used to create the shallow, wide "mortises" (actually housings or dados) made for installing butt hinges, latchsets and their strikes, and similar architectural hardware (they can also be used on cabinet hardware - I used mine recently on a cabinet-sized weather cover for the electric meter/main panel on the house).
There's a story behind this tool. My revered Uncle Charlie, in his later years but while still living at home, had a tendency to fall. He was good at catching his fall, so he rarely injured himself much, but he had trouble getting up again. When he fell in the small bathroom in his house, he would block the inswinging door, making it hard for his daytime caregivers or the family to help him. The solution was to change the door to swing out, and, as the only competent woodworker in the family, I got nominated to make it so. I knew I'd have to work fast, since Charlie would not be pleased, so I made this from bits around the house. It helped; I got the whole job done in about half an hour, including switching the door stops, hardware, etc. I wrote an article for WoodCentral on how I built it and how they're used, available here: http://woodcentral.com/articles/handtools/articles_114.shtml (http://woodcentral.com/articles/handtools/articles_114.shtml).
--------------
This next tool is a vivid example of applying creativity while failing to understand the requirements of the thing being made. I got this plane from a friend at a yard sale, and am keeping it around to remind me to understand what something needs to do before I make it.
(http://www.papawswrench.com/vboard/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=9443.0;attach=44507;image)
It's made up from several castings, each riveted to a steel sole, with very nicely shaped sheet metal palm rests front and back, and wooden rear and front handle. It's modeled on the continental planes, with a "horn" up front instead of a knob. You can see in the second photo that the horn is shaped for the left hand, and the sheet metal piece covering the casting there is designed as a rest for the side of the palm. So the maker of this tool was right-handed.
It's got a carefully tapered cutting iron - someone put a lot of effort into this - and a really ingenious locking wedge, with dovetail shapes on the wedge and the receiver to lock it down thoroughly, and a place on which you can hammer to remove the wedge.
(http://www.papawswrench.com/vboard/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=9443.0;attach=44509;image)
That's the good news. The bad news is in several parts. The several castings aren't tied together, and the sole of the plane is far from flat, with no obvious way to make it flat. The lovely tapered iron is too thick at the cutting edge to fit into the mouth of the plane. The only way to get it to extend past the sole is to flip it over, so the chipbreaker is on the bottom. I'm sure I could find other issues, but these two are enough to doom it to a life of shelf sitting.
This was clearly a shop project. I wonder what grade the student got?
-
Hello, Bill. Nice job on the Hinge Mortise Plane, and on the article that you wrote. Regards, Lou
-
Thanks. If I did it over, I'd look at brass or aluminum stock for the sides - 1/4" thick or so. This one has trouble sneaking up on the very edge of the mortise on (architectural) doors with integral, or existing, stops. It's not worth remaking it just for that, though; once I've established the depth over most of the mortise, cleaning out the remainder at the same level is easy.
-
OK, back to manufactured planes.
Stanley produced a number of rabbet planes, many of which have been discussed here, including (I may have missed some) the Nos. 78, 90, 94, 140, and 180. They also produced the Nos. 10 (jack plane size), 10-1/4 (also jack plane size), and 10-1/2 (smoothing plane size), planes that resemble a bench plane but that have cutouts on both sides and t-shaped cutting irons and chipbreakers; so they'll rabbet from both sides. The "wings" on the side of the plane's body swoop higher than on a bench plane, but Stanley made no other attempt to reinforce the sides; so they're often found with broken sides. That's how I acquired my 10-1/2 on the cheap: one side was broken. A friend of mine, recently certified in welding, did a terrible repair that left the front of the sole out of line with the back. I took it to my revered Uncle Charlie, who cut out the weld, clamped the front and rear of the sole to a known flat surface, and rewelded it, letting the plane cool completely before unclamping it.
(http://www.papawswrench.com/vboard/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=9443.0;attach=44513;image)
You can see, looking at the parts, that it's very similar to a bench plane, but for the cutouts and t-shaped iron (apologies for the fuzzy picture; my camera doesn't always get the idea about sharp focus).
(http://www.papawswrench.com/vboard/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=9443.0;attach=44515;image)
But there's no fence, no spurs, and no depth gauge. So, in using this plane, you need to nail/clamp a batten to the work to set the width of the rabbet, and gauge the depth; and, for cross-grain work, knife heavily along the layout line for the width to avoid tearout. This makes it less efficient to use than a No. 78. Why did Stanley produce this plane, and the No. 10, from 1870 (No. 10's start) to 1964 (No. 10-1/2's end)?
In their catalog 110, Stanley claimed that the plane was useful "...for the heavy framing used in mining work, for carriage or wagon building, or in any work of similar nature." I'm thinking that, at the time this catalog was issued, mining framing may have been the last place that traditional timber framing was in common use. The Record Tool Co., in England, copied this design, producing it until 1993. In their 1934 book "Planecraft,"* C.W. Hampton and E. Clifford of the Record Tool Company suggest that it's useful for the joiner and the carriage builder. In British usage, a joiner "...constructs the wooden components of a building, such as stairs, doors, and door and window frames..." British buildings, with their deep masonry walls, often have impressively deep door and window frames. So this plane was designed for wide rabbets; I am thinking, too, that a lot of those rabbets might be exposed, and the bench plane construction of the plane would permit smoother finishes on tricky grain. Also in "Planecraft," Hampton and Clifford demonstrate the use of this plane for fielding a panel. If you're not familiar with fielding in panels, this is a fielded panel:
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Eh0PnFZOguE/TW1YQfB0lrI/AAAAAAAABJk/mZIhG0vKqLw/s1600/4.++Completed+raised+and+fielded+panelSMALL.jpg)
The 10 or 10-1/2 would be used to plane the slanted "field" portions of the panel.
In my own shop, I've been unable, as of yet, to find the best use for this plane. Granted, I've not done much furniture work. Perhaps when time permits that, I'll find the plane offers superior finish over the No. 78 that I use regularly. But, for the $6 I paid for it 40 years ago, I'm willing to give it a home while figuring that out.
The 10-1/4, by the way, is a jack-sized plane with a tote and knob that can be tilted side to side, so you can work up against a high sidewall without hurting your fingers.
-----------
*This is a worthwhile book for anyone wanting to learn to use a plane. Woodcraft reprinted it for years, and, while it's now out of print, lots of copies are available fairly cheap on the online used market. There's a certain amount of infomercial for Record's products, and you have to learn early-20th-century Brit-speak (if you don't already know it); but there's a LOT of content I've never found anywhere else.
-
Short one today - it's just about warm enough to work outside, and it's not raining!
Stanley produced, from 1929 to some point in the 1950s, a line of tools under the banner, "Defiance." Among these tools were hand planes. I'm not sure if they offered just bench and block planes, or others as well; what I have are two bench planes. These planes are stripped down to very basic features: fixed and rather skimpy frogs, no lateral adjusters, cutting irons shorter than the Bailey models and at least 0.010" thinner, blocky totes.
I'm not sure why I bought the first of these, except it was cheap (this is my pitfall every danged time!); I bought the second one because it's in better shape (and it was cheap - see, there it is again!). They've been shelf sitters, but I'm thinking, at some point, of putting a heavily cambered, thicker iron in the wider one (funkier looking one), filing out the mouth, and trying it out as a scrub plane. People do this with Nos. 4 and 5, but I'd hate to ruin a good Bailey plane on such a project.
The narrower one, by the way, has a cutting iron of a really odd width: 1-9/16".
"Farm Collector" magazine has an article on the Defiance line (which, they say, often sold for 30% less than the first line Stanley tools), and makes the sensible argument that, if one of these tools got lost or ruined out in the field, the loss was less painful than if the farmer had purchased first line tools. Here's the article: http://www.farmcollector.com/tools/stanley-tool-co-defiance-zm0z12augzbea (http://www.farmcollector.com/tools/stanley-tool-co-defiance-zm0z12augzbea).
Still...I'd hate to try using one of these planes on anything but the very mildest, softest wood. Certainly not on a knotty fence post that I had to shave to make the gate fit.
-
Jim's talked earlier (page 40 - scroll down a bit) about the Stanley No. 112 scraper plane. I'm here today, staying inside out of our latest rainstorm, to talk about some others.
Probably pretty well all the manufacturers of woodworking tools, including some who didn't make planes but concentrated on other tools of the trades, made scrapers. Before power sanders, scrapers were used more extensively than now, for furniture, floors, architectural trim, painting preparation, and on and on. For instance, after installing a fine hardwood floor, the installers would hand-scrape every inch of it to achieve a smooth surface; when refinishing, too, they'd hand-scrape the wood back to a clean surface. Scrapers survive somewhat - painters have a range of scrapers in the toolkit, and hardwood flooring installers and refinishers often use scrapers for the corners that power sanders can't reach. And many furniture makers, amateur and some professionals, use them. But, as with so many hand tools, it's not like the glory days.
Here's the main interesting scrapers in my gathering of tools (NOT a collection! I'm NOT a collector! No, I'm NOT!).
First, the Stanley No. 80 cabinet scraper. Several woodworking writers have touted this as the most useful of Stanley's scrapers for the furniture maker, and its name seems to confirm that idea. The tool holds a fairly thick scraper blade leaning forward by way of a clamp across the blade.
(http://www.papawswrench.com/vboard/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=9443.0;attach=44529;image)
The blade, unlike a card scraper, is filed and stoned at 45 degrees before a burr is turned toward the face opposite that 45 degrees. A thumbscrew on the back of the scraper's body presses against the center of the scraper blade below the clamp, pushing it forward and cambering it more or less, depending on how much the thumbscrew is turned in.
(http://www.papawswrench.com/vboard/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=9443.0;attach=44527;image)
The sole is fairly short: this is a finishing tool, designed for flat surfaces.
(http://www.papawswrench.com/vboard/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=9443.0;attach=44531;image)
I actually bought my made-in-England No. 80 brand new, back in the 1980s, at which time it was surprisingly inexpensive (can't recall the price; can recall the pleased surprise). I've used it several times, in the limited opportunities I've had for furniture work, and, yep, it sure works as advertised. The blade on mine is heavily cambered on one end, apparently for those times that you need to move a lot of wood by scraping; in the photos, that cambered end is covered by a plastic safety cover, thoughtfully provided by Stanley.
As best I can tell, Stanley no longer makes the No. 80 (if they're still making it in England, no one seems to be importing it). You can find them used on places like eBay, where they're often mislabeled as spokeshaves. Woodcraft, Lee Valley, and others are making them or redesigned versions of them.
Stanley also made the No. 81 (I acquired mine at a yard sale). At first glance, this appears very similar to the No. 80. The general shape is the same:
(http://www.papawswrench.com/vboard/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=9443.0;attach=44533;image)
but the blade is retained by a lever cap pivoting on pins and tightened by a thumbscrew:
(http://www.papawswrench.com/vboard/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=9443.0;attach=44535;image)
and the sole is rosewood, screwed to the metal body:
(http://www.papawswrench.com/vboard/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=9443.0;attach=44537;image)
The blade, though different in width, is filed, stoned, and a burr raised in the same manner as the No. 80. Given the similarity of the Nos. 80 and 81, the question of "why did they make this one?" arises. I'm told that the No. 81 is for fine finishing, such as final smoothing of veneered work. I hope to find out someday, when I can get into the shop for furniture work.
Stanley also made scrapers designed for flooring work, painting prep, and rough scraping. I'm wandering a bit from planes here, but hope Jim will forgive me. I own one example of the several they made, a No. 82. I apologize that I have just one picture here, but the camera was moody the day I took the pictures of this and the next scraper, and I got just one picture in focus.
(http://www.papawswrench.com/vboard/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=9443.0;attach=44539;image)
The No. 82's a clever tool. This is the later version of the two versions they made. The scraper blade is retained by being pinched between the two parts of the body. The body casting is designed to accommodate a U-shaped scraper blade similar to the blades common on modern paint scrapers; but it can also accommodate a simple flat blade of whatever size and shape, within the limits of its clamping. The blade can be set off to one side, for access to corners and tight spots.
The body is mounted on a pivot, with a spring pushing against another mounting point, apparently to reduce chatter. A wing nut on a pivot between the body and handle permits you to adjust the angle of the body relative to the handle, and a knob atop the body lets you apply downward pressure. One of the Fine Woodworking editors thinks the 82 is a great tool (although he favors the earlier design): http://www.finewoodworking.com/2016/11/10/a-great-mistake (http://www.finewoodworking.com/2016/11/10/a-great-mistake).
Wandering away from Stanley...over the years, I've had a number of other pivoting handle scrapers, similar in concept to the Stanley No. 82. Most of them use a ball joint to allow the handle to pivot not just up and down relative to the body, but also sideways, to protect your fingers when working up against walls and suchlike. I've gotten rid of all of them but one, made by E. C. Stearns:
(http://www.papawswrench.com/vboard/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=9443.0;attach=44541;image)
Stearns didn't, as far as I know, make planes, but they made a number of other tools of the wood trades, including this scraper. What I like about it is the heavy cast iron body, in two pieces: the main casting, and a cap that clamps a blade similar to those in the Nos. 80 and 81, but with a hole in the middle to accommodate the screw that attaches the cap to the body. The body and cap together are heavy enough that I have to watch, when I pick it up, not to drop it. I can't imagine the blade on this tool even attempting to chatter; the castings would absorb vast amounts of vibration.
-
Hello, Bill. Stearns made a No. 8 Cabinet Scraper, similar to the Stanley No. 80. I have one here somewhere, I will try to post a pic tomorrow. Regards, Lou
-
"my gathering of tools (NOT a collection! I'm NOT a collector! No, I'm NOT!)"
yeah, riiiiiiight :huh:
Like the scrapers. Thank you. :cool:
-
Hello, Bill Here are a few pics of the E C Stearns No. 8 Cabinet Scraper. Regards, Lou
-
Thanks, Lou. I like those thumbscrews. That's back when details like thumbscrews got some attention, instead of being off the shelf items.
-
hi guys, can someone help me out with the actual name of this profile and what it was used for? Thanks
-
I can't get the picture of the toe edited, but it has the name "BAILEY." ..... is this related at all to the bailey associated with stanley? I wouldn't think so??
-
Looks like a right and left handed moulding plane.
-
Hello hand plane enthusiasts. I know, I know………. I can hear you asking, “Where the heck have you been?” The short answer is this, “Living.” I apologize for my absence and can’t promise that it won’t happen again, particularly with the summer months coming. That being said, I’m still avidly collecting and using hand planes just as much as ever and hope you have been too! I also hope you’re all well and enjoying life. Although I haven’t been posting, I do visit the thread and I see that many others have been too. I think that’s great, and thought that it’s time to add a little new content. Yesterday as I was reading some prior posts, I came across a few from April 13 and 14, 2014. (Yes, posts from four years ago.) Anyway, we were talking about butt mortise planes and somewhere along the line, routers entered the conversation and at some point I said something about the Stanley #171 router. So, Branson jumped in and said he’d like to see the write-up on that plane. (See page 18, reply #260) Well, here you go my friend.
Stanley #171:
In case any of you have forgotten, it was always Stanley’s intent, or at least it seemed to be, to fill every niche that existed, real or not, in the world of hand planes. In an effort to do that, occasionally they produced some “contraptions.” The #171 was a contraption of the highest order. It was designed to help craftsmen cut shallow mortises for door hinges, locksets, strike plates, etc., very much like their standard routers. Why Stanley came up with this thing is anyone’s guess, but it’s obviously the result of some extremely fertile minds. Upon initial inspection the #171 looks like it must do something that no ordinary router can do, but that’s not really true. Stanley’s other basic router offerings where capable of doing everything the #171 can do, probably with greater simplicity too.
As one can see, it was equipped with a fence that was generally intended to ride along the front or back of the door’s stiles so that mortises could be cut for hinges, etc. What makes this tool interesting is its cutter adjustment mechanism. The cutter itself is mounted to the bottom of a post that runs vertically up through the main casting. That cutter post rotates three hundred and sixty degrees in the casting. If you look closely at the photos, you’ll see that there’s a milled groove running parallel to the length of the post itself. There are actually four such grooves located every ninety degrees, thus creating four positive stops. So, the cutter can be effectively positioned to point in four different directions, two running parallel to the plane’s main casting and two run perpendicular to it. This is no different than any of Stanley’s other routers. What makes the #171 unique is the way those positive stops are accomplished. After the post is rotated to point the cutting iron in the desired direction of the cut, it is locked in place by a little “finger” or protrusion that is part of a spring-loaded lever on the side of the main casting. The lever is held in place by a steel pin. When the lever is depressed, it disengages the “finger” from the milled groove in the cutter post, allowing the post to rotate. If the user releases pressure on the lever, the spring behind the lever pushes outward causing the finger to engage the next milled groove that rotates past it. That’s how the cutter remains in position as set by the plane’s user. The cutter is mounted to the bottom of the cutter post with a small recessed screw. Interestingly, the cutters have “teeth” milled into them that run perpendicular to their length. Those teeth correspond to milled teeth in the bottom of the cutter post. The design seems to adequately secure the cutter to the post. Confused?
I still haven’t described how the depth of cut is accomplished. The post not only rotates in the main casting, but it also slides up and down. If you look carefully, you’ll see that the top half of the cutter post is threaded. A collar screws onto those threads drawing up the cutter post, or lowering it, depending on which way the collar is turned. In order to allow for fine up and down adjustments, the post is also spring-loaded so that tension is present. Once the desired depth of cut is set, it can be locked via a thumbscrew that comes with a FLAT starter thread. I emphasized flat because that thumbscrew ultimately contacts the threads on the cutter post. A pointed thumbscrew, like those used on the fence, would surely distort the threads on the cutter post. So there you have it. The #171 is a serious contraption.
It was manufactured between 1911 and 1935. Practically every part of this plane is unique to the plane itself. If you come across one of these and it’s missing parts, RUN AWAY!!! (If you need a refresher, please revisit my post on "chasing parts." See page 43, reply #643.) The parts, if you can find them, are going to be very expensive. Don’t fool yourself into thinking you’ll be able to easily find spare parts. This is not one of those planes. Do your homework, and know what you’re looking at. The handles are unique to the plane, as are the cutters, fence, lever, and springs. The main casting is clearly like no other. The #171 was equipped with three factory-supplied cutters (3/8, 5/8, 7/8). It’s not unusual to find these planes with one cutter, and that’s the one attached to the cutter post. The other two are usually long gone. (Notice that I have zip tied the two unused cutters to one of the fence rails.) Unlike some of Stanley’s more traditional routers, the #171 didn’t stand the test of time. It was fragile. Although I’d like to give this one a try, I really don’t dare. Did I say it was fragile? It’s just not worth the risk.
Thanks for hanging in there. Branson, I hope this one met your expectations!
Jim C.
-
Additional photos of the Stanley #171.
-
That must be the Edsel of Stanley Handplanes. Very neat. Thanks for sharing! Definitely worth the wait.
-
That must be the Edsel of Stanley Handplanes. Very neat. Thanks for sharing! Definitely worth the wait.
Hi Yadda,
Thanks. The Edsel of hand planes........Hmmm, maybe you're not familiar with the Stanley #196. I'll leave that one for another day! Also, you might want to a look back at the #131 double ended block plane. (See page 35, reply #515)
Jim C.
-
Well summer is here. The weather went from nice to HOT!!! It’s almost too hot if you ask me. It was about 90 degrees today. Anyway, the warm weather always means there’s an outdoor project, and more often than not, a project that involves wood. And when there’s wood, there’s an opportunity to use a hand plane. I’m working on a dog ramp that goes out my back door onto the deck. The project involves a few angled supports that I roughed out on my bandsaw and now need to be flattened out. While hunting for my favorite short jointer, a Bedrock #605 ½ (which I”ll feature at some point), I came across yet another block plane in my stash. Stanley made A LOT of block plane patterns. This plane is one to ponder. It seems to be yet another plane created by Stanley to fill some niche.
Stanley #61:
At first glance, this looks like the average six inch, low angle block plane. If in just a few seconds that was your assessment, well, you’d be pretty much right on target. What makes it unusual is the fact that Stanley even produced it. I personally like a block plane with an adjustable throat, so the #61 would not necessarily be my first choice to use because it was manufactured with a fixed, non-adjustable throat. Okay, Stanley made several other fixed throat block planes, so what’s the big deal? Well, I think the big deal, or at least the interesting fact is that the #61 was produced several years after the #60 and #60 ½ were in production, both of which were manufactured with adjustable throats.
If you take a look at the photo below depicting all three planes (#60 background, #60 ½ middle, #61 foreground), it’s relatively apparent that all three planes are nearly identical. The only differences between the #60 and #60 ½ are the finishes (nickel trimmings versus japanning and brass). Take a look at the catalog page (Stanley Catalog #34, circa 1915) and you’ll see that the #60 and #60 ½ cost $1.25 and $1.10 respectively. The cost difference is the nickel plating. Take a look at the cost of the #61 . . . also $1.10. So why in the world would anyone want a fixed throat block plane when he/she could have one with an adjustable throat (#60 ½) for the same price, or the #60 for fifteen cents more and some snazzy nickel-plating front to back? I guess I could understand it if the #61 came before the #60 and #60 ½ and was rendered somewhat obsolete by the adjustable throat feature, but it didn’t. Both the #60 and #60 ½ were in production for a dozen years BEFORE the #61 was introduced in 1914. Well, the Stanley mantra that every niche, real or perceived, must be filled may be the answer.....again. So take another look at the catalog page. Notice three paragraphs up where it says the #61 (and #63) “will commend themselves to teachers of manual training….?” It seems that Stanley thought there was a need for another kid friendly block plane!
While Stanley may have thought the #61 would sell, my guess is that consumers had a different idea, questioning, “Why should I buy this basic fixed throat plane when I can have a better, more versatile version, for the same cost or a few cents more?” Eventually someone in Stanley’s accounting department probably figured it out too and said, “Hey, we don’t need the #61.” And so it was gone by 1935. The #60 hung on until 1950 while the #60 ½ was continuously offered well into the 1980s.
Today, while still not the most desirable plane to use, the #61 is somewhat scarce. It was offered with a nickel-plated pressure cap and a threaded rosewood knob that screwed onto a threaded post that was part of the main body casting. A correct plane would only have the nickel-plated cap. What’s also noteworthy is the fact that the model number is cast on the plane’s heel. (See photo below.) There’s no mistaking it. Every #61 that I’ve seen has the model number on it. (I haven’t seen many and they’re usually not in great shape when I do come across them.) All the parts on the plane are relatively common, except for the main casting itself. If it doesn’t say “No 61” on it, it’s not a #61. The fixed throat is also a big clue. As always, do your homework and know what you’re looking at.
Have a great Memorial Day weekend and stay tuned! I'll try to feature a few more planes before the summer really gets going.
Jim C.
-
A few days ago I featured the Stanley #171 router plane. If you weren’t familiar with it, I hope the post shed a little more light on an unusual tool. You might recall that near the end of the post I mentioned that parts for this particular plane are very unique to the plane itself and can be relatively expensive if they can be found at all.
Well, I routinely skim eBay just to see what’s out there and type in searches such as “Stanley Plane” or “Bedrock” etc. After cautioning about the potential expense and scarcity of parts for the #171, I decided to search “Stanley Plane 171” to see if anything popped up. To my surprise, I actually got a few hits. What I found were three separate auctions, all from the same seller, for the main components (body casting/cutter post, handles w/hardware, fence assembly) of the plane and what appears to be all the correct and necessary screws, springs, and other hardware. Studying the auction photos (shown below in their entirety) all the parts appear to be in pretty good shape, and together, would make a “nearly” complete example of a hard to find plane (which is probably what it was at one time). I can’t say that I totally agree with parting out a fairly scarce tool that’s practically complete, but I see it happen all the time. Without drifting too far from the intended point of this post, which was supposed to be about the cost of rare and expensive parts, and warning against buying incomplete planes; perhaps parting out this tool makes sense for one reason. Look closely at what’s for sale. See anything missing? If you noticed that none of the three auction photos depicts cutting irons, you’d be correct. Those three little cutters are super scarce! They’re not impossible to find, but they’re not going to be easy……or cheap. Maybe parting out the plane only makes sense because the seller can’t find the three cutting irons and figured it made more sense to get what he could out of a plane that he may or may not ever complete, not to mention that the plane is useless without the cutters. I would strongly urge you not to fall into the same predicament. If you’re looking at unusual and/or rare planes, make sure they’re complete. I'd issue the same warning about some of the more common planes too. That leads me back to the topic at hand..... parts are expensive and parts for rare planes are even more expensive!!
Now you’re probably wondering how much the seller is asking for the #171 parts. Well, I’ll cut to the bottom line:
Main body cast and cutter post assembly = $84.50
Handles and hardware = $94.50
Fence assembly and hardware = $224.50
Total cost (before cutting irons) = $403.50
(If you’re wondering what the cutters cost, well, I’ve seen them sell for $50 - $75 each.)
Jim C.
-
Thanks...and good grief! :tongue:
-
Thanks...and good grief! :tongue:
Hi p,
I hope you enjoyed the #171 discussion. It’s an unusual plane for sure. Those posts just sort of came together. I wanted to feature the #171 and at the end, caution readers about buying planes that are missing parts, particularly expensive parts. When I came across the three current eBay auctions for #171 parts, I couldn’t believe my luck. It gave me a chance to illustrate the cost of parts in real time. Now, there’s no guarantee the parts will sell for those asking prices, but the asking prices do give one some perspective. Generally speaking, I don’t think the prices are too far out of line. Finding a buyer might be tough. But to the right guy, finding those parts might be like a God send. Keep an eye on them. Maybe they’ll sell. Personally, I’d have listed all the parts together and hoped to find a buyer who thought he/she could find the cutters. Thanks for stopping by the thread!
Jim C.
-
I love this stuff. Since i volunteer at our local Restore I'm always on the lookout for anything like this, but have to admit to never having seen one in the wild. :cry:
-
Hey p,
I’m really glad to hear you’re enjoying the thread. I’m not sure I’d say “never” but some of the planes I’ve featured in the thread aren’t very common, and finding them in the wild could be tough.....but not impossible, so keep your eyes open. The planes that one might find in the wild are more typically standard bench planes and block planes. The stuff an average home owner may have used, and there’s millions of them out in the wild in various states of condition. Some of the speciality planes, like the #171 for instance, were probably purchased in much smaller quantities, and by craftspeople who made a living with them. Still, those speciality planes were expensive even in their day. A simple, user friendly #71 1/2 router plane cost $1.65 in 1915, while the #171 cost $2.75. Both planes performed exactly the same operations. I gotta believe many still opted for the 71 1/2 based on the price, ease of use, and pure functionality; and not the more expensive, slightly over complicated, fragile “contraptionism” that was characteristic of the #171. So, finding some of these unusual planes in the wild today is rare. Finding them in good shape, fully intact, and with all of their original parts makes the search all the more difficult. While it’s great that you appreciate the less commonly seen planes, don’t forget about some of the common ones too. There’s absolutely nothing like using a one hundred year old #4 bench plane to make something special.
Jim C.
-
Back about a week ago, I mentioned that I was building a dog ramp that went out my back door onto a deck. (See page 46, reply 676). During that post, I mentioned that I was going to use my Stanley Bedrock #605 ½ to flatten some angled supports. One may remember way, way back in the thread, I stated that one of my objectives in creating this thread was to hopefully inspire some of the readers who may have considered using a plane, but hadn’t yet tried, to try! Now I know many of you are old pros so this post probably won’t be very informative, but for those of you who are thinking, “I’d like to try using a plane, but what the heck am I really ever gonna use one for?” Well, this post might be all you need to get going.
Hand planes are so useful. Very often they’re more simple, efficient, and more accurate than a power tool. They’re also a lot more quiet than power tools. This dog ramp project is typical of something that one might encounter around the house, and it provides a perfect and natural opportunity to use a plane. So lets get into it.
I needed to make a small ramp for my dog. It needed to be about twenty inches long and about seven inches high. Not only would it need to support a seventeen pound dog, but also people. Treated lumber would do the trick. It’s a simple project. The most difficult part would be making four identical right triangles to act as the angled supports. I started by cutting two blanks that measured nineteen inches long, by six high, from a 2 x 8. With a straightedge, I drew a line diagonally from one corner to the other with a red “sharpie” marker. Using my band saw to freehand cut right down the middle of that fat red line, I ended up with four almost identical right triangles. While both legs of all four triangles lined up nicely with each other, the hypotenuses weren’t exactly coplanar with each other. Making those cuts freehand on my band saw left a little inaccuracy. Close, but not close enough for my liking. I can’t think of anything more annoying than a project leaving my shop that’s not “square.” Also, if the hypotenuses aren’t all coplanar, the ramp is very likely going to rock every time someone steps on it. That’s totally unacceptable in my world. I have a shop full of tools and machines. There’s no excuse for things not to be right.
Now, some of you may have thought that running the angled supports across a powered joiner might flatten things out, and you’d be right. I could get those hypotenuses flat with a joiner, but that would take a lot of trial and error to get them all the same. The key is cut them all at one time, as a unit, so the high and low spots on each part can be brought into a coplanar state. Consequently, the only question one should ask is, “Which hand plane am I going to use?” On a project of this size, my go to plane is the Stanley #605 ½. (I promise to feature this plane soon!!)
Okay, so the procedure goes like this. Place all four triangles on a flat surface like a table saw wing. Line up all the legs on the four triangles so they match perfectly. Clamp them together. Those legs should all be coplanar if you cut the blanks using your table saw and miter saw. Once all four triangles are clamped together, the small inaccuracies that resulted from cutting the hypotenuses free hand on the band saw should be apparent. That’s an easy fix with a hand plane and a straightedge.
Now secure your work. I used my Black and Decker Workmate. Since I'm planing downhill, I extended the work piece a little past the end of the Workmate top. Doing so allows me to plane from one end of the work piece to the other without the toe of the plane banging into the top of the Workmate. I like to use my old Workmate because it has a set of jaws that open to secure various shaped objects, and I find it to be VERY handy for planing operations. It also comes equipped with bench dogs that add versatility to clamping and holding things, like wood. (If you go back to page 43, reply 630, you’ll see that I used the Workmate to plane some end grain on a maple coffee table leg.) By standing on the step of the Workmate, my body weight holds the Workmate down, keeping it from moving as I push a plane across a work piece. I like the positioning particularly because it allows me to stand above my work while I’m using my weight in a controlled manner to move the plane. Anyway, by planing down each triangle with some overlap cutting on the triangle next to it, I’m able to start knocking down the high spots. Follow the straight planing with some diagonal planing across multiple triangles, and the parts become coplanar very quickly. Occasionally checking for flatness with straightedge is a good idea too. After about ten minutes of planing, all four hypotenuses were coplanar and ready for some 1 x 6 decking. Add some outdoor grade carpet for traction and the project is done.
Again, the point of this post is to demonstrate how valuable a hand plane can be when engaging in simple, everyday projects around the house. If you still haven’t tried a plane but want to…. TRY IT!!
Jim C.
-
The finished product.....
-
Jim, great project, your labor is going to save the dog from struggling to get into the house.
-
Thanks turnnut! And thanks for stopping by the thread. I’m glad you liked the post. If you don’t typically use hand planes, I hope you just got inspired.
Jim. C.
-
Hi Jim,
A while back you posted some Stanley routers. Here are the two that I have found. One is first generation, The other has more bells and whistles.
-
Hey John,
Thanks for stopping by the thread! I’m not sure what it is exactly that I like about router planes, but I like them. I guess I like them because they’re super easy to use and they deliver as promised. You have a very interesting pair which I’m glad you posted side by side. Both are Stanley #71 models! Maybe some of the readers here are wondering why. Well, like you said, the simple looking one with the open throat is an EARLY Stanley version that eventually became the #71 1/2 just by closing the throat. The other one with all the accessories remained the #71. Although it’s an interesting looking contraption that does get the job done, I can honestly say that I’ve never really found a reason to use the “bells and whistles” version of the #71. Any router operation that I might come across is usually accomplished with the closed throat #71 1/2, or the smaller #271. I might be in the minority on that opinion, but it’s true. I’d be interested in knowing if you have a preference between the open and closed throat versions?
Jim C.
-
Actually, Jim, from what I understand, the Stanley No. 71 router plane started out as a closed throat (flat in front of the cutter) tool, with the arch for the open (better visibility) throat coming along later: http://www.hyperkitten.com/tools/routers/stanley/ (http://www.hyperkitten.com/tools/routers/stanley/) and http://www.hyperkitten.com/tools/routers/stanley/stanley_71.html (http://www.hyperkitten.com/tools/routers/stanley/stanley_71.html). The closed throat design was continued, renamed the 71-1/2: http://www.hyperkitten.com/tools/routers/stanley/ (http://www.hyperkitten.com/tools/routers/stanley/).
The open throat created the problem that the tool could not be used on edges narrower than the opening in the arch, so Stanley introduced a "foot" that you could add to close the throat, first on an extension of the cutter clamp, then on a collar cast into the back edge of the arch. This foot and the rod on which it attaches could be flipped upside down and used as a depth gauge, too.
Time went on, and about 1939 Stanley introduced a fence on both the 71 and 71-1/2, for working a groove parallel to an edge (straight or curved). According to the websites linked above, the fence may actually have shown up a tad earlier on the No. 71-1/2. Until 1939, as I understand it, the only bell or whistle available on the No. 71 was the foot to close the arch, not necessary for obvious reasons on the No. 71-1/2.
I am slightly embarrassed to admit that I own four Stanley router planes (in addition to one of the smaller No. 271 router planes and the Lee Valley equivalent). Two are No. 71-1/2s, one is an early No. 71 (after the arched opening, before the fence), and one is a later No. 71 (with the fence). On balance from the limited use I've made of them so far*, I think I prefer the 71-1/2**; but either model can be a right useful tool. I also like, for no rational reason, the smaller/lower knobs on the older router planes; but, if I didn't own one, the knob size/shape/color wouldn't affect my decision to buy one at the right price, if I found it in the wild.
------
*Since I retired, a very high percentage of my woodworking has been carpentry on the house, catching up on years of projects, and there's been limited call for a router plane.
**Lee Valley, whose engineers are very analytical in their designs, chose to make a closed throat router. I talked by e-mail with Rob Lee, their CEO, and he confirmed that they'd decided it was a superior design. In addition its usefulness on edges, I think the closed base is probably stronger. That arch introduces some weakness as it springs up from the sole, as demonstrated by the cracked one I bought and gave to my son (he welds, so could repair it).
-
Hi Bill,
I think you did a MUCH better job of explaining the Stanley #71 “morphing process” than I did. Thanks for chipping in with the details and links. Good stuff! There’s certainly no reason to be embarrassed about having a few router planes. (Pictures are always welcome.) It might not be the most used plane in the shop, but it’s a great tool to have on hand when you need it. I’d recommend a “user” be included in everyone’s hand plane arsenal. Interesting information from Lee Valley regarding the production of a closed throat router. I’m guessing that LV wouldn’t manufacture a closed throat router if they didn’t think they could sell it. Like I said earlier, if I need a router, I reach for the closed throat version first.
Jim C.
-
Throughout the course of the thread, I’ve referred to various planes, and depicted a few, that I really like to use. Some of these planes are “specialty” tools that I don’t use as often as others, like the Rumbold butt mortise plane (see page 17, reply 254), but because they do a specific job so well they’re the tool of choice for the job at hand. Then there are a few that I can’t help but use every time wood is involved, like the Lie-Nielsen #60 ½ (see page 19, reply 270), because they’re literally staples that can’t be overlooked for their utility and versatility. Out in my shop there’s a third category of “user” planes. For lack of a better term, I’ll refer to them as “any excuse” planes. That means, any excuse I can think of to use such a tool is all I need to pull it off the shelf and put it to work. This is one of those tools…..
Stanley #605 ½:
I bought this plane over a dozen years ago as I was making my last pass through a tool show trade room in St. Charles, IL. I didn’t specifically go looking for a #605 ½, and more or less stumbled upon it. As I was heading for the door, I passed by a table full of what I remember were nice “user quality” Stanley bench planes, many of which were Bedrocks. It’s not like I had missed this seller’s table earlier and just discovered it as I was leaving. I saw his stuff, made a mental note, and kept moving. His prices were on the outer edge of reasonable and I wasn’t really looking for bench planes. So, a couple hours later as I was heading for the parking lot, my shortest walk out of the trade room took me past his table again. We made eye contact as I got closer and he asked how I did. “Okay” I said, slowed down for a second, and then I asked if he sold anything. “A couple” was the response I got. Just as I was getting ready to keep going, the front knob of this #605 ½ caught my eye. It had a distinct dark and light section that went almost down the middle of the turning. I’m guessing it’s where the sapwood met the heartwood of the tree. Every once in a while I’ll come across a plane that has unusual wood grain on its knob and/or tote. This one just caught my eye. Funny thing is that I missed it a couple hours earlier when I initially looked at the planes on his table. Well, I put my bag down and picked up this plane for a closer look. You know what happens next.
I didn’t need this plane. The price, while in the ballpark, was a little high for what I thought I was getting. The cash I budgeted was pretty much gone, and if I wanted it, I’d have to write a check. While not the end of the world, I don’t typically like to over spend the cash in my pocket. On the other hand, I didn’t have a “user” in this size, and it was an early Bedrock, which I’m drawn to. I evaluated the plane for condition, disassembled it (with the seller’s permission), and generally liked what I saw. It was complete with all vintage correct parts, its condition and patina matched its age, and it bore the signs of a life well lived but not abused. While the plane had been lightly and carefully cleaned, its finishes were original to include some chipped japanning, minor pitting on exposed cast iron and some tiny cracks and dings on the knob and tote. This is what I personally like to see on a vintage, user quality tool that at the time was almost one hundred years old. Anyway, the seller and I negotiated a little, I think I slightly overpaid and the deal was struck.
Not long after I got the plane home, I completely disassembled it, re-ground and sharpened the iron, lubricated the moving and threaded parts and put it back together. With a few adjustments, it was ready to go. I could probably ramble on and on all day long about my love for this plane, but you’d be bored. (Maybe you already are!!) Let me just say that the tool Gods were smiling when this plane was manufactured. I didn’t do anything different to this plane that I haven’t done to so many others, but for some unknown reason, it cuts like no other. It might just be one of those tools. I really can’t explain it, but that’s why it falls into my “any excuse” to use it category. I look for, and sometimes invent, jobs for this plane. I guess one of the central themes I’ve tried to relate during the course of this thread is the absolute satisfaction and inspiration that can be had from using an old plane, even if its on a simple task like building a dog ramp. (See page 46, reply 682). This plane does it for me. So there you have it. I guess I should end with a few comments about the plane itself.
Stanley produced the Bedrock #605 ½ between 1898 and 1935. The plane depicted below is a Type 4 Bedrock, which was produced between 1908 and 1910. The Type 4 was the last version of the Bedrock series that was made with the arched sides commonly seen on standard bench planes. It was also the last Bedrock to use the standard method of attaching the frog to the sole/main body casting of the plane with screws only. (For a more detailed discussion regarding Bedrock frog design/attachment, see page 42, reply 624.) In 1911, when the Type 5 Bedrocks were introduced, the arched sides were gone in favor of distinctive flat top sides and the standard screw attachment between the frog and main casting was replaced with a dimpled pin and perpendicular pointed screw arrangement. (Again, see page 42, reply 624.) Finally, one thing to note about the #605 ½ and early versions of the Stanley #5 ½ is that in 1939 the dimensions of the iron changed. The first versions of both planes were outfitted with 2 ¼” wide irons. After 1939 or so, the #5 ½ was outfitted with an iron that was 2 3/8” wide. What I’m saying is that any Stanley #605 ½ you come across should be fitted with a 2 ¼” wide iron. That iron is characteristic to the #605 ½ and early #5 ½ planes. When looking to buy a #605 ½ make sure to check the width of the iron.
Sorry this was a long one (again). Thanks for hanging in there.
Jim C.
-
A few more photos of the Stanley #605 1/2.
-
So you’ve seen one of my all time favorite user planes; the Stanley #605 1/2. Anyone else have a plane they like to use whenever possible, or one that seems to get used more often than not?
Jim C.
-
I know these don't follow your progression, but i thought i would share a couple of images. The No. 6 has the corrugated sole. For some reason I like these. One day I'll pull out a new in the box and get a picture of it.
-
Hey p.,
First off, let me thank you for joining in the conversation and posting a couple pictures. Second, I HAVE NO PROGRESSION!! Seriously, I can honestly say that I have zero game plan. All I’m trying to do is foster hand plane discussion, use, knowledge, etc. The planes and plane related topics I feature are generated by planes I might be using at the time, finding a plane in my shop that I haven’t seen lately, conversations started by people like you who read the thread, etc. Believe me, there’s no set agenda. My only request is that we keep the content focused on hand planes. If we stray off course a little now and then, that’s okay too.
If you’ve been reading along, then you know one of my all time favorite planes to use is the Stanley #71 1/2 router. Yours is a really great example. That’s one of those designs that really delivers. It’s a fantastic plane to use. If you’d like to put an age on your router, I’d highly encourage you to go back a few days to Bill Houghton’s post (reply 688), where he added a link to a couple Stanley router plane type studies.
As for your #6, well, it’s really a coincidence that you posted a picture of it and I’m not surprised that you like that it. I didn’t want to clutter up the #605 1/2 post with #6 comments because my write ups are long enough as it is, but prior to buying the #605 1/2 I featured above, my go to jointer was a #6. There are other places on the internet, and a commentator or two who don’t give the #6 enough credit. Some even disparage it saying it’s an unusual size. I really think the #6 is perfectly sized and long enough for flattening large surfaces, and for edge joining boards. There’s probably many out there who are believers in the #7 and #8 sizes, but I think they’re heavy and long, and back in the day, expensive. I suspect that more than a few craftsmen may have had the same thoughts.
Not that this is scientific by any means, but over the years, I have received many, many planes from extended family, friends, neighbors, coworkers, etc. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard, “My dad was a woodworker....” or “These planes belonged to my grandpa....” or “My uncle was a carpenter...” On those occasions, when I get what appears to be a working collection of planes, there’s always a block plane or two, always #4 smoother, and usually something longer like a #5 or #6. Only once have I ever received a #8 sized plane, and to date, never a #7. Funny thing is that I have four #6 sized planes that were given to me. I really think the #6 was preferred by many woodworkers and craftsmen over the larger sizes (#7 and #8) for their portability, usable diversity, and most bang for the buck.
Thanks for posting the photos and for jumping into the conversation. Any time you want to go in any hand plane related direction, feel free. We’ll go with you!
Jim C.
-
Hello, Jim. Thanks for all of your info with this thread!! I hope that posting block planes is within topic.These 2 block planes are dedicated to my day job/work truck. I use the 9-1/4 ( on the left) for general purpose, and the 65 for finer work, and the hardwoods.I do a lot of scribing/fitting of wood trim, cabinet stiles, , back cuts, & back bevels, etc. I keep them sharp, moving parts lightly oiled, and each has its own heavy cloth plane sock. Front knob on the 65 is not original.Regards, Lou
-
as i found them, new in the box some years ago at an old hardware store...not sure why i bought them :embarrassed:
thought you might like to see them anyway. :smiley:
-
Very nice!!!!
-
Hey Lou,
Thanks for adding some great content to the thread. Your post is EXACTLY what I hoped to see when I started the thread. There’s nothing better than seeing old planes and getting the back story too. Way back in the thread, I featured the #9 1/4 and #65 block planes (see page 1, reply 8 and page 16, reply 238 respectively). I tried to describe their uses and hoped to encourage others to give them a try. While I can write about these planes all day long, a post such as yours, that describes their real world uses, is invaluable. I can’t think of a better post to shed a bright light on the utility of hand planes. The #9 1/4 really is a nice, inexpensive, general use plane. A true workhorse. In my opinion, the #65 is probably the best block plane Stanley ever produced. It’s unquestionably the type of plane one would use for finish work. Great planes and a great post. Thanks again for jumping in. If you have any other planes you’d like to feature, particularly those that you use, please feel free to do so.
Jim C.
-
Hi p.,
I’m not gonna even try to hide my jealously. Anytime I see old planes in their original boxes, the collector part of me gets excited. Your #40 is a perfect example. Do you use it? The #40 is one of those planes that I’d recommend every woodworker have. It’s typically the first one I grab when I start to flatten rough boards. It’s a must have tool for sure. Your #75 is another nice plane. A small rabbet plane will always have a place in my shop. A couple years ago, my #75 was one of my “go to” planes during a window sash project I had going on. You have two really nice NOS planes. I’m envious! Thanks for the photos!
Jim C.
-
Somewhere back in the thread, I may have mentioned the Midwest Tool Collectors Association. I’m guessing that some of you are members. If not, it’s a great organization that’s dedicated to old tools. What could be better than that? They’re website is easy to find. If you’re not familiar with MWTCA, I encourage you to check them out. Every year, MWTCA puts on two national meets; one in the Spring and one in the Fall. The Spring meet is this weekend in Lansing, MI. If you like hunting for old tools and talking to like minded tool collectors/enthusiasts, this is the place for you. Anyone going?
Jim C.
-
i would like that a lot. Used to go to fleamarkets and yard sales and stuff (BC), but a lot of that got put on a back burner as the kids were growing up and i haven't gotten back into it. Anyway, suspect i would be banned for :embarrassed: drool.
-
Anyway, suspect i would be banned for :embarrassed: drool.
Just carry an empty cup as you peruse the tables.
-
Hey p.,
I’ll bring an extra paper cup for you! I’m going with a shopping list. Rarely do I ever come home with anything on the list because I usually see something else that I absolutely gotta have. I usually can’t pass up a good block plane, I might go for the occasional Bedrock, and always have my radar on high alert for a Sargent Autoset. Everything else is fair game too. It just depends on how something strikes me. Sometimes I go with a collector mentality and other times with a user mentality. It just kind of hits me when I get there. I’ll try to stay disciplined, use my flashlight and magnifying glass when necessary, and have fun. I’ll try to take a few photos too.
Jim C.
-
..........and always have my radar on high alert for a Sargent Autoset........
Jim C.
Yesterday I mentioned that I'd be going to the MWTCA meet this weekend in Lansing, MI., and I also said this... (see quote above) Well, about twenty five minutes after I got there and started walking around, I spotted this!!! See it right there in the middle of the picture? Is that a super clean 710 Autoset?
Jim C.
-
See it right there in the middle of the picture? Is that a super clean 710 Autoset? Look at that!!
Jim C.
What, no picture of it in the trunk of your car, or cradled in your arms, or something like that? I hope it jumped into your car.
-
Have no fear Bill, I wasn't leaving without that plane. It rode home covered by a thick old athletic sock in my "kit" bag (remember that post?) which was on the front passenger seat of my car. I still can't believe I was lucky enough to find it first. I hadn't even made it through the entire room or saw everything that was available when I made the deal. I usually like to see everything and then start making a list of planes that I liked as I walk around. I rank them in order from most desired to least and then I go back to where I saw them, starting with the one I liked the most. Well, I had this feeling that if I walked away, and there was just one other Autoset collector in the room, I might miss out. It wouldn't have been the first time I walked away to think things over and then came back to find that the plane was gone! Not this time. I know that somewhere back in the thread I mentioned that Autosets were some of my all time favorites. Anyway, I kept my cool, went through a complete and detailed assessment of the plane using my magnifying glass, flashlight and notes on Autoset planes. After really checking it out, to include having the seller disassemble it, I satisfied myself that it was an untouched, relatively early example of a Sargent #710 Autoset. The parts were all vintage correct, the numbers were right, and the condition was amazing. We negotiated a price and that was that.....then I reassembled it since it was now my plane. Im still giddy about it! I'll definitely feature the plane in detail at some point in the future.
Jim C.
-
I usually like to see everything and then start making a list of planes that I liked as I walk around. I rank them in order from most desired to least and then I go back to where I saw them, starting with the one I liked the most. Well, I had this feeling that if I walked away, and there was just one other Autoset collector in the room, I might miss out. It wouldn't have been the first time I walked away to think things over and then came back to find that the plane was gone!
Over on Old Woodworking Machines (acronym: OWWM), the group has, over the years, developed a list of rules related to the gathering and use of the machines. This rule is relevant here: "OWWM Rule No. 5: In the time between finding a machine and asking others [or yourself, in this case] if you should buy it someone else will come to the proper conclusion."
Glad you were the first person with one on the life list to have spotted it.
-
Hello, Jim. nice find!!!! Regards, Lou
-
I usually like to see everything and then start making a list of planes that I liked as I walk around. I rank them in order from most desired to least and then I go back to where I saw them, starting with the one I liked the most. Well, I had this feeling that if I walked away, and there was just one other Autoset collector in the room, I might miss out. It wouldn't have been the first time I walked away to think things over and then came back to find that the plane was gone!
Over on Old Woodworking Machines (acronym: OWWM), the group has, over the years, developed a list of rules related to the gathering and use of the machines. This rule is relevant here: "OWWM Rule No. 5: In the time between finding a machine and asking others [or yourself, in this case] if you should buy it someone else will come to the proper conclusion."
Glad you were the first person with one on the life list to have spotted it.
Hey Bill,
I visit the OWWM website frequently. I don’t post too much, but I do enjoy reading some of the threads. I’m a die-hard Delta fan. That’s another one of my interests and a topic for a different thread. I’m familiar with the “rules” over there. Some of them are pretty humorous. Over the years, I’ve missed out a few nice planes because I wanted to think it over. I’m not exactly sure why I didn’t pull the trigger, but there must have been a reason. I’m guessing that the planes were right between nice user quality and collector quality. Those are tough calls. Most of the planes I’ve overpaid for typically fall into that category. On the other hand, when the plane was unquestionably right, and clearly a top condition, collector quality tool, I had no trouble going all in. That Sargent #710 yesterday was an easy decision.
Jim C.
-
Hello, Jim. nice find!!!! Regards, Lou
Thanks Lou. Considering the fact that the plane is about one hundred years old, I’m very happy to have added it to my collection. While the #710 is probably the most common of the Sargent Autoset series, what makes this one special is its condition. I saw a lot of nice stuff and tons of great user quality planes. I did come home with a couple users too. For the most part, I go with a budget. When it’s gone, or mostly gone, I’m done. It’s really easy to get carried away if you’re not careful.
Jim C.
-
Several years ago I bought a poster depicting the H.O. Studley tool chest. If you engage in even the most basic woodworking projects, you’re likely very familiar with this tool chest and its contents. The wall mounted tool chest is an absolute work of ingenious, functional art that’s filled with more than three hundred tools, several of which are old Stanleys to include a #9 block plane and a #1 bench plane to name a few. Anyway, like I said, I’ve had the poster hanging in my shop for several years now. I think I bought it and hung it in my shop for inspiration. While I am inspired by it, I doubt I’ll ever make anything as beautiful or as brilliant as that tool chest. It’s really a classic. Mr. Studley, its creator, worked as a craftsman at the Poole Piano Company into his eighties. He died in 1925. Maybe you’re wondering where I’m going with this. I’ll get to the point. Well, this past weekend I was out in the shop working on a drawer for the vanity in my master bathroom, when I stopped to look at that poster hanging on the wall. I wasn’t looking for inspiration considering the fact that I was just making a simple drawer. Still, for some reason, I studied the poster and out of the blue, asked myself, “I wonder if there’s a Stanley #97 somewhere in that tool chest?” After all, one of the most iconic tool chests of all time belonged to a piano maker. In its inventory of tools, was there a #97 chisel plane?
Stanley #97:
This might be another example of Stanley trying to fill a niche in the woodworking world, this time specifically aimed at piano makers. Part of Stanley’s description and adverting associated with this plane mentioned that it would be useful to piano makers and cabinetmakers. Hhmm, piano makers……. Although I’ve had that poster for a while now, I never even remotely wondered if Mr. Studley used a #97 or if he just used chisels in its place. The Stanley #97 was in production from 1905 to 1943, so it would have been available in Mr. Studley’s time. Prior to writing this post, I did a little research and could not conclusively determine if a Stanley #97 chisel plane was included in the tool chest or not. If someone reading this knows for sure, please let the rest of us know.
As one can see, a chisel plane is an extremely specialized tool. It’s really most perfect for cleaning up internal corners (like glue squeeze out) in cabinets (and pianos I guess). The same job could probably be accomplished with a sharp chisel, however, the sole of the plane might keep the iron from digging it, which could happen with a chisel held at a high angle. It’s an interesting plane for sure, but not necessarily one that I’d put near the top of my “must have” list to use. At ten inches long, it’s hardly compact enough for internal cabinet work. I often wondered why Stanley didn’t make a smaller version. You may recall that a while back, I featured a Lie-Nielsen chisel plane, the #97 ½ (see page 11, reply 164) that was modeled after the Stanley #97. At six and a half inches long, the L-N #97 ½ made more sense I think. L-N also made a full size (ten inch long) #97, but ceased production at some point, perhaps because the larger version just didn’t sell. As far as I know, L-N’s smaller version is still in production and sells for about $140. That’s a lot of money for a specialty tool, but in this particular instance, if one really wants a chisel plane to use, then it’s the way to go. Original Stanley’s, in undamaged condition (which I’ll discuss), typically sell for several hundred dollars.
If one were to remove the pressure cap and iron, he/she would see that the leading edge of the plane’s sole tapers down to essentially nothing. Can you imagine how easily it would chip? A small chip or two probably would not effect the plane’s function, but to a collector……forget it. I’ve seen more that a few that have been chipped. The front corners are also something to watch out for. Those can also be damaged, chipped etc. I’ve read more than once that Stanley very slightly relieved the front corners to avoid that problem. I’ve seen planes with relieved corners, and some with ninety-degree corners. Might both have been Stanley factory induced, or a later “cleanup job” by a less than honest vintage tool enthusiast/collector/dealer? The point is simple; look closely at the front edge and corners if you’re considering a #97 for your collection.
Believe it or not, as basic as this plane seems, it did undergo a few changes during its production run. I think a Type study concluded there were seven Types that were manufactured between 1905 and 1943. As one can see, its iron advancement/retraction screw mechanism was very similar to many of Stanley’s common block planes. One of the more significant improvements was added to the main body casting around 1907. Look closely at the sidewall cut outs/arcs. See that quarter spherical bump on either side of the iron adjustment screw? I suspect those “bumps” were added to the casting for purposes of providing strength to the casting itself. By opening the sidewalls up so easy access to the iron adjustment screw could be achieved, perhaps a weak spot was created across the casting beneath the screw mechanism. I guess it's possible that if a craftsperson really got behind the plane and pushed the leading edge into a corner of a workpiece, the plane might crack at its weakest point......probably right under those arcs. The bumps must have added some bulk to the casting and solved the problem to some extent.
The plane depicted below is a Type 6 that was most likely manufactured between 1931 and 1935. Notice that it has a tall rear knob, much like one might see on the front of a typical bench plane. That’s a correct knob for that time period of #97 production. Pre and very early Type 6 planes came with lower, more-squat looking rear knobs. Also, the barrel nut holding the knob to the threaded post was nickel plated later in production. Earlier barrel nuts were polished brass.
As always, if you’re looking to add an original Stanley #97 to your collection, look it over carefully and do your homework. Really scrutinize the front edge of the main casting!! And if you really want to use a chisel plane, buy the Lie-Nielsen version or possibly use the back half of a 90 series rabbet plane (see page 2, reply 25).
Jim C.
-
A few more photos of the Stanley #97.
-
Info about the H.O. Studley tool chest and a list of the tools...
http://ggober.com/shop/documents/FW_Studley_Smithsonian.pdf
-
Great link p.!!!! So did Mr. Studley have a #97?
-
I didn't see one on the list (it kinda jumps around how things are listed).
Just realized I have a Stanley No. 82 hiding out in the garage and i may have to try to clean it up a bit and get a few pictures to share.
-
Hi p.,
I did do some research prior to submitting the post regarding Mr. Studley and the #97. I couldn’t find anything saying that he had and/or used a #97. We may never know if we can’t find a comprehensive list of all the tools in the chest. The list must exist, but I couldn’t find it. We do know that Stanley thought there were enough piano makers out there who would benefit from owning a #97. They carried it in their product line for thirty eight years. Who knows? Maybe we’ll get the answer at some point in the future.
As for your #82, well, let’s see it!
Jim C.
-
That PDF link supposedly has a list of all the tools that were in the chest.
-
Hi p.,
I checked the link you posted again and at the end of the article, there is an inventory of tools, but the write up says it’s a “partial list.” I don’t think a #97 is included.
Jim C.
-
After adding the Stanley #97 chisel plane post, I got to thinking about some reference materials I saved regarding #97 prototypes that were under consideration at Stanley. Sometimes it’s easy to forget, or not even think about what goes into product development. I typically get caught up in the final design of a plane without giving too much thought to how the plane became the tool that was mass-produced and offered to the public. Why was one design chosen over another? Why did one feature make the cut while another did not? More than once I’ve asked myself, “What were they thinking when they came up with this?”
The photos below are actual #97 prototypes. Notice the high angle on the 1870 – 1875 version, and the traditional looking bench plane rear tote. It appears that Stanley considered using a bench plane lever cap as well. Decades later, the plane’s angle decreased dramatically, however, the bench plane tote and level cap were still being tinkered with even in 1907, two years after the plane was in production. In the end, Stanley stayed with the knob over the tote, and the block plane-like pressure cap in favor of the bench plane lever cap. While I can’t say for sure why the knob was used rather than the tote, perhaps the block plane pressure cap worked better with the block plane iron adjustment screw/mechanism, which was the design used on the mass produced versions of the #97. Since the plane is most suited to cleaning up internal cabinet and piano corners, maybe the tall bench plane tote didn’t make sense in confined areas so the shorter knob was used instead.
Makes me wonder what sort of prototypes were considered during the R&D stages of planes (contraptions) like the #171 router or the #444 dovetail plane.
Jim C.
-
Finally getting around to open the boxes from the 900 pounds of planes I brought up from Florida. Moved on February 21st, don't think I ever want to move again. Will take months to go through this stuff, first couple of boxes brought up these two 15 inch No. 5 1/2 bodies. I have identified the one on the left as a Rockford (will you agree ??) but have no idea about the one on the right----it is not in great shape anyway, but would like to identify it if possible. The Rockford ? is grooved, actually 15 1/8 inches long and 2 3/4 inches wide. The No 05 1/2 is 15 inches long and 2 9/16 inches wide.
-
Hey coolford,
Thanks for checking in. I’m not familiar with Rockford hand planes, but I’m ready to be educated! Tell us what you know. Do you have the rest of the parts for your plane? When was it made? I’m glad to hear your collection is in the “unpacking phase” of your move. I’m looking forward to seeing A LOT MORE of it.
Jim C.
-
Well I did do a little research on Rockford hand planes. They are identified with a letter “R” on their casting along with the plane’s size on the heel or toe. Apparently they were manufactured in Rockford, Illinois, (about 1915 - 1924), and came in sizes 3 through 8. I’m assuming those are the commonly known bench plane sizes utilized by Stanley and others. All sizes were manufactured with smooth and corrugated soles. Rockfords were also available in #4 1/2 and #5 1/2 sizes. I couldn’t find any information regarding block planes manufactured by Rockford. Anyway, to answer coolford’s question, I would agree that he has a partial Rockford plane. I hope he has the rest of it!!
Jim C.
-
I haven't had the need nor desire to learn all there is to know about hand planes but read the post in here and have garnered a lot from all you all. I am far from a cabinet maker, more like a poor excuse for a framer.
-
Jim C----Thanks for the information, I have the frog, front knob and tote, but have yet to find a blade and curler, but it may be in one of the other 50+ boxes. Actually I'm a name collector, not a Stanley collector although I have a lot of Stanley planes. However, I didn't have a Rockford and now I have one. As you can suspect, I have a lot of what most Stanley collectors consider junk planes since I'm interested in the names. Another plane that was in one of the first boxes was a "Duty", at least that is what is on the blade and on the body is "Made in USA". It is a No.5, nice cast body and frog and painted bright blue.
-
I'm hardly the hand plane expert, and would more likely categorize myself as an enthusiastic user and collector. The best education one can receive is usually self imposed. If this thread acts as a catalyst for that curious individual to take the next step, then that's great.
Hi bill300d,
Thanks for stopping by the Hand Plane thread. Way, way, way back in the thread, I said this ^^^^. So, no need to qualify yourself here. If the thread inspires you to learn a little more about hand planes, or causes you to try one out, then my mission has been accomplished. I hope you’ll keep checking in and will not hesitate to add to the discussion.
Jim C.
-
Jim C----Thanks for the information, I have the frog, front knob and tote, but have yet to find a blade and curler, but it may be in one of the other 50+ boxes. Actually I'm a name collector, not a Stanley collector although I have a lot of Stanley planes. However, I didn't have a Rockford and now I have one. As you can suspect, I have a lot of what most Stanley collectors consider junk planes since I'm interested in the names. Another plane that was in one of the first boxes was a "Duty", at least that is what is on the blade and on the body is "Made in USA". It is a No.5, nice cast body and frog and painted bright blue.
Hey coolford,
Based on my recently self imposed crash course on Rockford planes, I think the irons were stamped with the word “ROCKFORD” in a semi-circular design, and if I got it right, the knob and tote were made of walnut. That might look kinda nice! If you have all the parts, I’m hoping you’ll get them all assembled and show us an example of a Rockford bench plane.
As for your collecting habits, and what you like, that’s up to you. I personally would like to see what other manufacturers were producing. I’m mostly a Stanley collector, but this is not an exclusively Stanley hand plane thread. I mostly feature old Stanleys only because that’s what I have. I hope that won’t stop you from showing us other planes from other manufacturers! Let’s start with that Rockford.
Jim C.
-
Jim-C---Lets not start with Rockford, it will take me some time to get around to restoring it. Here is a little old Moulson Brothers plane that I like for its small size. This one came to me by way of my grandfather who had several planes. I tried using this one several times but finally gave up, adjusting the blade with the wedge is time consuming and I don't think I ever got it just right.---coolford
-
coolford,
Wow, nice little plane, and even better that you know where it came from! As an heirloom, that’s definitely one to hang on to. You made an interesting observation that has occurred to me almost every time I’ve had a wooden plane in my hand, that is, I haven’t really mastered the technique necessary to adjust it. I think there’s some mysterious science to tapping it just right and in the right spot to make fine adjustments. I haven’t had much success and my early failures kept me away from subsequent attempts. Practice would probably make all the difference in the world. Since you brought up the subject, I may as well be honest and admit that not knowing the technique for adjusting wooden planes is probably the number one reason I don’t use them. I have just a few that were given to me, but I consciously avoid them in favor of the familiar/easy to use “cast iron.” I’m absolutely sure that I’m missing out on a whole segment of planes that would be great to try out and collect. Based on my severe lack of storage space, maybe it’s best that I stick to what I know!
Anyway, thanks for posting a couple pictures of your Moulson plane. Do you know anything about the manufacturer?
Jim C.
-
Jim-C---I really know nothing about Moulson Brothers except that they were from Sheffield, England. Their planes can be found on e-bay and are generally inexpensive. Here is a little Stanley catalog that I acquired when I bought a pile of how to do it books at a farm auction a few years ago. Stanley Rule & Level Co. Catalog No. 102 which according to information inside was published in 1900. The cover is faded and has some roach feeding, inside it is fine except that some of the pages are loose.----Coolford
-
The last few days I’ve been looking at the thread index trying to determine where to go next, and skimming through a few of the pages reading some of the topics we covered in the past. I was also looking at a few photos I took while I was at the MWTCA meet a couple weeks ago in Lansing, Michigan. One plane that seemed to keep popping up here in the thread and at the tool meet in Lansing was the Stanley #62 block plane. I featured the #62 way back on page 39, reply 577. When I featured the #62, one of the main points I tried to make regarding the plane was the fragility of its throat. They crack almost by just giving them a dirty look! I’m not exaggerating when I say that at least half of those I see at swap meets etc. are cracked behind the throat where the casting tapers to nothing.
While I was in the trade room in Lansing, I ran across three different #62 block planes up for sale by three different gentlemen. Two of them were cracked right behind the throat. If you look at the photo below, you’ll see what initially looks like a user quality #62 right in the middle of a group of planes. See it? At first glance, one will see that the rear tote has a pretty good-sized piece missing at the top. While not critical to the plane’s performance, remember that the correct rear tote on a #62 is specific to the plane itself. I’ve seen those totes sold separately from time to time, and as one may guess, they’re expensive. For a trip down memory (maybe bad memory) lane, go back and review my post on “chasing parts” (page 43, reply 643).
Anyway, even though the rear tote was chipped, I still had to look at the throat. EVERY TIME I see a #62, I pick it up and look at the throat. EVERY SINGLE TIME! It’s an irresistible compulsion. So I picked it up and sure enough, there it was, another cracked throat! What I found refreshing however, was the fact that the seller added a small piece of brown masking tape to the sole with a red arrow drawn on it, clearly pointing out the flaw. The crack could hardly go unnoticed, but the seller wanted to make sure, and I appreciated the effort. Although I’ve seen many cracked #62 planes, that was the first time I can recall a seller making a little extra effort to voluntarily point it out.
Unfortunately, this #62 is probably an expensive parts plane now. Like I’ve said in the past, unless you’re going into the plane parts business, avoid buying incomplete and/or damaged examples.
Jim C.
-
Hi Coolford,
Thanks for posting that catalog page! Wow! Wouldn’t it be great to have a time machine? Back in 1900 when that catalog was printed, I’m sure no one thought the planes depicted on just that one page would be worth a few thousand dollars! A #9, #62, #97, #131....... Great picture! If you feel like posting a few more photos from your catalog, I think we’d all appreciate it. That catalog is certainly a nice resource when it comes to putting a time frame on a plane’s age. Thanks again for the post.
Jim C.
-
Digging up some more tools to sell, I found several planes that have come to me in lots. I am no plane user in general, so they aren't much in my wheelhouse.
Looks like a Stanley 110, a Craftsman 10" jack, a Sargent 14" jack, and two transitionals 14".
More pictures available.
-
Hi Papaw,
It looks like you have a few good user quality planes. With just a little clean up and a sharp iron, they’d be ready to go back to work. That #110 looks like it needs a new front knob. Those are pretty common so you shouldn’t have too much trouble finding one for about $10 - $15 depending on condition.
Jim C.
-
Okay, so the last plane I featured was the Stanley #97 chisel plane. I’m not so sure that was a fan favorite here. The #97 is definitely a specialty tool that provides a little more versatility out in the shop, but probably not enough to put high on one’s “must have” list, nor worth the expense to buy one for occasional use when another more affordable tool will get the job done. If you didn’t know the #97 existed, now you know. So maybe we should get back to the bare bones basics.
Stanley #220:
Now even if you’re not much into woodworking but are engaged in a project that needs a little adjustment to make things go together, this block plane will probably fit the bill perfectly. The Stanley #220 is a general-purpose block plane designed for what I would call construction type work. It’s not really made for fine finish work like the Stanley #65 block plane for instance. (See page 16, reply 238.) Unlike the #65’s adjustable throat and iron bedded at a low twelve degrees, the #220 has a fixed throat and features a cutting iron that’s bedded at about twenty three degrees, or a few degrees higher than the standard twenty degrees found on many other block planes. (For a detailed discussion on the bedded angles of Stanley block planes, refer back to Bill Houghton’s insightful comments on page 22, reply 325. The #220 is essentially a larger version of the Stanley #203. See page 22, reply 319. Also see the two side-by-side comparison photos below.) Although Stanley did not design the #220 to be a high end plane, it still incorporates the same iron advancement and retraction mechanism found on many other Stanley block plane patterns to include a couple that were higher end tools, like the #62 for example. That is a nice feature to have to achieve those fine advancement and retraction adjustments. However, notice that it does not have a lateral adjustment lever. Another nice feature but not available on the #220. Based on the simple design of the #220 and its lack of some desirable mechanical adjustments and features found on other block planes, the #220 is easy to use and screams out to a DIYer who needs a block plane to simply take a few long shavings off the edge of a deck board to make it fit perfectly between two others, or to a gardener who needs to round the edges of a support stake to keep it from cutting into a plant’s leaves, stems, vegetables, etc. It’s a plane that can be used in the garage, backyard, jobsite, and anywhere one needs the utility of a tool that can do a respectable job of removing a thin to medium shaving of wood.
Although you may not have noticed it, if you’ve ever been to a garage sale, or a flea market, or a tool swap meet, there’s bound to have been a Stanley #220 for sale. I see them everywhere. This is one of Stanley’s most common, easy to find block planes. It was produced from 1898 well into the 1980s. There are probably millions of them out there in the wild. That being said, don’t buy one that’s damaged or incomplete. With just a little looking around, I promise you’ll come across another one at the next flea market in good user quality condition. Typically, the little rosewood knob on those examples I’ve seen at garage sales, etc., is often missing. The knobs are pretty easy to find, but depending on their condition, they can cost right around ten dollars give or take. A complete #220 in user condition probably isn’t worth much more than ten dollars, so why double the cost of the plane by paying for parts? Even though this is a common inexpensive plane be mindful of its condition. Buy a good one to use and don’t compromise on one that’s been beaten badly and/or neglected. Finally, don’t expect fine finish work results from a tool that was designed for general-purpose/construction use. Frustration only results from using a plane on a job it was not intended to do. Like a lot of planes, a super sharp iron is half the battle. With the #220, a sharp iron is pretty much the whole battle. This plane performs like a champ when one’s expectations are realistic, and the plane is put to the right task.
Jim C.
-
The #220 block plane is pretty common and I’m guessing that some of you reading along in the thread probably have one in your collection and/or tool box. I picked up a good “user” several years ago and did put it to work replacing a few bad boards on my parents deck and then rounding over the edges of a few tomato plant stakes in my mom’s garden......hence the examples in the #220 write up above. Anyone else use a #220 or something similar? Anyone have a favorite block plane they find themselves using more than any other in their collection?
Jim C.
-
I hope you all enjoy a Happy 4th of July with family and friends!
Jim C.
-
Hello, Jim. Thanks for posting, and a Happy 4th of July to all!! Regards, Lou
-
I was at a farm auction and a fellow Mid-West member (not a friend) was standing next to me. A Wards Master No. 7 plane came up in near mint condition and I bid on it and got it for $12.00. The quote from the other member was "You will buy anything". Well, that is probably true if the price is right, if I don't have it in my collection. Another example is a Sears Companion No. 4 plane that I bought at a garage sale a couple of weeks ago for $3.00. I didn't have one so I bought it and cleaned it up. I sharpened the iron and used it last week, seems just as good as a Stanley No.4. Here are a couple of pictures of the two planes I discussed. Note---I'm not looking down on Stanley collectors, I have a lot of Stanley planes including a No.1 and a No.2.
HAVE A GREAT 4th!!!!!
-
Hi Lou,
That’s a nice looking Liberty Bell smoother, not to mention a real old timer. It’s my understanding that Stanley started making those in 1876 to commemorate the one hundredth anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence. At least that’s what I’ve always heard. I have a feeling you probably knew that, and choose to post a picture of your plane today, for that very reason! Well played. I think Stanley stopped manufacturing Liberty Bell planes in 1918. So, your plane is at least one hundred years old! There’s a Liberty Bell type study on the web somewhere that would probably help us better approximate the age of your plane. I’ll keep an eye out for it. Thanks posting a photo. If you’d like to post a few more, that would be great!
Jim C.
-
Hello, Coolford. Those are very nice looking tools!!! Thanks for posting, Lou
-
Hello, Jim. Thanks!! I thought the Liberty Bell would be a good fit for today. I may have another one around here, I will need to do some digging. While I have this one out, I will try to do the Type study. Regards, Lou
-
Talking about type studies, I bought some planes at a garage sale last weekend and this small block plane was in the group. Looked like a Stanley 16 1/2 but the picture showed a number on the side. Today had a little time and decided to try and figure out just what it might be. Best I can do is a 16 1/2 type 16 which checks out for the pat. dates and the iron. I have it apart and will now attempt to clean it up.
-
I was at a farm auction and a fellow Mid-West member (not a friend) was standing next to me. A Wards Master No. 7 plane came up in near mint condition and I bid on it and got it for $12.00. The quote from the other member was "You will buy anything". Well, that is probably true if the price is right, if I don't have it in my collection. Another example is a Sears Companion No. 4 plane that I bought at a garage sale a couple of weeks ago for $3.00. I didn't have one so I bought it and cleaned it up. I sharpened the iron and used it last week, seems just as good as a Stanley No.4. Here are a couple of pictures of the two planes I discussed. Note---I'm not looking down on Stanley collectors, I have a lot of Stanley planes including a No.1 and a No.2.
HAVE A GREAT 4th!!!!!
Hi coolford,
Those are two nice bench planes that were sold by huge retail store competitors, Sears and Montgomery Wards. The funny thing is that while both planes were offered by different retailers, I’d guess that both planes were very likely manufactured by Stanley. No need to qualify your comments to Stanley collectors. I think you may have two Stanleys in disguise and the price for each was right!
Jim C.
-
Every once in a while, a plane has come into my possession with a back-story. If you peruse back through the thread, you’ll read about a few planes I came across that were more than just tools I bought somewhere along the line. If there’s some background behind the plane, I try to relate that to the readers. I really enjoy knowing the history of a plane, when it was manufactured, who owned it, etc. That’s not always possible. For many of the planes in my collection, I don’t have those answers and never will. Although I don’t have those answers, many of those planes that were initially obtained as user tools or additions to my collection and became just as special to me because of the history I created using them, or the lessons I learned because of them.
Prior to featuring this next plane, I tried to organize my thoughts in terms of how I’d present the plane, yet still cover all the points I wanted to make. You see, this plane, and its later successor, hit on several topics and points I’ve tried to make throughout the thread. Based on my track record, many of you are probably thinking, “Oh boy, this is gonna be a long one.” Well, if I tried to write it all in one post, it would be a long one! I’ll spare you having to suffer through my ramblings all at once. Because this particular plane does have a story or two attached to it as well as a couple of lessons learned, I think it makes sense to present the content in two or three posts. I’ll try to keep it interesting.
Way back in the thread, I wrote a little about my first serious encounter using hand planes. You might recall it had to do with making an island/table in my kitchen. (See page 9, reply 121.) Do you remember that? Anyway, not too long after my relatively successful purchase and use of two expensive Lie-Nielsen hand planes, and a resulting over inflated confidence in my hand plane skills and knowledge, I decided to venture into the world of vintage hand planes, mostly because I thought they’d be less expensive than their L-N counterparts. I had been doing some research and actually bought a couple old block planes at garage sales for only a few dollars each. One I recall was a Stanley #15 in its original box. I sharpened the iron and was on my way. I had just purchased a pretty good Stanley #4 ½ smoother too, that I had barely figured out and was already thinking it’s time to move on to something a little more exotic. How hard could it be to buy old hand planes online? Seemed easy enough. So I started searching for old planes on the Internet. Not long after arriving in the cyber world of vintage tools, I came across a well-known antique tool dealer who held, and still holds auctions on a regular basis. His auctions described practically every hand plane as being in “fine” condition and still retaining “95%” or more of its original japanning, etc. Part of every listing included an anticipated sales price range and text that said something like “Complete and in good working order.” accompanied by a small photo. That’s what I had to go on, and without doing a lick of homework in any way, I jumped in with both feet. I opened an auction account and after looking at the planes up for auction, for reasons I honestly cannot remember, decided I needed a Stanley #289 rabbet plane. I hardly knew what a rabbet plane did, as I was still making rabbet joints on a router table, or with a stacked dado blade on my table saw. One might think I’d go after something a little less expensive like a common Stanley #78 for instance. No, I needed the #289. The auction house seemed reputable (TO BE ABSOLUTELY CLEAR, IT WAS AND STILL IS.), so I put in a healthy absentee bid based entirely on the listed anticipated sales price. I wanted to win the auction. Did I mention I put in a healthy bid? Not understanding that my over aggressive bid had set the starting mark for that particular plane, and because I had grossly overbid right out of the gate, no one on the auction floor bid, and I had evidently outbid all other absentee bids. About a week later, I got an email saying I had won the auction. I probably should have read up a little more on “buyer’s premiums” and “shipping costs” too. Needless to say, I ended up with a “fine” user quality plane that was “complete and in good working order.” More than twenty five years later, I still remember to the penny what I paid for that plane! I should say, what I OVER paid for that plane. That was the first serious case I suffered of “hand plane buyer’s remorse” and I still had no clue how to use a rabbet plane. Well that plane sat in my shop for about five years. I tinkered with it now and then, but I never really used it. . . .
My grandma on my mom’s side was a gem in every way. She was the definition of what every grandma should be. She was an amazing quilter, a respectable china painter, and a collector of small jewelry boxes. None of the boxes were valuable, but more like sentimental keepsakes she had received over the years from grandchildren or purchased during weekend trips to where ever. Anyway, after a holiday dinner a few years before she passed, she was directing me where to put a folding table in the back of a bedroom closet. On the dresser in the room was her collection of jewelry boxes. Out of the blue, she asked me if I could make a shadow box or small cabinet to display them. I said I’d give it a try. Her only request was that I construct the cabinet from wood that was still in my grandpa’s shop in the basement. He was very frugal and his projects were more often than not constructed from old pallets he accumulated. I went into the basement and found a little poplar, walnut and cedar. Okay, I had the wood, and I made a promise to my grandma.
Before I left, I made templates of the jewelry box bottoms, and took a few height measurements from each. A day or so after I got back home, I came up with a small cabinet design that included sliding dovetails, a few drawers with raised panel bottoms and a carcass that featured a raised panel back set in grooves. Prior to cutting even a single piece of wood, I had decided I was going to use my little hand plane collection as much as possible. . . including my #289. I spent the next several days practicing cutting rabbet joints with and across the grain using the #289. Without getting into the details of the Stanley #289 (which will be featured in part 2 of the #289 post sequence), I eventually built up enough confidence and practical skill to cut the rabbets on the panels of the drawer bottoms and the cabinet back using that plane. The cabinet took me a couple weeks to make and I ultimately gave it to her shortly thereafter. She displayed those jewelry boxes in the cabinet until she passed. After she was gone, the collection of jewelry boxes was dispersed to grand daughters and the cabinet came back to me. In the next post, I’ll tell you a little more about the #289.
Jim C.
-
Hello, Jim. Nicely done!!! I love the fact that you used the re-claimed wood, and the hand planes. Great back story, too!! Regards, Lou
-
Hi Lou,
Thanks for stopping by and making it through the post. Sorry for the length. Also thanks for the compliments! Much appreciated. I’ll admit that once I had that back panel blank cut to size, I was a little nervous about trying to cut those rabbets by hand. I had been practicing on scrap, and struggled a little cutting across the grain. Getting the plane’s left side spur set just right and keeping it sharp was the trick I needed to learn. Cutting with the grain took practice too. With the spur retracted, the key is to keep the fence tight against the edge of the board. It’s easy to get off track if the grain of the wood pulls the cutting iron and fence in a direction that strays away from the board’s edge. As you might guess, a super sharp cutting iron is a must! I didn’t have any extra pallet wood for a second try. As you can see, I had to piece together some very different colored poplar to make the back panel. Over the years, with the exception of that one stripe on the back, the cabinet has taken on a pretty consistent amber color. The carcass, back panel and drawer fronts are poplar. The compartment partitions, shelves and drawer pulls are walnut. The drawer sides, backs and bottom panels are cedar. I fitted the drawers almost exclusively using my Stanley #15 block plane.
The cabinet was a nice project that helped me improve my woodworking and hand planing skills. Acquiring the #289 was a hard lesson into the world of absentee bidding, but more importantly, a lesson in doing my homework as it relates to truly determining a plane’s condition and value.
Jim C.
-
Nice work Jim. I allways enjoy reading your posts.
-
Hey gibson,
Thanks for reading along. I know that at least a few people are following the thread. Regardless, I’m always wondering what readers like, don’t like, want to see more of, want to see less of, etc. I know a lot of the posts are long. Trying to keep them on topic and hopefullly interesting is challenging sometimes. When I decided to feature the #289 depicted above, I got to thinking about how much I could say about it in terms of how I acquired it, mistakes I made, what I used it for, its features, chasing parts, and the acquisition of a second example. I couldn’t cover it all in one post, or even two. That’s when I start wondering, “When have the readers had enough of this plane?” There’s a time factor on my end too. A typical post featuring one plane, including photos, editing, etc., start to finish, usually takes me about two and one half to three hours to complete. If I cover everything I want to cover as it pertains to the #289, I’ll have about eight or nine hours invested in the process. I will admit that I have intentionally avoided doing features on some planes specifically because I know the investment in time will be great. Some of that is my own fault. I want every post to be just right and that sometimes bogs me down. Anyway, thanks for checking in and staying with the thread. Feel free to add some content too. I always like to see what others have in their collections! Stay tuned. There’s more on the Stanley #289 to follow.
Jim C.
-
Jim,
Thank you for a great write-up. I suspect it takes a lot of time and effort and now that i'm out here more often i try to read all of your updates. I would have to believe that you're not the only one here who has overpaid for something in our heat of "have to have it". :embarrassed: Please continue! :smiley:
Peter
-
Hi Peter,
I’m glad you’re staying up to date with the thread! Don’t be afraid to jump in at any time. As for over paying, I’m not sure I made it clear in the initial post. Probably out of embarrassment more than anything, I left it a little vague. Well, now that we’re here, when I say I over paid, I mean I paid like the plane was gem mint NOS still in its original gem mint box. That’s what I’m talking about! I don’t want to give too much away, but stick with me to the end of the #289 posts. There is some irony in the story and a twist of good luck. Hang in there.
Jim C.
-
Nice work Jim. I allways enjoy reading your posts.
+1
-
Jim C----I'm learning a lot from your thread, being wordy is no problem for me. Takes many words to explain many of the non-obvious differences. Now for some of your and others knowledge. Went to an estate auction yesterday and there were over 100 planes as just part of it along with every other type of old tool. I bought 16 planes for just over $100.00. Some good some not so good and will show them over the next few weeks. The one I am showing is a Stanley No. 129. It came along with another semi junk plane, a Stanley No. 605 1/2 round top. Look closely at the first picture---location of the screws and then the second picture with the side missing. Someone has taken it apart and planed off the side down to the opening (they used a stationary electric planer as the job is perfect). One can tell what was used as there are some very fine lines from nicks in the planer blade. Whoever did it had a special use for the plane and I wonder what it could have been. Have you ever seen this done to a wooden plane before? Note, because of the overlap of the metal it could not be used to get close to a wall etc..
-
Thanks Yadda! Glad you’re reading along.
Jim C.
-
coolford,
Looks to me like someone made their own rabbet plane. I gotta say, after figuring out that #289, and later the #78, I’d never be without a rabbet plane. They’re great tools to have and use. Even if you’re making rabbets with some sort of a powered machine, giving the joint one last clean up pass with the plane removes all the machine marks and leaves a truly smooth flat surface. Thanks for the pictures! I really appreciate the additional content. Good stuff! I’m glad you came across a #605 1/2. That’s one of my favorite planes to use. (See page 46, reply 682.) I’ll be interested in hearing if you like that size or not. I think it’s perfect for a lot of tasks. Let us know how you like it. Pictures are always welcome!
Jim C.
-
Since you brought this up the other day i finally got a few pictures. Not the best and not all "cleaned", but still seems to all be there and it works (well, when I do).
-
Hey Peter,
Looks like you have a pretty nice earlier version of the Stanley #82 scraper. It’s a great design that really does deliver on performance. The pivoting head and front knob allow the user to really bear down on a work piece if necessary. It’s a great tool. Where did you get? You mentioned that it works well when you work. Do you use it often?
Jim C.
-
Here is another of the planes I picked up at the auction on Saturday. Union Factory, Warrented, H. Chapin with an iron by W. Butcher, Sheffield. It is large and heavy and I'm not sure how to use it. Wood is very good and the iron is almost mint. Looked on e-bay and didn't see anything by H. Chapin that looked like it.
-
Hi coolford,
That’s an interesting plane for sure. Thanks for posting a couple photos! I think it might be some sort of rabbet plane. If the bottom most piece can be adjusted with screws on the side of the plane to expose or cover the iron protruding though the bottom of the plane, then I’d say that part is a fence used to dictate the width of the rabbet. In the second photo the other part that’s facing up looks to be a depth stop, adjusted by the screws seen at the front and back of the plane. So, the depth of the rabbet joint was adjustable and so was its width. That’s my guess as to the plane’s function. I’m pretty sure it’s a “cool” old rabbet plane. It would be easier to determine for sure if I could see how the parts move. I’m sort of wondering how that depth stop might work.
Jim C.
-
Jim C----Fooled around with that big old wooden plane today but it tired me out, it weights 9 pounds. It is probably as you said, as the depth can be adjusted up to 1/2 inch and the width up to 3 inches. The iron is 3 1/2 inches wide so it will cut a three inch wide section. Overall the plane is 14 1/2 inches long, 5 1/4 inches wide and 3 3/4 inches top to bottom. The adjusting screws are steel but the tracks they move in are brass. I haven't cleaned it yet, but the wood is in great condition so it will clean up easily. Could not resist it at the auction, but even so didn't pay much for it.
-
coolford,
That plane is definitely a monster! Being that size and weight makes me think it might have been used in the shipbuilding and/or construction trades way back when. I can’t imagine a craftsman having to haul that thing around from job to job and then cutting rabbets with it all day. That must have been a real workout!
Jim C.
-
Jim-C-----Same auction, here is a Sandusky Tool Co. plane that I picked up. It is in fairly good condition.
Back to the 605 1/2, I already had one but it had a broken frog. This one has a good frog and I had not intended to buy it because I didn't realize I needed the frog at the time. As luck would have it the 605 1/2 was included with another plane I wanted and I got it anyway. This one is therefore a parts plane and I will sell the body because it is in good condition. It didn't come with irons, a clamp or a tote.
-
Hi coolford,
Nice looking plow plane. I don’t know when you joined in the thread, but one of the regulars, Lewill2, added some great content and photos associated with several plow planes fron his collection. I’m hoping he joins in now and can perhaps tell you a little more about your Sandusky. If you go back and check the Hand Plane Index sticky post at the top of the woodworking forum, you’ll find the Lewill2 plow plane posts. Anyway, thanks for jumping in! I’m hoping Lewill2 will stop by too.
Jim C.
-
Nice looking plow plane, looks like it might have the right hand style handle on it. It also looks like the bottom of the fence might be boxed with boxwood for better wear surface. I still have about 36 plow planes, at one time I had about 120. Too deep into wrenches now, with over 300 mostly odd ball adjustable and of course my Hilary Klein miniature collection.
-
Welcome to part 2 of the Stanley #289 trilogy. I hope part 1 didn't wear any of you out or completely bore you. In my first post regarding the #289, I wanted to provide a little background on how I obtained the plane and the totally self-induced buyer's remorse that came along with it based on my lack of absentee bidding and/or auction knowledge, and my total disregard for accurately evaluating the plane's true condition and monetary value. Just thinking about it now is still painful and somewhat embarrassing. On the upside, I did end up with a great tool that over the years has become one of my favorite go to planes. In this post, my goal is to tell you about the plane itself.
Stanley #289:
As everyone knows, Stanley made many, many different plane patterns. Some seemed good on paper, but when translated from the drawing board to cast iron, well, they were failures for one reason or another. Most of Stanley's planes went from what appeared to be good ideas on paper to millions of mass-produced good quality planes out in the world, that functioned as intended, providing utility for decades. Then there were a few designs that were winners from the start. The #289 is one of those planes. Manufactured between 1911 and 1948, it's one of the best planes Stanley ever made. It's a heavy duty plane that was designed to be used either right or left handed, and with its skewed cutting iron, is capable of taking a clean slicing cut across the grain when scored by spurs that are inset on each side of the main casting just ahead of the iron. Those spurs are worthy of your attention and I'll address them as we get into the post. The fence assembly and depth stop can be mounted on either side of the plane adding to its versatility.
While I think the #289 is well designed and more than delivers on performance, it actually does have one significant drawback that plays right into a topic I've mentioned more than once throughout the thread. Chasing parts! The #289 incorporates several parts that are unique to the plane. Those parts include the pressure cap, the fence assembly, the cutting iron, and the spurs (sort of). As always, do your homework and know for sure what you're looking at before you shell out good money for a plane that's missing parts or has parts that are not intended to be on the plane. When I grossly overpaid for my #289, part of what I relied on in deciding to buy the plane in the first place was the description provided by the auction house. The plane was represented as "complete" and fortunately for my sake, it was. That may not always be the case. I was lucky in that regard. Over the years, I cannot even begin to tell you how many times I've seen a Stanley #289 outfitted with a Stanley #78 fence and #78 rod. (For more on the Stanley #78, see page 15, reply 220.) That happens almost as much as I've seen #62 block planes with cracked throats. The correct fence on the #289 is a beefy casting that mounts on the fence rod through its center. The mounting hole on the #78 fence is slightly off center. The #289 fence is also cast with strengthening arcs on either side of the mounting hole, giving it a somewhat elegant look. The #78 fence does not have those arcs. The #289 fence rod is longer than the #78 rod and it is greater in diameter too. The problem is that both the #289 rod and the #78 rod share the exact same threaded section. Consequently, the #78 fence rod will mount onto the #289 main casting and visa versa. So, it’s not uncommon to see a #78 fence and rod on a #289 plane. It’s a cheap way to add a fence to the #289 without having find and pay for the correct assembly. Funny, but I’ve never seen a #289 fence and rod on a #78 plane.
Another dead give-away is the #289's pressure cap. On its top right side a pronounced "S" shaped ridge/protrusion is added to the casting, again for strength, while the standard #78 pressure cap has a much less distinct protrusion and is close to flat on top. A #78 pressure cap and cutting iron won’t comfortably fit onto a #289 without some creative grinding or alteration. The front edge of the #289's pressure cap is also angled to parallel the edge of the skewed iron, and is actually pulled back to engage the tensioning keyhole screw in the main casting. Practically every other Stanley plane that uses a pressure cap or lever cap is fitted with a keyhole that is designed to be pushed forward toward the toe of the main casting and locked into place, thus holding the iron steady. If the #289 pressure cap keyhole were similarly configured, it would not adequately engage the main casting tensioning screw properly. . . . And now for those spurs. If you look closely, just forward of the cutting iron on both sides of the plane, you'll see a one lobed spur that can be extended to protrude slightly past the main casting's sole when cutting across the grain, or retracted into a milled recess when cutting with the grain. Those spurs, by their design, are specifically made for the left and right side of the plane. They really can't be interchanged. Early versions of the #289 incorporated those one lobed spurs. Later versions of the plane utilized three lobed spurs that were relatively common on several other Stanley plane patterns and are interchangeable on each side of the plane. While the early one lobed, left and right specific spurs were not unique to only the #289, they were only found on two other Stanley planes that come to mind; the #10 1/4 bench rabbet with the tilting knob and tote, and the infamous #444 dovetail plane. Although I have not yet featured either plane, I can tell you that those are not planes one wants to pilfer parts from. In the world of Stanley hand planes, they're both very collectible and very expensive. (A few years ago I added a #444 to my collection and failed to notice it was missing one of two left side single lobed spurs. It was my oversight.....again! Anyway, as I discussed in the "Chasing Parts" post back on page 43, reply 643, I ended up taking the left side spur off my #289 and using it to complete my #444. After several missed attempts to buy another left side spur to make my #289 whole again, I finally found one. Needless to say, it was a costly part!) Don't buy a #289 that's incomplete. (Try to avoid any plane that’s missing parts.) Trust me, the spare parts add up fast, and that's if one can find them. Finding parts for a #289 could be tricky.
The #289 depicted below is an early example, probably manufactured between 1911 and 1915. It's definitely an old timer. Besides looking at the early one lobed left and right spurs, this example also includes patent information on the left side of its main casting, immediately behind the cutting iron. The patent information is another telltale indicating that the plane was manufactured early on. Later versions of the #289 do not include the patent information on the main casting. This particular plane taught me a lot about cutting rabbet joints by hand. While I paid dearly for the opportunity, I now look forward to using it as often as possible and getting my money’s worth out of it. That could take awhile! It's still a great tool. Based on my unscientific observations, even user quality versions of this plane are a little on the high side when it comes to cost. A good user quality #78 will be far less expensive. If you absolutely must have a #289 to use, I don't think you'll be disappointed in its performance. If possible, try to find a later version with the three lobed spurs. Those spurs are easier to replace and they're not left and right specific. Again, do your homework. Get one with the correct fence assembly, pressure cap and cutting iron.
Thanks for hanging in there. I know it was another log post. I hope you'll stay tuned for the third and last installment of my Stanley #289 saga.
Jim C.
-
Here's a few extra photos that compare Stanley #289 parts (left) to Stanley #78 parts (right), as well as one lobed spurs to three lobed spurs. Again, if you're considering buying a #289, make absolutely sure you're more than familiar with its correct fence assembly and the easily substituted, incorrect #78 fence assembly. It could be a costly mistake if you get it wrong. Stay tuned for #289 part 3. . . . Redemption.
Jim C.
-
Nice looking plow plane, looks like it might have the right hand style handle on it. It also looks like the bottom of the fence might be boxed with boxwood for better wear surface. I still have about 36 plow planes, at one time I had about 120. Too deep into wrenches now, with over 300 mostly odd ball adjustable and of course my Hilary Klein miniature collection.
Thanks for jumping in Les! When it comes to old wooden plow planes, I'm happy to defer to your knowledge and expertise.
Jim C.
-
Went back and reviewed the information on wooden plow planes, great information. This one was my first wood one and I don't really intend to buy more, but then again who knows what will happen at the next farm/estate auction. I once said "I will never collect planes" and now when I cataloged this plane it was No. 296 in the collection and I haven't finished with the 16 I bought at last Saturdays auction. And, I'm really a wrench collector!!!!! Also, I bought many more wrenches at the auction than planes.
-
Hey coolford,
You seem to have unexpectedly amassed an impressive collection of hand planes while being a “wrench collector.” I’m not exactly sure how it happens, but one collection just seems to evolve into another collection. I’ve been a serious plane user/collector for a while now. I still collect planes, but only a few years back, I got hooked on Sears/Craftsman =V= era tools. I’ve been trying to collect various tool box sets that are depicted in the 1960 Craftsman hand tool catalog. Somewhere in all of this, I started looking for Williams obstruction wrenches too. Those are harder to find than I thought they’d be. I guess the search is part of the fun.
Jim C.
-
Jim C-----Ah me, should I tell you that I collect socket sets and that I have over 500. I also have a lot of =v= Craftsman stuff that I pick up in box lots so I may have something you need?? I bought my first Craftsman socket set in 1950 when I was rebuilding the engine in a 1936 Dodge. Unfortunately all my tools were stolen about 30 years ago and that included my 1950 socket set. However, I acquired the same period socket set at an auction a couple of years ago. My collecting of tools actually started about 25 years ago when I retired from my job of 34 years. I have had an affinity for tools all my life and still use them frequently on my cars, gators and tractors.----Coolford
If you wonder where coolford came from, for years I restored 1959 Ford retractables, (the steel top convertibles) I had 11 at one time, but sold them all.
-
coolford,
Sounds like you’re a tool collector to the core. I’ll send you a PM so we can talk a little more about Craftsman =V= tools. I am looking for a couple things. Thanks.
Jim C.
-
Welcome to part 2 of the Stanley #289 trilogy.... I hope you'll stay tuned for the third and last installment of my Stanley #289 saga.
Jim C.
Fascinating and informative. Thanks for sharing!
-
Hey Yadda,
Thanks for following the thread. Stay tuned for one more post regarding the Stanley #289.
Jim C.
-
Welcome to part three of the Stanley #289 rabbet plane saga. Normally I wouldn't write so much about one plane, but if you've been reading along, then you know that my "experience" with this plane has been a somewhat uphill trek into the world of auctions, bidding, overpaying, and learning to do my homework. The #289 also got me started on using a rabbet plane and thinking beyond the "power tools only" mentality to cut classic woodworking joints. In short, there's been a lot of learning, some of which was costly, as I described in the two prior #289 posts. Still, like so many aspects of living, things usually have a way of balancing themselves out in the end........
"Staley carpenters devise"
Pretty much every single day, I conduct at least one or two eBay searches specifically looking at various old tools to include ratchets, wrenches, and hand planes. I like to keep up with items that I'm interested in, rarities, asking prices and selling prices in comparison to a tool's condition, etc. I'm basically doing my homework, unlike when I bought that #289 I described in previous posts. So maybe you're wondering where this is going? The answer lies in the quotes above. About eight years ago I was online looking for a tool I thought was called a “carpenter's” square. I later learned I was actually looking for a “speed” square. In my initial Google search, I typed in, “carpenter’s square.” As I was scanning though the Google search results, I came across a link to an eBay listing entitled, "Staley carpenters devise." (It should be noted that earlier in the day, when I made my routine visit to eBay searching for "Stanley Planes," I did not come across anything that said "Staley carpenters devise.") Anyway, I blew right past the link while I was looking for a used/vintage “carpenter’s” square. If possible, I like to buy vintage used tools. I like the fact that they were made in the U.S.A. and I like giving an old tool another chance. Anyway, the search results yielded new squares and a lot of plastic, made over seas stuff. So, I decided to go back to eBay and look for a vintage “carpenter’s” square. Once again, still not knowing I was looking for a “speed” square, I typed in “vintage carpenter’s square.” As expected, my eBay search produced several hits, one of which was "Staley carpenters devise," which I had seen but pretty much ignored on my first Google search. The only difference was that my eBay search included a somewhat out of focus photo of the “Staley carpenters devise.” I clicked on it. When the item came into full view on my computer screen, I think I said something like, “Holy S##T!!! That’s a Stanley (not Staley) #289!!!” A gem mint #289, still in the box, with an original advertising brochure and original packaging materials……. And most amazing was that it had no bids. My only guess is that the seller had misclassified the plane so badly, never mentioning it was a plane but rather a “carpenters devise” and misspelled the word Stanley as “Staley,” that it didn’t show up in a typical “Stanley Plane” search. I think I came across it only because the word “carpenter’s” was in the title of the auction and in my search. Lucky for me that I didn’t know I was looking for a speed square and not a “carpenter’s” square. Had I searched for “vintage speed square” and not “vintage carpenter’s square,” I may have never found the “Staley carpenters devise.”
I couldn’t believe this NOS still in the box #289 had no bids. As I recall, the auction had been going for a couple days and still had three more days to go. No one appeared to even be watching it. I didn’t dare add it to my “watch list” either because I didn’t want to draw attention to it. Even though it wasn’t on my official eBay watch list, I looked at that listing twenty times per day waiting to see some bidding activity. Nothing. At the end of the second day, and checking every hour, still nothing! On the last day of the auction, I was sure the bidding would start. I drove myself nuts checking that auction and then trying to decide what to bid. The plane and box, etc., were easily worth what I had overpaid for the “user” quality #289 I had purchased years earlier. The starting bid was less than twenty five dollars and a few more for shipping. So, I decided to put in a realistic bid with a few seconds left in the auction and hope for the best. I watched that auction all day, and still no other bidders. In the last hour of the auction, I logged into the listing and watched the count down. I typed in my bid amount and just waited to hit the “bid” button. With about five seconds left, I sent in my bid. The auction ended, and my computer screen refreshed…….”You won this item.” Needless to say, I was happy, but then immediately wondered what the damages were. I looked. I looked again. There was only one bid. Mine. For a fraction of what I paid several years earlier for my other #289, I got the plane you see depicted below. Like I said at the top of this post, things have a way of equaling themselves out.
While my “user” #289 was produced early on, probably somewhere between 1911 to 1915, the plane shown below came a little later in the production cycle. I’d estimate during the early to mid 1930s. The only real functional difference between the two versions of the plane is the single lobe spur (early version), versus the three lobed spur (later version). Also note the later version no longer has patent information on its main casting, but rather “MADE IN U.S.A.”
What you see in the photos is exactly how I received the plane, to include the location of the advertising brochure on top of the plane itself. After inspecting this plane, it’s absolutely clear to me that it was never used or even put together. The iron still has the original factory grind on it. Since owning the plane, I’ve only assembled it twice. The photos below depict the second, and probably last time. I rarely take it out of the box, because I don’t want to split a corner. It’s a somewhat rare tool in a condition that makes it one of a kind. As a collector, I believe it’s my job to preserve it.
Jim C.
-
Just a few more photos of the #289 along side of the earlier version (on the right) discussed above in prior posts. Take note of the spurs.
Jim C.
-
Funny. I used to search for wrenches and often would misspell the name to see what might show up.
-
It was a once in a lifetime occurrence Papaw. I think the key word in all of this was “carpenters,” and at the time I was misusing the word too. I was looking for one of those little triangular speed squares, but I kept typing carpenter’s square in the search box. I knew what I was looking for, but never referred to it as a speed square. I’m not sure if the seller’s misspelling of the words “Staley” (Stanley) and “devise” (device) factored into my dumb luck or not. Regardless, it’s one of the more interesting back stories associated with any of the planes in my collection. Over the years I’ve had a few good finds, but in terms of a tool’s condition, completeness, and price, well, nothing comes close. I really hope everyone enjoyed the Stanley #289 trilogy, and I hope you’ll stay tuned for more hand planes. As always, if anyone would like to jump in and feature a plane from their colllection, I’d love to to see it.
Jim C.
-
I think in some forums the appropriate response is "you suck". :embarrassed: :shocked:
That's a REALLY nice find and I'm glad you decided to share that with us. There have been a few times over the years I have found things by accident on ebay, but i'm not on there very often any more...not sure SWMBO would appreciate me getting more stuff (I don't have room for). :tongue:
Thanks again! :smiley:
-
Just ran into this on facebook. Any thoughts?
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10156123024151329&set=pcb.1526313487470912&type=3&theater&ifg=1
-
I think in some forums the appropriate response is "you suck". :embarrassed: :shocked:
That's a REALLY nice find and I'm glad you decided to share that with us. There have been a few times over the years I have found things by accident on ebay, but i'm not on there very often any more...not sure SWMBO would appreciate me getting more stuff (I don't have room for). :tongue:
Thanks again! :smiley:
Hi Peter,
Thanks for keeping up with the thread. I am familiar with being conferred a “you suck” by another member of the web site, so I take that as a compliment. On the other hand, if you consider what I foolishly paid for the first #289, you’d say I sucked for totally opposite reasons. I really did suck in a bad way. Like I said, things have a way of equaling out in the end.
Jim C.
-
Just ran into this on facebook. Any thoughts?
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10156123024151329&set=pcb.1526313487470912&type=3&theater&ifg=1
I’m sorry Northwoods, but I don’t have a Facebook account. When I click on the link, I’m asked if I’d like to join the website. Consequently, I can’t see the content associated with the link you posted.
Jim C.
-
Hello, Jim. Nice find, rare do you see one of those in the original box, and un-assembled too!! Regards, Lou
-
"Hi Peter,
Thanks for keeping up with the thread. I am familiar with being conferred a “you suck” by another member of the web site, so I take that as a compliment. On the other hand, if you consider what I foolishly paid for the first #289, you’d say I sucked for totally opposite reasons. I really did suck in a bad way. Like I said, things have a way of equaling out in the end.
Jim C."
Well, i think it's great you not only have it, but appreciate it for what it is. Hate to see something like that on a wall in an eatery. :angry:
-
Thanks Lou and Peter! I’m glad you’re both following the thread. That’s one of those tools that collectors are always looking for. It was just plain dumb luck that I came across it. Not that I’ve seen too many eighty year old planes in literally factory original condition, but it’s my guess that prior to receiving it, the plane had never been out of the box since it left the factory. It certainly was never used. After I received it, I carefully took it out of the box, assembled it, looked it over closely, disassembled it and put it back in the box. It hasn’t been out of the box and reassembled again until I wrote the post above. I can’t imagine when it will see the light of day again. Who knows?
Jim C.
-
Thanks Lou and Peter! I’m glad you’re both following the thread. That’s one of those tools that collectors are always looking for. It was just plain dumb luck that I came across it. Not that I’ve seen too many eighty year old planes in literally factory original condition, but it’s my guess that prior to receiving it, the plane had never been out of the box since it left the factory. It certainly was never used. After I received it, I carefully took it out of the box, assembled it, looked it over closely, disassembled it and put it back in the box. It hasn’t been out of the box and reassembled again until I wrote the post above. I can’t imagine when it will see the light of day again. Who knows?
Jim C.
One thing I failed to mention was the precautionary measures I took when I finally did handle the plane for its recent photo shoot. Around my primary work bench are a series of interlocking thick rubber mats. I like them because they’re comfortable to stand on for long periods of time, and they add a layer of protection between a dropped tool and the concrete floor. In this particular instance, I folded one of those heavy blue colored, quilted movers blankets into thirds and put it on top of the rubber mats just to be sure! I wasn’t taking any chances.
Jim C.
-
Good idea--from one who learned by experience....
-
Good idea--from one who learned by experience....
Hey Northwoods,
It doesn’t happen too often, but I have dropped a tool or accidentally knocked one off my bench a few times over the years. Fortunately none have been collector quality or of a nature that would significantly damage any of them. More like wrenches, screwdrivers, and such. Thankfully never a hand plane (knock on wood). Still, even dinging an every day user wrench because I dropped it, or worse yet, carelessly knocked it off my bench would bug me. I really try to be good to my tools. The rubber floor mats are good investment.
Okay, so your post has me wondering what happened. You said you “learned by experience.” If you’re referring to a specific incident, I really hope it wasn’t a costly mistake and/or the loss of a rare tool. If it’s not too painful, and you’d like to share your “experience” with us (even if it’s not hand plane related), we’re all listening.
Jim C.
-
Let's just say that the world has one fewer Stanley #4.
It was of boat anchor quality, though. But it did disgust me. I gave it away to a friend for parts, so it wasn't a total loss.
-
Let's just say that the world has one fewer Stanley #4.
It was of boat anchor quality, though. But it did disgust me. I gave it away to a friend for parts, so it wasn't a total loss.
Hey Northwoods,
I’m sorry to hear that, and thanks for sparing me the gory details. I guess if you had to break one, the #4 is pretty easy to replace. Now if it was a family heirloom or something you received as a gift, etc., then it’s priceless. If it was just something you picked up along the way, well, it is what it is. At least it wasn’t a #604.
Jim C.
-
I'm always amazed at how many planes have been dropped, not only the bodies, but the totes really tell the awful story.
-
I'm always amazed at how many planes have been dropped, not only the bodies, but the totes really tell the awful story.
:cry: :cry: :cry:
-
Really.
I bought a Stanley #28 transition a couple of weeks ago. Was in good shape except for the tote. It was in 2 pieces--with the horn long gone. I put it all back together and it looks pretty good. Better than I thought it would. I think I exaggerated the horn a bit.
-
A photo or two of the repair would be great! :smiley:
-
Here are two of the 16 planes I bought at auction a few weeks ago after I cleaned them up. Top plane in the first picture is a Millers Falls No. 18 and all original, just cleaned up. The second plane is the Stanley No. 129 with the right side removed (I measured it and 3/8 inch was removed with a stationary planer). As its nearly worthless except for parts I sanded down the wood and stained it along with painting the metal after I bead blasted the rust away. The second picture is of the appearance of the blade/curler etc. as appears, its possible someone made a rabbet plane of it.
-
Hey coolford,
Nice looking planes and a very nice job of cleaning them up. I'm one hundred percent in agreement with you and your analysis of that #129. It was most definitely altered by a prior owner and transformed into a rabbet plane. Have you tried it out? Let us know how it cuts. That Millers Falls is fore plane (#6 bench plane) length. I like that you left it original. I may have mentioned in a previous post or two that the #5 1/2 and #6 bench planes are some of my favorite sizes to use. I know they're probably not as sought after as some other sizes, but they seem perfect to me. "I'm a fore plane fan for sure!" (Try saying that fives times as fast as you can!) Thanks for adding a little content to the thread. I always like to see what others have in their collections.
Jim C.
-
This plane is a new one for me, as the frog is a permanent part of the body. It was cast at the same time the body was cast. Certainly is a different idea. This plane is part of my 900 pounds, it is the size of a No. 5, but has no markings on the body except a very faint casting T behind the adjuster. It was a complete plane, the iron is marked "Worth", but that may mean nothing, as it could easily have replaced the original. I have other Worth planes and they are similar design wise to Stanley, not like this one. Anyone know who might have made this plane? If it is a Worth okay, if not ???? I just finished bead blasting it, as it had very little paint on it and was rusty.
-
Hi coolford,
I think it is a Worth plane. I’m not too familiar with Worth planes, however based on having done just a little research, it appears that they were made Peck, Stow and Wilcox Co. I hope you’ll post a photo or two once you have it all back together..
Jim C.
-
Hey, cool, the Defiance line from Stanley used a cast-in frog, too, but theirs was more rudimentary, with two fins coming up from the base and the adjusting yoke between them.
-
Just to mix things up a little I'll post this at first unassuming Philadelphia made Israel White Screw Arm Fillister Plane. Just a beech wooden plane with screw arms from the 1830's, you might think but a little closer examination reveals that there are brass plates added to the side of the plane where the nuts contact the plane. Wear plates you might guess so the brass rings on the nuts don't mar the wood body? No the brass rings on the nuts and the brass plates screwed to the side of the plane are an assembly so when the nuts are turned they move the body as you adjust them. The nuts are held onto the body of the plane. I'm not sure how this is done because I have never taken the plane apart and I have never seen a patent for this feature on a plane. This is the only one I have seen with this feature but I'm pretty sure there are more out there someplace. The question comes to mind if this was an attempt to counter E. W. Carpenter's 1838 Improved Arms Patent that didn't allow the body of the plane to float freely on the screw arms like most of the screw arm planes were made.
-
Jim-C----Thanks, will consider it a Worth plane and will post picture of it when finished.----Coolford
-
Hey Les,
What a great looking plane! I’ll admit that prior to reading your write up, I did think the brass plates were ornamental in nature and may have added some protection to the wood body. After reading your description, I’m looking at the plane a lot closer to try and figure out exactly how it works! Just wondering..... is it a hard plane to disassemble? Thanks for adding some fantastic content! If you decide to take that plane apart, I hope you’ll share your findings with us.
Jim C.
-
I came home with a nice carpenter's level today H.(Herman) Chapin Union Factory. In looking into it, I came across this plane by same.
It is somewhat similar to yours.
http://www.supertool.com/etcetera/isanctum/is11.htm
-
Great information, thanks for posting it today. :grin:
-
Jim, if you mean is it hard to unscrew the body from the fence, no you just have to keep the fence close to parallel to the main body so you don't bind the screw arms. Like I stated I never made an attempt to remove one of the nut assemblies from the main body.
-
Les,
Your additional explanation makes sense. It’s a great looking plane. You mentioned that you had never taken the nut assemblies apart. I was wondering if that’s a difficult process and if the disassembly protocol is different with regard to vintage wood planes. Typically when I get a cast iron plane, even one in NOS collector condition, I disassemble it, clean it as necessary, and lubricate anything with screw threads. I like “Super Lube.” It’s surprising how often I’ll come across a nice plane with little or no damage and there’s at least one or two screws that are frozen. It happens a lot on the barrel nuts that connect to the threaded rods that run through knobs and totes. The last thing I want to do is bugger up a slotted screw head on a vintage tool, so I do lubricate that stuff just in case I want to disassemble the plane somewhere down the road. So, in the matter of wood planes, does it make more sense to just leave screws intact, particularly if the screw is threaded directly into the wood body of the plane? It certainly would not need lubrication. Would removing a metal screw eventually deteriorate the threads in the wood? Basically, if it’s tight, just leave it alone?
Jim C.
-
I hardly ever disassemble any of my screw arm plow planes. The few that I have the screws are usually bound in the wood and they are difficult to remove without screwing up the slot in the heads.
-
I hardly ever disassemble any of my screw arm plow planes. The few that I have the screws are usually bound in the wood and they are difficult to remove without screwing up the slot in the heads.
Thanks Les. I got my answer. If I ever come across a winner, I’ll keep your advice in mind and just leave it alone.
Jim C.
-
Here is the Worth #5 cleaned up, 5 coats of black Rust-oleum, wire wheel and W-D 40. Sharpened the iron and used it along with a Stanley #5 I have---second picture and it worked as well. Way to make a user out of a piece of junk. One question, the clamp was also painted black, don't know if that was correct, but I painted it black anyway.
-
Hello, Coolford. Nicely done!!!!!! Regards, Lou
-
Hey coolford,
I’m with Lou on this one! GREAT job restoring that plane! I always like giving an old tool a second chance. As for painting the lever cap, well, if you think paint remnants were there prior to the restoration, then for purposes of completing a faithful and accurate job, I’d say paint it. If you painted it for the sake of satisfying your personal preference, then that’s good too. What really matters is that you took the time to bring an old tool back to life. I like that. Well done.
Jim C.
-
Jim-C-----There were some paint remnants on the lever cap, but in the years since it was made someone else could have done that?? I wanted to restore it mainly for the example of the cast in frog. Plus, I didn't have a No. 5 Worth.-----Coolford
-
Here are a couple of scraper planes, a Stanley No. 12 on the right and a Stanley No. 12 1/2 on the left. The No. 12 was part of the 16 planes I bought at auction a few weeks ago. Now the question, the 12 1/2 has a wood sole on the bottom, was that factory supplied or was that something a user added? And, what was the purpose of the sole?
-
Hello, Coolford. The 12-1/2 is a Veneer Scraper, and was sold with a Rosewood Handle & Bottom. Manufactured from 1905 to 1943. ( from John Walter's Guide). I am guessing the Rosewood was there to keep the metal sole from damaging the veneer. Regards, Lou
-
Hello, Coolford. The 12-1/2 is a Veneer Scraper, and was sold with a Rosewood Handle & Bottom. Manufactured from 1905 to 1943. ( from John Walter's Guide). I am guessing the Rosewood was there to keep the metal sole from damaging the veneer. Regards, Lou
Hey Lou,
Couldn’t have said it better myself! Great pair of scrapers coolford!
Jim C.
-
Thanks to Bill Houghton I looked through my 900 pounds of planes and parts and came up with a Defiance by Stanley with the cast in frog which doesn't amount to much since it is only two verticals to hold the bottom of the blade and the adjuster and the yoke. Here are a couple of pictures.
-
Someone, I think Patrick Leach, said they were called Defiance because the company defied you to do any good planing. The two examples I have with that minimal bedding for the iron have extremely thin plane irons. I wouldn't want to use them on much more than pine, and a softer variety at that.
-
I agree, both the blade and the curler are so thin I think heavy planning would warp them.
-
Picked up a used 75 and a Bailey no. 5 with corrugated sole. Lots of rust on the Bailey and a chunk out of the blade. got most of the rust off; still have to re-glue the handle and check on getting a smaller brass brush to wisk away more of the rust that was hiding down inside. will post pictures later after more cleanup and repair. I don't consider rust "patina" any more than a broken in two handle to be a good thing. Think this will clean up to a nice user. :kiss:
Consider my brass wheel on the buffer (true brass, not one of those plated steel things) one of my best buys ever. Gets rid of rust without tearing up the finish that's still on there.
Interestingly enough, the pieces parts look almost identical to your IMG 3538, including the studs to which the nuts were attached, etc. All the same screws and washers. not quite as pretty as that one from the box, but... :tongue:
-
Picked up a used 75 and a Bailey no. 5 with corrugated sole. Lots of rust on the Bailey and a chunk out of the blade. got most of the rust off; still have to re-glue the handle and check on getting a smaller brass brush to wisk away more of the rust that was hiding down inside. will post pictures later after more cleanup and repair. I don't consider rust "patina" any more than a broken in two handle to be a good thing. Think this will clean up to a nice user. :kiss:
Consider my brass wheel on the buffer (true brass, not one of those plated steel things) one of my best buys ever. Gets rid of rust without tearing up the finish that's still on there.
Interestingly enough, the pieces parts look almost identical to your IMG 3538, including the studs to which the nuts were attached, etc. All the same screws and washers. not quite as pretty as that one from the box, but... :tongue:
Hi Peter,
I’m looking forward to seeing your new planes. That little #75 is a handy plane for cleaning up rabbet joints, particularly going with the grain. You may recall that I mentioned having to replace a lot of window sash at my house. Well, I used a #75 frequently throughout the project. It was the right plane for the job. Simple, accurate and easy to use.
You already know how useful a #5 jack can be. I’m anxious to see your restoration. It’s gotta be a labor of love. There’s a lot of #5 planes out there in the wild, and finding one that doesn’t need some elbow grease would probably be easier. I think it’s great that you’re giving an old tool a new life. Those often become the workers/users you’ll treasure the most. Good call on choosing the brass brush. I hate rust too. I’ve had some pretty good luck removing it with Evapo-rust. Careful repairing that tote. You’ll only get one shot at it. I usually practice clamping the two pieces prior to using glue, that way I can make sure everything lines up perfectly and I’m using the right clamp. Once the glue is applied, the clock is ticking, the glue is drying (and filling the pores). Practice makes perfect. If you get it right, the crack will be almost invisible. Once the glued parts have set overnight in the clamp, I remove the clamp and run one, or two holes if possible, up past the repaired joint. Tap a dowel into the hole(s) with a little glue for added strength and that handle will hold up to normal use for a long time. Good luck. Post a few photos when you’re done!
Jim C.
-
Thanks Jim. I worked on it some yesterday but had to set it aside. Break in handle is not pretty, but seems to fit together well and i may have to try that with the dowel(s). There are two screws that hold the tote in place.
The 75 has a circular stamp on it from some maker, but it's faint/worn enough i can't really make it out. Doesn't look like one of the two-line Stanley stamps.
-
Peter,
As others have pointed out, gluing totes can be a giant PITA. Quite a while ago I made a jig for doing this that takes a little of the pain away. If you have a band saw it’s quick and simple, doing it by hand not so much.
I won’t be home for awhile or I would post a picture. So I’ll see if I can describe it.
I used a scrap piece of oak but it really doesn’t matter what the wood is. The thickness should be about what the thickness of the tote is. Take an unbroken tote(as a patternj and put the bottom of it along the edge of the block you’re using for your jig. Use a pencil to trace around the tote. Don’t try and get this exactly the size of your pattern. The only part that needs to be reasonably accurate is across the top.
Cut out the shape on your weapon of choice, and discard the piece you cut out. Try your pattern in the jig and see how it fits. The sides shouldn’t hit, but you should be able to push it up against the top of the jig.
You should now be able to put a clamp on the bottom of the tote and the top of the jig. Since you’re clamping at a 90 degree angle, you can put as much pressure as you want on the two or three broken tote pieces. You did use a block with the top and bottom sides parallel...didn’t you?
Obviously,with clearance around all sides of your broken tote, we need to close that up so the tote stays put when the clamp is applied. I cut several small wedges to put in the gaps between the jig and the broken tote pieces to hold everything in position. Don’t forget to put a piece of waxed paper under the glue joint. You don’t want it stuck to your bench.
This sounds more complicated than it really is. Getting the jig made takes the most time.
Another method is to stick a dowel in the hole to keep everything in alignment. This requires that you have a dowel of the exact size and that it is properly waxed..or else you’re going to learn how to drill a long hole at a very precise angle.
Good Luck,
Mike
-
I've found those plastic-bodied trigger clamps, the kind now sold by Irwin, good, especially those with soft jaw covers. The body and jaw covers, together, flex enough to allow for the difference in angle between the top and bottom of the tote; and the jaw covers are grippy.
-
Thanks for the tips on the repair. I haven't tried anything with it yet and probably won't get to it today... i'll post pictures at some future point.
-
FANTASTIC comments!!!!! Mike, I’d love to see that jig. I think enough of us have come across planes with broken totes, that having a jig like that would really come in handy. If you get a chance, would you please post a few photos? Thanks in advance.
Jim C.
-
Hello, Guys. I usually try to glue the totes back together , on the plane body. I use the nut and bolt as the clamp, and blue tape to keep everything in line. ( works better with the 5 & up sizes that have the screw on the bottom) .I like the idea of blocks to keep the sides parallel, I will try some Starboard blocks that I have, works great for glue pads, I have yet to have anything stick to the stuff. Of course this only works with clean breaks, for the really tough ones, I send them to my brother-in-law:-) Mike, I would also like to the the jig that you use. Regards, Lou
-
Jim & Lou, I’ll be home around the first of October. Will post some pictures then...if I don’t forget. CRS disease takes its toll occasionally.
Mike
-
Hello, Mike. Thanks, and I'll forget to remind you!! Regards, Lou
-
forget what? :huh:
-
This is an interesting little wood plane. Lettering on it is as follows. "Use this tool for fitting Burrows Co.-Manufactures-Portland, Maine. If screens do not run easily, groove out the shallow groove a little with this plane" I have had it for years, but just recently found the proper iron for it.
-
This is an interesting little wood plane. Lettering on it is as follows. "Use this tool for fitting Burrows Co.-Manufactures-Portland, Maine. If screens do not run easily, groove out the shallow groove a little with this plane" I have had it for years, but just recently found the proper iron for it.
That must have been similar to finding a needle in a haystack! You should buy a lottery ticket.
-
I take it that was for sliding screens on windows or doors?
-
I believe it was for screens on windows.
-
Hey coolford,
That is one “cool” little plane. I’ve never seen anything like that. I guess there’s no question about what the plane’s intended use may be. Is the iron marked/stamped? How did you know that iron belonged to that plane?
Jim C.
-
Jim-C---Iron is not marked, but the plane is concave on the bottom and this iron fits into the plane and has the same shape as the plane although about 1/64th larger so it would make a groove slightly larger. Overall the iron is quite small.-----Coolford
-
Got a No. 4 with corrugated sole. Needs some cleanup and sharpening. Cleaning the sole is a bear even with a brass wheel. Also a little (I want to say 211??) block plane, but don't have any pictures of either one yet.
-
Hey Peter,
Thanks for checking in. A few photos might help us identify your block plane. Is the sole on your #4C rusty? Maybe you can avoid the wire wheel, and use some evapo-rust. That stuff does a pretty good job. If you get a chance to post a few photos, that would be great!
Jim C.
-
Vinegar works well, too: disassemble the tool, soak it in white vinegar for 24 hours, brush off the now loose rust (I use the "painter's toothbrushes" from the hardware store), rinse off the vinegar with water, then hit it, hard, with WD-40 to absorb the water. Let that sit for a while, then wipe it off.
-
I use a lot of white vinegar when cleaning auger bits. I soak them for about 12 hours then put them on a fine steel wire wheel. They clean right up and there are no marks from the wheel. However, don't forget to spray them with WD-40 after you wire wheel them or they will rust up. Note, I dip the bits in water after removing them from the vinegar to remove all traces of the acid.
-
Hello, Bill. Any problems with the japanning from the vinegar? Thanks, Lou
-
Hello, Bill. Any problems with the japanning from the vinegar? Thanks, Lou
Nope. I've even seen comments from people who soaked a tool with wood parts (like the riveted-in-place tote on a Stanley 45, for instance) and who had no problems. If the tool is rusted under the japanning, it will probably flake off; but it would have anyway, at some point.
-
A note of caution, I don't soak wood handle tools in vinegar. The reason is that the vinegar will get under the wood and the steel under the wood will rust from the vinegar. Over time the rust will creep out from under the wood and start rusting the adjacent metal. I learned the hard way by soaking wood handle wrenches and then noting how they rusted 6 months to a year later.
-
A note of caution, I don't soak wood handle tools in vinegar. The reason is that the vinegar will get under the wood and the steel under the wood will rust from the vinegar. Over time the rust will creep out from under the wood and start rusting the adjacent metal. I learned the hard way by soaking wood handle wrenches and then noting how they rusted 6 months to a year later.
I would not do it, either, and didn't mean to sound like I was recommending it. I hadn't thought about the absorption of the acid into the wood (white vinegar being acetic acid diluted in water other acids, like cider vinegar, also have acetic acid, with other acids and flavors), but that's an excellent point.
-
And no, i still haven't glued that handle on the prior plane. Thought i would show the 110 and the No. 4 that I found. Both need cleanup and work.
-
Nice looking No. 4, but who made that No. 110 with the klown knob?
I sometimes find the low knob No. 4s a little frustrating: it gets tight around that knob in the shorter bench planes.
-
no idea on makers on either one yet. hope to find more as they get dismantled and cleaned.
-
No visible lateral lever on that No. 4 - could be an early Stanley. A lot of the features look Stanley-ish to me. If you haven't already found it, this is helpful for estimating the production date range of Stanley bench planes: http://rexmill.com/planes101/typing/typing.htm (http://rexmill.com/planes101/typing/typing.htm).
-
I hope you all enjoy a very Happy Thanksgiving with your family and friends!
Jim C.
-
I have been buying a lot of tools, but no planes until last Saturday's auction. There were three planes, a Stanley No. 5 and two wood bodied planes and I was only interested in one of the wood planes. That is, until they couldn't get a bid on the No.5 and put them all together. I got them all for $15.00----no plane guys present?? Will only discuss the No.5, will show the others later. The Stanley has painted black wood handles and one can tell it is original. Not a bad looking plane and I typed it out to a No.18. For some reason I thought it should have a plated clamp, but not according to a No.18. What do you think?
-
Hi coolford,
Thanks for jump starting the thread. Without seeing your #5 up close, and going only by the black paint on the tote and knob and what I can see, I’d say you’re right, and the plane is a Type 18 or possibly a Type 19, likely manufactured at some point between about 1946 and 1961. I think it’ll make a great user, and the price was right too!
Jim C.
-
These are the two wood planes that were with the No.5. The first picture is the one I wanted, as I didn't have one like it in the collection. The handle is part of the plane, not something added. I really wonder how it was manufactured. It is marked W.J. Winterhalter but the blade is marked Ohio Tool co. Cast Steel with two arrows and Warrented. The iron is thick and heavy. The second plane is not marked or has worn off and the blade in it is Sandusky Tool Co. Warrented Cast Steel. Again a thick and heavy iron. The last picture is of the irons with the Sandusky on the left and the Ohio Tool on the right.
-
Hello, Coolford. Those are good looking planes!!! I looked in Pollak's Guide, no listing for a Winterhalter, but Pollak only lists Makers of American Wooden Planes. Regards, Lou
-
I have been accused of collecting anything and that is true. Even this junk new plane, at auction they had several, first choice was $5.00, second at $4.00 and then I bought this one for $3.00. New in the box, China of course.
-
Okay coolford, I’m a believer. You really will collect anything! I’ve never seen that model before. Have you tried it out? How does it cut?
Jim C.
-
Don't think i've seen an adjusting mechanism like that on a plane before. Reminds me of the double on a spokeshave.
-
Don't plan on trying it out as I might bend the body. :grin:
-
I have been accused of collecting anything and that is true. Even this junk new plane, at auction they had several, first choice was $5.00, second at $4.00 and then I bought this one for $3.00. New in the box, China of course.
(http://www.papawswrench.com/vboard/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=9443.0;attach=53022;image)
Clearly one of the Woodpecker's product prototypes, rejected because the handles were black.
-
Don't plan on trying it out as I might bend the body. :grin:
Well, I didn’t want to say anything just in case you were seriously thinking about using it. :cheesy:
-
I have been accused of collecting anything and that is true. Even this junk new plane, at auction they had several, first choice was $5.00, second at $4.00 and then I bought this one for $3.00. New in the box, China of course.
(http://www.papawswrench.com/vboard/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=9443.0;attach=53022;image)
Clearly one of the Woodpecker's product prototypes, rejected because the handles were black.
:grin:
-
When it comes to talking about Stanley hand planes, I guess one can never say it enough…. Stanley was obsessive about filling every niche, real or perceived, in the market. Through out the thread, I’ve written those words many times, and will present another example of that in this post. So let’s get into it.
A fairly common woodworking joint is a dado. To the best of my knowledge, it is a slot that runs perpendicular to, or across the grain of a work piece. A groove is a slot that runs parallel to, or with the grain. Both joints are tried and true classic woodworking staples. Of course, Stanley was well aware of that, and as a result, offered planes to cut both. Now I certainly don’t want to insult anyone’s woodworking intelligence, but I think the two terms (dado and groove) get used interchangeably, and I’m guilty of using both terms incorrectly on occasion. For purposes of this discussion, it’s important to get the terms right as the design of the plane depicted below necessitates that understanding.
Between 1902 and 1952, Stanley manufactured dado planes in sizes that ranged between 1/4” wide and 1” wide, separated by 1/8th increments. The planes were numbered as the “39” series. (Stanley also produced a 13/16” wide version by machining down a 7/8” plane. It’s very rare and a topic for another day.) Unlike some of Stanley’s plow planes (like the #50 for instance) and combination planes (like the #45, #46, #47 or #55) that had different width cutters, the Stanley dado planes were size specific. By that I mean that each plane was designed to cut one width and one width only. Consequently, a craftsperson would need to acquire eight separate planes (1/4”, 3/8”, 1/2”, 5/8”, 3/4”, 13/16”, 7/8 and 1”) to have the full range of sizes. For a person making a living with them, that could be a lot of cast iron to be hauling around. Perhaps a combination plane would be more economical and portable. One might notice that the #39 series of dado planes started at 1/4”. Well, Stanley being Stanley, it seemed only logical that eventually someone in the marketing department realized there was no 1/8” wide dado plane in the product line.
Stanley #239:
This is an interesting little plane with an unusual developmental history. The #239 was offered by Stanley between 1915 and 1943. It started out as a 1/8” wide “dado” plane. I’m making sure to call it a dado plane because it was designed to cut a slot across the grain. In order to do that without producing a lot of tear out, the #239, like Stanley’s larger dado planes, was outfitted with a spur that’s mounted vertically in the plane body, just forward of the cutter. The spur is meant to score the grain, thus reducing unsightly tear out as the cutting iron passes immediately behind it. That’s important. A true dado plane needs a spur on either side of the plane body, the same width as the cutting iron, in order to cut across the grain cleanly. The spur on the #239 then is 1/8” wide and filed into a V shape to reduce drag. When mounted in the body of the plane, the V is inverted and its points score the grain as the plane is pushed forward. It works well as long as the points don’t get dull. Now remember, a plane that cuts a “groove” with the grain doesn’t need a spur, it typically needs a fence. This is where the “unusual developmental history” occurs.
Between 1915 and about 1925, the #239 was manufactured without a fence. It was designed to cut a dado across the grain. Stay with me here….. At some point, right around 1919, Stanley introduced another plane, the #239 ½ “special” dado plane. It looked VERY similar to the #239 with a few differences. First, the #239 1/2 was manufactured without a milled recess in the plane body to accept the vertically mounted spur, and it was also equipped with a fence. That sounds like a plow plane to me! Why Stanley called it a dado plane is unknown. It seems that the #239 ½ was designed to cut a groove running with the grain of the work piece. (See how the two words, dado and groove, are used interchangeably and sometimes incorrectly?) Anyway, the #239 ½ co-existed with the #239 in the Stanley hand plane lineup until approximately 1923 when it (the #239 ½) was dropped. In 1925, the #239 was equipped with a fence. It still retained its spur too. Essentially, later versions of the #239 were a combination of the early #239 and the #239 ½. Shorty thereafter, around 1926 or so, Stanley “discovered” the need for three more sizes of the #239. So not only could one buy a 1/8” version, but also a 5/32” (offered between 1927 and 1941), a 3/16” (offered between 1926 and 1941), and a 1/4” (offered in 1926 – this one is extremely rare!)
The #239 depicted below is the most common of the sizes offered by Stanley, 1/8”. It was probably manufactured at some point between 1925 and 1935. There are some clues. First the most obvious….it has a fence, which was initially offered on the #239 in 1925. Prior to 1925, the #239 did not come with a fence. Take a look at the trademark on the cutting iron. That trademark was commonly found on cutting irons manufactured between 1923 and 1935. Finally, notice the label on the box. See how it says, “IMPROVED DADO PLANE”? Well, my guess is that the “improvement” to the plane was the addition of the fence assembly.
While I would never discourage anyone from adding a #239 to his/her collection, I will say that they’re somewhat rare; even the 1/8” version. The same goes for the #239 ½. If you find one or the other, make sure it has all of its parts. Tracking down a correct cutter, spur, little screws and washers, the fence assembly, etc. can be expensive if you can find the parts at all. There are also other things to think about. Know what you’re looking at! Do your homework! Know which versions of the #239 had a fence and which ones did not. If you see a #239 with empty threaded holes on its sides, those were meant to accommodate threaded rods for mounting the fence on the side of the plane. Don’t mistake it for an earlier (pre 1925) version of the plane. Earlier versions of the #239 did not have a fence, and consequently no threaded holes on the side of the plane’s body. Seeing threaded holes with nothing in them should always be a red flag. ALL #239 dado planes had a vertical recess milled in the main body to accommodate the spur. NONE of the #239 ½ planes had a spur and consequently no recess milled into the body. All #239 ½ planes had a fence. I hope you’re not completely confused. If so, check out the photos below, and maybe they’ll clarify a few things. Thanks for hanging in there on this one!
Jim C.
-
Additional photos of the Stanley #239 dado plane.
-
Good post Jim. It got me to go and see what version mine was, I found it after a short search (still haven't got things sorted properly after a move 3 yrs ago) Turns out mine appears the same as what your pics are showing. this one has a 3/16" cutter with a SW TM. It's in very good condition but it didn't come with the box.
I really enjoy your post. Thanks for the effort. Jim M.
-
Hey gibsontool,
Thanks for staying with the thread. I’m glad you liked the post. I hope it was informative. That’s great that you have a #239 in your collection! They’re not very common, and some of the larger than 1/8” sizes, like 3/16”, are even a little less common. I can’t recall ever seeing a #239 that wasn’t a 1/8” size. Don’t hesitate to post a photo or two! As for the #239 1/2, well, I’ve only seen one and it was missing its entire fence assembly, so I passed on it. Both models are tough to find. Finding a #239 that isn’t 1/8” is extra tough. Like I said, please post a few pictures if you get a chance!
Jim C.
-
I started reading this and had to come back after a little hotpad work on the back. Very interesting. I didn't know they had such a thing but i fully believe you about "fill every niche" with a new model. Sheesh. I can't imagine any company doing that now. :tongue:
-
Hi Peter,
First off, please accept my apologies for my lack of brevity. If sitting too long reading this stuff is resulting in aches and pains, maybe I’m writing too much!! I really try to keep the write ups interesting and short, but it doesn’t always work out that way. To be honest, my first draft regarding the #239 was almost twice as long as what’s posted above. After reading it, I cut out about half!!! I’ll try to pare them down in the future.
Yes, Stanley was great at trying to make planes for every woodworking operation imaginable. Some were great tools, many were very adequate, and some were flops. Why Stanley thought having a 1/8” dado plane (the #239) and a separate 1/8” plow plane (the #239 1/2) was a good idea is beyond my “good business” knowledge. Perhaps selling two separate planes was more profitable than selling one plane that accomplished both operations. I’d need to do a little research to see if there is anything to that argument. Stanley was certainly all about making money, just like any other business.
Jim C.
-
Jim,
Not your fault at all. Have had a bad back for many years and when i'm on my feet all day volunteering at the local Restore - well, i pay the price later in the day.
Please don't shorten up your posts on my account at all. I love reading all that; learning about stuff i have no previous knowledge about (as i'm pretty certain others who peruse them do, too). Then again, there's a heck of a lot i have no knowledge about (lol). :tongue: I have to laugh when i'm helping folks at the store and they think I'm so knowledgeable.
-
I agree, I'm happy to read the longer posts. Lots of great info.
-
Keep it up, Jim !
No problem at all with the length of your posts .
-
Okay.....maybe next time I’ll post the whole unabridged version. Then we’ll see what you guys think. :smiley: I probably do get a little carried away sometimes. Anyway, thank you all for your continued support, and thanks for following the Hand Plane thread.
Jim C.
-
Hello, Jim. I always read your posts, short. or long!!!! Please, keep up the good work!! Regards,Lou
-
It's an odd duck for sure. And then they offered the similar 238, designed just for plowing grooves for weatherstripping installation in windows (and, I imagine, door jambs). I can kind of understand the logic of such a short plane for purposes like that: less chisel work to do to clean up the grooves. But it's not a bullnose plane, which would seem to have made even more sense.
If I find one of any of these, particularly if it's complete and cheap, sure it'll follow me home; but I doubt I'll go out seeking one.
-
Hello, Jim. I always read your posts, short. or long!!!! Please, keep up the good work!! Regards,Lou
Thanks Lou and thanks for following the thread too!
Jim C.
-
Hey Bill,
Good points. Trying to figure out the motives, marketing strategy, etc. behind some of Stanley’s hand plane offerings is nearly impossible. You’re right about the #238 plow plane. It was a strange plane to offer. Recall that it included several different width cutters (which included duplicate width cutters offered as individual #239 plane sizes) between 1930 and 1938. So, five years after #239 plane was manufactured with a fence in 1925, allowing it to cut both dados and grooves, around 1930, Stanley decided it could not live without a mutli cutter plow plane, the #238. Then, after eight years, Stanley dropped the #238, and continued producing a few separate #239 plane sizes for about five more years. That’s kind of confusing! Okay, here’s what I’m trying to say in list form. (See below) Maybe it’ll make more sense. It’s like Stanley just couldn’t make up its mind.
1915 - 1925: #239 dado plane, 1/8” cutter
1919 - 1923: #239 1/2 plow plane, 1/8” cutter
1926 - 1943: #239 individual combination planes, 1/8”, 5/32”, 3/16”, 1/4” sizes
1930 - 1938: #238 plow plane, 1/8”, 5/32”, 3/16, 7/32”, 1/4”, 5/16”, 3/8” cutters
Jim C. (Who apologizes for causing any confusion!)
-
Of course, with no sliding section, such as the Nos. 45, 46, and 55 had, a plane with spurs to permit clean cutting of dados would have to be dedicated to one width. I don't know what the retail was on the 239, but it's hard to imagine that a carpenter/mechanic* who needed to cut multiple widths would be more attracted to the 239 than to a 45 or 46, although I guess having all four sizes of the later 239 would have the benefit of planes set up and ready to use, rather than needing to be assembled each time, as the 45/46 are.
The other benefit of the 238/239, as I mentioned, is the shortness of the plane body, for working in sorta-bullnose situations.
Stanley was not alone in its multiplicity, although it may have been a recordholder. Back in the 1970s and into the new century, I think, Porter-Cable offered at least three routers resembling the industry-standard 690 series. I can't now recall the number designations, but one was, essentially, the 150 motor, with a 1/4" collet, in the standard base, about six or seven amps; and the other had an amperage rating midway between that 150-motored model and the 690. And then there was the (fabulous) Model 100, rated very slightly less than the 150 motor. I think they were still offering the 150, which was a D-handled router that was kind of a hybrid between the 100 and the 690.
*The 238 and 239 were apparently marketed to people like electricians, who used to bury electrical wire in grooves in the baseboard and places like that - I'm imagining trying that approach these days. Although the term "mechanic" has come to have a fairly narrow definition involving mainly people who work with wrenches and get greasy, it used to apply to a much broader range of trades.
-
Hi Bill,
I’m very thankful that you’re following the thread. In my write up regarding the #239, I really neglected to mention the “sliding section” found on the larger combination planes like the #45 and #55, etc., allowing those planes to cut different widths. You’re right, no sliding section means various width cuts cannot be made with one plane. I also neglected to mention the fact that Stanley attempted to market the #239 to electricians. With the exception of perhaps using such a narrow width to cut grooves for decorative inlay, or weather stripping, who else would use these planes? I guess maybe an electrician who was trying to hide wire behind molding. Like I’ve said so many times, Stanley attempted to fill EVERY conceivable niche. Who knows, maybe back in the day, electricians might have found such a plane to be a handy investment. :huh: Thanks for jumping in!
Although I can’t really say why, I should add that I’m a sucker for old Stanley weather strip planes, and the narrow width planes like the #238 and #239. We’ve covered several of them now throughout the thread. I guess I’m attracted to their “contraptionism” and all the little parts typically associated with them. Finding an example in 100% COMPLETE, vintage correct, original condition gets my attention, and in those situations, I rarely pass on it.
Jim C.
-
Jim-C----I have a Stanley Rule and Level Co. catalog No. 102. The copyright date in it is 1909. The inside pages are perfect, except it is starting to come apart. The covers are faded but still viewable, with a small amount of silverfish damage. Before I try to sell it on E-bay, do you have any interest. If I spread it to take pictures it will come apart more I'm afraid.
-
Hi coolford,
Thanks. I sent you a PM.
Jim C.
-
I hope you all enjoy a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!
Jim C.
-
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you and all the others here on Papaws site.
Be careful out there.
-
When it comes to sharpening irons I'm somewhat confused. I have three different sharpening tools and have read a number of articles on sharpening. For the most part irons are found sharpened to 30 degrees, although the guides usually suggest 30 degree and then 25 at the last. Of the three sharpeners show in the first picture, only the no name one in the middle has positions for both 30 and 25 degrees. The two Gereral sharpeners metal on the left and plastic on the right only suggest sharpen to the original angle in the instructions. Of course this is for the sandpaper method of sharpening. I would like some comments concerning the above.
I will post this, pictures later.
-
Here they are individually, Metal General, No Name and Plastic General. I also have a new in the box Metal General with instructions which say "sharpen to the original angle".
-
Blades should always be sharpened to the original angle, like 30 degrees, but for having a really nice user that can shave the wood clean and fast, a micro bevel works great. That is the 25 degree setting for just the cutting edge after the blade is normally sharpened.
-
Okay, now you will see why I asked the question. So, I settled on the 30 degrees for most irons and I'm only doing this to save those that have been damaged by hitting a nail or something else. It is too time consuming to sandpaper out a nick so I came up this this system. First have a good stationary belt sander. Second make a hard wood block cut to 30 degrees on one side. Third apply double sided carpet tape to the 30 degree angle of the block. Lastly being very careful, attach the damaged iron to the 30 degree angle of the block so the angle of the iron is in contact the belt the same as the bottom of the block. Now turn on the sander and sand away, you will be removing steel from the blade and wood from the block, but soon the nick will be gone (just don't heat the iron and lose the temper). Once the nick is gone go back to the sandpaper method and finish the sharpening. Pictures show top view, side view and bottom view.
-
Thanks for that idea coolford, it looks like a good good way to get nicks out of the cutter.
-
Hi coolford,
Thanks for adding a couple great posts to the thread! When I get an old plane with an iron that’s dull, nicked, pitted, etc, I generally try to determine the angle and then grind a new one. On a typical bench plane, that’s usually somewhere around twenty five or thirty degrees. I really like your low tech, but effective, method of re-grinding the cutting angle. And like you mentioned, as long as one doesn’t overheat the steel, your method for re-grinding is sound and efficient. It’s a good idea!
Many years ago, when I started to figure out that planes were GREAT tools to have and use, it became apparent pretty quickly that they weren’t so great if they were not tuned and their cutting irons weren’t super sharp. A really sharp iron is half the battle, and they make the plane a lot safer to use. Anyway, I bought a book and a few other things (like stones for instance), and did some investigation into sharpening my plane irons, as well as chisels, and other tools. I did it all by hand and got pretty good at it, but as you likely know, sharpening can be a slow process. I’ll freely admit that it’s not my favorite activity out in the shop, but certainly a necessary one. So, after years of sharpening by hand, I bought a slow speed grinder that bathes its wheel in a water trough as it spins. The slow speed and water essentially eliminate the possibility of overheating a cutting edge, which I did more than once on my regular grinder. The slow speed grinder was equipped with a few jigs that allow the user to achieve almost any angle uniformly across a cutting edge. It speeds up the process tremendously and the accuracy is right on the money! Once I have the desired angle, I polish it to a mirror-like finish on sandpaper glued to a flat granite slab, or a section of float glass. I adhere the sandpaper to those flat surfaces with spray adhesive. I usually start at 400 grit and end somewhere around 2000 grit. I do it by “feel” and totally free hand. Once I’ve got the cutting edge polished, I mount the iron back on my slow speed grinder and run the edge over a leather strop wheel loaded with a fine grit paste polishing compound. When I’m done, the finish on the cutting edge is literally a mirror, and SUPER SHARP!
Jim C.
-
Years ago when I was able to do a lot of woodworking, I spent way too much time sharpening tools of all types. I found this slow speed grinder with a water drip system at Harbor Frieght, and it made life in the shop so much easier. Still have it as usual, just don't use it anymore. Also has a small diameter fast wheel on it.
-
Hello, papadan. We have a similar sharpener, different maker, in our shop at work, gets the job done. Regards, Lou
-
You've heard me say more than once that I'm attracted to odd ball planes, and those that exhibit a high level creativity and/or "contraptionism." While I like them from a collector's perspective, it's still my opinion that those tools frequently provide more promise than actual results. What I've found is that in an effort to deliver a plane that accomplishes multiple functions, something suffers. Typically it's the finished work product, user friendliness, ergonomics, or some combination of the three. Well, I have another example to show you today. Way back in the thread on page 22, reply 318 (I'm so glad I kept up with that thread index), we discussed the Stanley #79 side rabbet plane. If you go back and review that post, you'll recall that a side rabbet plane was designed to be a precision tool that will take a fine shaving from the sides/shoulders of rabbets, grooves and dados. Set for a light pass, side rabbet planes will fine tune a joint just a whisper at a time making little adjustments that provide a perfect fitting union between two workpieces. It's a tool that a fine furniture and/or cabinet maker might use. Recognizing the utility of such a plane, other manufacturers besides Stanley made what they thought were "better mousetrap" versions.
Sargent #81:
This is a unique little plane. If you've been following the thread, just looking at it, you can see why I'm attracted to this plane. Its very design incorporates a certain level of creative imagination. With its crisscrossing irons, the plane was designed to cut in both directions. Unlike the Stanley #79 however, which was also designed to cut in both directions, but dragged its non-cutting iron across the workpiece thus distorting its cutting accuracy, the Sargent #81 takes the non-cutting iron out of the rabbet/groove/dado and places it on top of the plane...... right where the user's hand would grasp the plane while pushing it through a cut. By flipping the plane one hundred and eighty degrees, the non-cutting iron would now engage the workpiece allowing the user to push the plane in the opposite direction along the same shoulder of the rabbet/groove/dado.......and again placing a sharp iron immediately beneath the user's hand. Cutting in both directions with the same plane seems like a convenience, but if you recall, with the Stanley #79, better accuracy would be achieved by retracting the non-cutting iron beyond the main body of the plane. To cut in the opposite direction, the iron would then have to be readjusted past the body of the plane to re-engage the workpiece. That's not really convenient in my opinion. Well, Sargent came up with a "better" idea. By putting one iron above the other, thus taking the non-cutting iron out of the rabbet/groove/dado, it (the non-cutting iron) did not need to be retracted. Convenient? I guess so. Safe? Maybe not so much. While the Sargent #81 gets high marks for convenience (and contraptionism), ergonomics and user friendliness are questionable. What I've found is that a side rabbet that cuts in one direction, like the Stanley #98 and #99 (both of which we'll get to), might be the best option in terms of convenience, ergonomics/safety and results delivered. Sometimes less is more.
Sargent produced the #81 between 1913 and 1943. The plane depicted below is an earlier version, likely manufactured prior to about 1924. What you may have noticed is that the nose piece is removable, allowing the user to get all the way into the corner of a joint......further exposing the non-cutting iron on the top of the plane. Yikes!! Who thought that was a good idea? The nose piece has a little bullnose protrusion on either side. Those little extensions are fragile and frequently cracked off. Like so many specialty planes, its parts are unique to the plane itself. The nosepiece (and its accompanying screw) and the little iron clamp casting are tough to find if they're missing. Those parts can be expensive. If its missing parts, think twice before buying a #81 for your collection. Finally, if you do acquire a #81, and can't resist giving it a try, please be extra careful!
Jim C.
-
Hello, Jim. Great post, I can see why you like that little plane!!!! I will keep a lookout for one of those, but I have yet to see one around here. Did the deluxe version come with Band-aids? Regards, Lou
-
Hey Lou,
Thanks for checking in. The Sargent #81 is a nice little plane, mostly to collect. I’m pretty sure that with a super sharp iron and set for a light pass, it will do a nice job of adjusting a rabbet/groove/dado joint. I’ll probably never really know for sure because I’m hesitant to use it for the reasons stated above.
In terms of rarity, it’s not a plane that I can recall ever seeing at a garage sale or flea market, but it does show up at tool swap meets and online auctions now and then. If you add one to your collection, keep the Band-Aids handy!
Jim C.
-
I think i've about maxed out my blood donations to work projects and tools. :grin:
Nice little plane even if impractical? :tongue:
Thanks
-
Peter,
I remember when I bought that plane back in 2004. When I got it, I fully intended to use it. As you can see, it’s in reallly nicer “user” condition. I had a little cabinet I was planning to make and thought it would be perfect for the project. Well, I guess the excitement of finding a cool little plane and having it in my hands blocked out my critical assessment of its user friendliness. A couple weeks later when the time came to use it, I decided I’d sharpen the irons. I took off the nose piece and practiced putting the plane into a practice dado I had already cut on a scrap piece of cherry. When I got the plane into position, I looked at where my hand and fingers comfortably and naturally grasped the plane and immediately realized that had the top (non cutting) iron been super sharp, I would have given myself a nasty cut if I had attempted to push the plane forward. It’s just not a user friendly plane. As far as collectibility, well, it’s right up my alley!
Jim C.
-
Hey Jim---Interesting, have never seen one and if I had, I would have thought it broken or missing parts. But, you just don't know how to use it---You are supposed to wear a heavy leather glove!!----Charles
-
Interesting that you found the Sargent #81 so awkward/hazardous. Record issued much the same plane for years, and Lee Valley adopted/adapted the design for their side rabbet: http://www.leevalley.com/us/wood/page.aspx?p=60012&cat=1,230,41182,48945 (http://www.leevalley.com/us/wood/page.aspx?p=60012&cat=1,230,41182,48945). I note that the Lee Valley model has a fence, which may provide some protection for the user, or at least may discourage fingers getting too close.
I'll likely never find out, since I have all three Stanley side rabbets (79, 98, 99).
-
Hey Jim---Interesting, have never seen one and if I had, I would have thought it broken or missing parts. But, you just don't know how to use it---You are supposed to wear a heavy leather glove!!----Charles
Hmmmm.... heavy leather gloves. Why didn’t I think of that?
-
Interesting that you found the Sargent #81 so awkward/hazardous. Record issued much the same plane for years, and Lee Valley adopted/adapted the design for their side rabbet: http://www.leevalley.com/us/wood/page.aspx?p=60012&cat=1,230,41182,48945 (http://www.leevalley.com/us/wood/page.aspx?p=60012&cat=1,230,41182,48945). I note that the Lee Valley model has a fence, which may provide some protection for the user, or at least may discourage fingers getting too close.
I'll likely never find out, since I have all three Stanley side rabbets (79, 98, 99).
Hey Bill,
Sargent offered the plane for thirty years! I don’t necessarily think that longevity always equates to a good idea. When I handled the #81 to use, for some reason my index finger just gravitated to the top of the plane where it would encounter the front edge of the exposed non cutting iron if the nose piece was removed, or the little extensions on the nose piece, with the non cutting iron exposed through the bottom of the plane. In order for me to comfortably grasp the plane, my index finger naturally wanted to be on top of the plane pressing into the non cutting iron area of the plane. Maybe I was holding it incorrectly? Checking your link to Lee Valley, I noticed that the handle on the Veritas version appears to be more ergonomic. Maybe that would help matters. I also noticed that the Veritas model has a depth stop. That might help stabilize the plane while it’s being pushed forward. That coupled with the better handle might cause the user to hold the plane in a different (safer) manner. As for the Sargent original, well, I think it’s better as a collectible. I’m ultimately with you. If I have to use a side rabbet plane, my first choice would be a Stanley #98 and/or #99.
Jim C.
-
On to a different subject, I pulled a No. 5 plane out of my pile to clean up. It has a grooved bottom and a large No. 5 is on the toe (larger than a Stanley No. 5). No other markings except the iron is marked T. H. Co. where the T is above the H but runs through it and the bottom of the H legs are circled by c on one and o on the other (co). I don't get anywhere on line. Has anyone run into anything on T. H. Co. planes? No picture of the iron as the image is to faint to show.
-
Hello, Coolford. Could it be read H.T. Co. ? Possibly "Hartford Tool Co." Regards, Lou
-
Lou----you nailed it, I was reading it bass ackwards. Instead of T. H. Co. it is H. T. Co and it is definitely Hartford Tool Co. as I went on e-bay and matched the mark to an iron for sale. The question remains, it the entire plane Hartford Tool Co. I noticed there were not many Hartford Tool Co. planes for sale, will have to look from time to see if mine shows up.----Charles
-
Okay, I collect anything, and this junk, rusty plane is an example. Here it is cleaned up, a Shelton block plane pat. pend. First one I have come across. Has an adjustable blade, so you can loosen the top clamp and adjust the blade without removing the clamp. It is made of pressed steel.
-
That Shelton's pretty cool. So to speak.
-
Hi coolford,
Thanks stopping by the thread! You know, as soon as I saw that Shelton block plane, it almost immediately reminded me of the Stanley #118. Go way back to page 13, reply #182, and let me know what you think. Have you tried the plane?
Jim C.
-
Jim-C----Finally got around to making a comparison of the Shelton and Stanley 118. The Stanley is i/8" shorter than the Shelton and the blade angle is slightly less. The blade adjustments are different and the body (thickness) of the Stanley is greater. The clamp of the Stanley is about 1/2" longer than the Shelton. In the pictures the Shelton is always at the top.
-
Hi coolford,
Nice comparison between the two planes. I’m not entirely sure, but I’d guess that the Shelton version is a knockoff of the Stanley #118. What I did notice is that your Stanley #118 has a maroon colored finish. That’s very likely original to the plane. The maroon color came late in that plane’s production. Probably during the late 1970s or early 1980s.
Jim C.
-
A very nice example of a Stanley No. 1 went for $750 today at this tool auction:
http://www.wischroppauctions.com/property_detail.asp?AuctionID=345
-
Northwoods,
I’m not sure of the plane’s condition, but assuming it’s in what I would say is “collector quality” shape, prices are down from where they were several years ago. Honestly, I’ve noticed that collectible planes, like the #1 for instance, across the board, aren’t selling for the same prices they used to sell for. I can say that while I accumulated my collection for the love of collecting, without too much concern for its future value, my kids don’t necessarily have the same affinity for hand planes! Someday, they may realize the monetary loss between what I paid for them and what they actually sell them for. The very best examples seem to hold their value for the most part, but any planes below mint condition don’t seem to be as valuable as they were a decade or so ago. Going forward, I’m aware of the changes in values and that hand planes are generally a bad investment. That being said, I’m still a collector for the love of collecting without too much regard for what may or may not happen.
Jim C.
-
Northwoods,
I’m not sure of the plane’s condition, but assuming it’s in what I would say is “collector quality” shape, prices are down from where they were several years ago. Honestly, I’ve noticed that collectible planes, like the #1 for instance, across the board, aren’t selling for the same prices they used to sell for. I can say that while I accumulated my collection for the love of collecting, without too much concern for its future value, my kids don’t necessarily have the same affinity for hand planes! Someday, they may realize the monetary loss between what I paid for them and what they actually sell them for. The very best examples seem to hold their value for the most part, but any planes below mint condition don’t seem to be as valuable as they were a decade or so ago. Going forward, I’m aware of the changes in values and that hand planes are generally a bad investment. That being said, I’m still a collector for the love of collecting without too much regard for what may or may not happen.
I hear you. For example, who is going to want to collect Hopalong Cassidy paraphernalia ten years from now? As far as tools go, I am more likely to be drawn to first half 20th century ratchet/socket sets, but that No. 1 was really pretty.
Jim C.
-
Hello, I had placed a bid over the phone for that No. 1, but did not win. Good thing I wasn't able to bid higher, or I would have kept going!!!Regards, Lou
-
Lets face it, this is not a hobby where you are going to sell out and make a mint. I take the position that as long as I can afford to buy tools I will and not worry what the prices are going to be when I kick the bucket. As I look over my collection, some are up and some are down, so what, I still like them all.
-
Lets face it, this is not a hobby where you are going to sell out and make a mint. I take the position that as long as I can afford to buy tools I will and not worry what the prices are going to be when I kick the bucket. As I look over my collection, some are up and some are down, so what, I still like them all.
I am with you !
When I sell something, I just don't tell SWMBO how much I paid for it when I bought it !
-
I'm with you guys as well. Just keep collecting what you like! Back a few posts (see reply #904 above), I said something about the value of tools and believing the very best examples tend to hold their value the most. That's no revelation to anyone. It only makes sense that a mint condition tool is worth more than one that's been neglected, abused, or simply well used over the years, and that mint condition tools will typically command a higher price as the years pass. There may be exceptions for extremely scarce tools that are in lesser condition, but then one might be paying more for a tool's rarity. Anyway, when I started collecting hand planes, I'll admit that I had some trouble distinguishing between a true "collector" quality plane and a nice "user." The thrill of holding an old plane just got the better of me. If you were to go back through the thread, you'd probably run across at least a couple of my collecting misadventures particularly as they relate to misjudging the condition of a plane and hence, its monetary value at the time of purchase. Well, somewhere along the line, after "voluntarily" overpaying for less than top notch examples, I wrote myself a set of condition guidelines that I've tried to live by. I was very careful about it and tried to be objective. When I buy a plane, or one comes my way for whatever reason, I try to fit its physical condition into a certain "framework." Over the years, I've referred to this framework, and it has in a few instances, brought me back to reality. I still get excited when I'm holding an old plane that might be unique, rare, etc. It's easy to get carried away......and possibly overpay. So once I get me feet back on the ground, I use some written guidelines to critically evaluate the plane's condition.
If you take a look at the photos below, you'll see an old, beat up 3" x 5" index card box. In that box, I keep relatively detailed records of every plane in my collection. Each plane has its own card. I'll discuss that in my next post. The first card in the box is my condition evaluation framework. (see 3rd photo below) I use that card to accurately grade every plane I own, and more importantly, those I'm thinking about adding to my collection. After reading my condition guidelines, which I created from experience and observation, you may agree or disagree with it partially or in whole. That's okay. The point is that I use it as a personal check and balance in an attempt to keep my overall collection at a certain level and to objectively judge a plane's true condition and ultimately its current market value. In my next post, I'll get a little more into the contents of index card box and its purpose.
Jim C.
-
Aluminum Stanley tote, now what do I do with it. For some time I wanted such a tote because, I just wanted one. Now that I picked up a Stanley No. 5 grooved bottom with a 1910 patent and an aluminum tote should I just leave it on that plane or what?? Stanley never sold a plane with an aluminum tote (according to the book) as it was only provided as a replacement. This was one of three planes I bought at auction today.
-
It's an honest replacement; it's part of the No. 5's history. Keep it.
-
It's an honest replacement; it's part of the No. 5's history. Keep it.
What he said.
-
Okay, you have convinced me, but now I will have to clean up the plane, but then I only paid $10.00 for it. And, I'm upholding my reputation, that I will buy anything, as I also bought a Shelton double end block plane. This is similar to the Stanley 130 and also for $10.00 couldn't turn it down. I have never seen another Shelton double end.
-
It's an honest replacement; it's part of the No. 5's history. Keep it.
And you'll never have to glue it back together after you break it in a bout of heavy-duty planing.
-
Ah me, you disparage the Shelton's too much. I took wood shop for three years in high school (metal shop one year) and we had Shelton planes and several guys turned out some fine furniture with them including me. We had wood floors in shop and lots of Shelton's hit the floors many times. Our shop wood rack contained oak, maple and popular and the Shelton's served well on all of them. The Shelton double ended block plane is not a piece of tin, it is heavy cast steel just like the Stanley 130 and looks similar.
-
Hey coolford,
I’m in agreement with some of the others, and I’m typically a purist. I guess that’s no surprise to anyone who’s been reading along. It’s just the way I like to collect. Still, if your “new to you” #5 is a “user” then why not just leave it alone? The aluminum tote is all Stanley and an OEM replacement part. It belongs to the plane’s history now and is a legitimate Stanley solution to a damaged rosewood tote. What I’ll say next will also come as no surprise either.....I don’t like chasing parts! A rosewood replacement tote shouldn’t be too hard to find, but it won’t be free. I’d leave the plane as is and start using it.
Jim C.
-
Hello, Coolford. From what I have read, those aluminum handles were popular in school woodshop settings. Regards, Lou
-
A few days ago I posted a set of guidelines I try to follow when evaluating a plane for my collection. In that post, I mentioned having an index card for every plane I own. I know that some of you have extensive tool collections that focus on certain tools, while others have collections that cover several different types of tools. If your collections are anything like mine, then it probably took you decades to acquire the tools and the commitment of some real financial resources too. How do you keep track of your collection? Very early on, not too long after I bought just a few vintage hand planes, I decided I had better start keeping track of what I have and what I spent. I thought a written record would cover a lot different topics specifically dealing with actual inventory, possible loss/insurance, prices paid/value, and like it or not, eventual disposal. Before I really get into this, my method of recording is not the only way to do things, or necessarily the best way either. It's just something I've been doing for a long time and I'm comfortable with it. I'm sure there could be computerized versions of what I'm going to present, or other ways of inventorying one's collection. I choose 3" x 5" hand written index cards because they're easy, and at the time I started this inventory system I wasn't very computer/spreadsheet savvy (and I'm still not). I also made the old beat up index card box a part of the collection itself. It's right there with the bulk of my collection, plain as day. One can pick it up, open it, and find the plane they're looking for. Each has its own card and the cards are stacked in ascending order, front to back, by model number. So, if one were to look in the index card box, the first card would be the Stanley #1 bench plane, followed by the #2, #2C, #3, #3C, etc. etc..... For ease of understanding what information is provided on each card, at the front of the box is a "Key" card. (See first photo below) The key card basically lays out the information that's pertinent to each plane. The information includes the plane's model number, manufacturer, years in production, type/era the particular plane was produced, its condition (See page 61, reply # 909 above), date of purchase, price paid, and notes that usually list who I got the plane from and where, as well as other tidbits about the plane and its history.
I don't know about you, but more than once I've forgotten about planes in my collection. For whatever reason, they've become obscure to me and I've forgotten them. That might sound strange, but it's true. I usually rediscover them when I'm online and find another one that's in great condition and don't remember I already have one. When I find myself questioning my memory, I check my index card box just to make sure. Now, that doesn't mean I won't still buy the online plane, but it might lead me to re-adjust my bid/offer. I pray that none of us ever lose our collections to unforeseen, unfortunate, unscrupulous circumstances, but it happens. Having a written inventory at least gives you some idea of what was lost and your previous investment in those tools. Do you trust your memory after decades of collecting? Finally, as much as none of us want to think about it, a time will come to say good bye. Perhaps you'll have liquidated your collections by then. If the job is left to your heirs, will they know what you have? Although the price of vintage tools goes up and down, leaving some record of the tool's original cost to you, particularly if purchased as a collectible, might be generally helpful in identifying a tool as being a relatively expensive collectible versus a five dollar garage sale item.
Below I've added a few pictures of actual cards from my index card box detailing some of the planes we've previously discussed in the thread. The first photo is the "key" card. It will hopefully provide some guidance as to what information is detailed on each card. It's fairly self-explanatory. The second card depicted pertains to one of my favorite planes to use, the Stanley # 605 1/2. Remember that one? I've talked about it a few times throughout the thread. The third and fourth pictures pertain to the Stanley #94. There's nothing unique about the plane itself, but notice the interesting story, told to me by the seller, in the notes section that continues onto the back of the card. I've heard some good ones over the years. More than once you've heard me say that I'm always interested in a plane's history if I can get it from the seller/donor. I almost always ask. Sometimes I get nothing and sometimes I get a good story or two about former owners/users, a donor's family member, etc. Sometimes the stories are easy to verify (as detailed on the last card) and sometimes you just gotta go with it. ("So this plane belonged to a cabinet maker who made things for the Queen? The Queen of England? Wow!! That's really something......") Well it might be factual. The last card pertains to the Stanley #40. If you recall back in the thread, I got that plane from a neighbor. Notice the price paid was zero. I use that particular plane at the beginning of almost every project I start, and the price was right. When I pick it up, I think of my former neighbor. Anyway....
Although my inventory system is very low tech, which I like, it works. At some point I'll probably (with help) create a computerized spreadsheet with the same information. It's never a bad idea to have a backup. A final thought..... no system will be any good if the owner of the collection doesn't keep his/her records up to date. When I acquire a plane, after taking it apart, cleaning it, etc., I immediately make another card detailing the plane and add it to my box. If you haven't already done it, I hope this post will spark some thought about inventorying/cataloging your collection.
Jim C.
-
Sometimes "Old School" is the best. Those cards can't be lost in a server crash, or computer failure. Of course a fire or flood could take them. Photos of the cards would be something you could save on an external hard drive. Then you and some help could make a spreadsheet from that.
-
I agree, scan the cards and add them as .pdf file in your spreadsheet. I would definitely enjoy reading through you filebox.
-
I agree, scan the cards and add them as .pdf file in your spreadsheet. I would definitely enjoy reading through you filebox.
Hey Yadda,
Thanks for stopping by the thread. What you described..... scanning, spreadsheets, pdf files..... I have a better chance of successfully building my own rocket and going to Mars. I’m not a computer guy. As for going though my index card box, well, a lot of it is just the basic stuff, like when I got a plane, how much I paid for it, etc. But then there’s more than a few planes that have a story, some of which I’ve written about, and some I’ll get to eventually.
Jim C.
-
I'm trying to imagine me keeping track of tools.
I do list the larger things in the business books as I buy and sell them, but I dont really collect those, just enjoy them for a bit and move them on.
but most of the things I keep are in the books as lots labelled "Box o' tools"
I do however, sort each days purchases into their appropriate drawer/cabinet, so I suppose I have them recorded
by location (all the planes are in the plane rack, all the Hinsdale tools are in the Hinsdale drawers)
there is always that dilemma; do I put the breast drill in the Miller's Falls pile or in the hand drill box?
-
I like your system and used to do something like that BC (before children) when swmbo and i used to actually have a life, travel, and collect stuff we liked (and mostly before i started, erm, accumulating tools). Since we haven't "collected" for a long time, i never resumed making cards for my tools, but i still have all the old cards (around here, uh.....somewhere). :undecided:
-
I'm trying to imagine me keeping track of tools.
Hi skipskip,
While OCD has never been officially diagnosed, I do tend to lead a very orderly existence. This isn’t something new. It goes back a long way......Matchbox cars that I got as a child in the 1960s still in their original boxes, Tonka trucks that NEVER went outside let alone the sandbox, lego bricks sorted by color, etc. Fast forward......index cards for hand planes. Heck, did you check out the index for this thread? OCD? Nah. Well, maybe just a little.
Jim C. :grin:
-
there's no such thing as a little OCD. Either you have it or you don't. Not that its a bad thing . Some of my best friends have it. I greatly admire your organization.
-
I agree, scan the cards and add them as .pdf file in your spreadsheet. I would definitely enjoy reading through you filebox.
Hey Yadda,
Thanks for stopping by the thread. What you described..... scanning, spreadsheets, pdf files..... I have a better chance of successfully building my own rocket and going to Mars. I’m not a computer guy. As for going though my index card box, well, a lot of it is just the basic stuff, like when I got a plane, how much I paid for it, etc. But then there’s more than a few planes that have a story, some of which I’ve written about, and some I’ll get to eventually.
Jim C.
Those cards are history. Time and place. I would love to read through them. Check your church or a local community college. You can probably find someone 20 or under than can scan and index the cards in a few hours.
-
I saw a Paul Sellers video on refurbishing an old hand plane to use and it inspired me to pick up a few and try my hand at it. All of them need cleaning and sharpening. All of the appear to be lower end models or brands. This is the Fulton
-
This is the Victor.
-
This is a Stanley C557B.
-
This is the Dunlap. It needs a new screw in th front handle.
-
Hey Yadda,
It looks like you picked up a few nice project planes that will be good workers once you get them back in shape. I hope you’ll also share a few pictures with us as you rehab them. Some finished product photos would be welcome too. This also might be a good opportunity to start an index card inventory of your collection. You have four cards to add to the box!
Jim C.
-
Hey Yadda,
It looks like you picked up a few nice project planes that will be good workers once you get them back in shape. I hope you’ll also share a few pictures with us as you rehab them. Some finished product photos would be welcome too. This also might be a good opportunity to start an index card inventory of your collection. You have four cards to add to the box!
Jim C.
Hi Jim,
I probably should start a card inventory. My multi tool and Plierench collections would benefit from knowing everything I have stuck in bins and boxes. I have the before photos so I should be able capture the after. Probably be later this year before I get to start any real projects.
-
Well, you can blame this post on Jim-C. I also use index cards to keep track of the tools in my collection and in the first picture are the boxes with my index cards. At present there are nine boxes that contain 46 tool types for a total of 7048 cards (tools). The types include tools such as planes (339), nail pullers (30), socket sets (545), levels (35) and so on. Each card includes the name of the manufacturer, number if there is one, size, my code for the tool and its location plus a description of the tool. For example, R-4, F-12, D-2, B-31 is a designation for a pair of pliers and it can be found in room 4, file cabinet 12, drawer 2 and box 31 (yes there are 31 boxes of pliers). I also include my estimation of its condition ( poor, fair, good and fine) and sometimes add plus or minus. Lastly I include how much I paid for it and my estimation of its actual value. The second picture shows one of the cards for a wrench. The last picture is of some of my boxed auger bit sets (119) to show the small tags I add to every tool. This tag has the tool maker and a number which codes to the index card. So, if I'm looking for a tool I go to the box with that tool type, check for the name and note the number and go to the location listed. I also have lists of the tools in another location. Note, there are no duplicate cards (tools). If I have a duplicate it is not on a card.
-
Well, you can blame this post on Jim-C. I also use index cards to keep track of the tools in my collection and in the first picture are the boxes with my index cards. At present there are nine boxes that contain 46 tool types for a total of 7048 cards (tools). The types include tools such as planes (339), nail pullers (30), socket sets (545), levels (35) and so on. Each card includes the name of the manufacturer, number if there is one, size, my code for the tool and its location plus a description of the tool. For example, R-4, F-12, D-2, B-31 is a designation for a pair of pliers and it can be found in room 4, file cabinet 12, drawer 2 and box 31 (yes there are 31 boxes of pliers). I also include my estimation of its condition ( poor, fair, good and fine) and sometimes add plus or minus. Lastly I include how much I paid for it and my estimation of its actual value. The second picture shows one of the cards for a wrench. The last picture is of some of my boxed auger bit sets (119) to show the small tags I add to every tool. This tag has the tool maker and a number which codes to the index card. So, if I'm looking for a tool I go to the box with that tool type, check for the name and note the number and go to the location listed. I also have lists of the tools in another location. Note, there are no duplicate cards (tools). If I have a duplicate it is not on a card.
Awesome!! I knew I liked this guy!!
-
Well, you can blame this post on Jim-C. I also use index cards to keep track of the tools in my collection and in the first picture are the boxes with my index cards. At present there are nine boxes that contain 46 tool types for a total of 7048 cards (tools). The types include tools such as planes (339), nail pullers (30), socket sets (545), levels (35) and so on. Each card includes the name of the manufacturer, number if there is one, size, my code for the tool and its location plus a description of the tool. For example, R-4, F-12, D-2, B-31 is a designation for a pair of pliers and it can be found in room 4, file cabinet 12, drawer 2 and box 31 (yes there are 31 boxes of pliers). I also include my estimation of its condition ( poor, fair, good and fine) and sometimes add plus or minus. Lastly I include how much I paid for it and my estimation of its actual value. The second picture shows one of the cards for a wrench. The last picture is of some of my boxed auger bit sets (119) to show the small tags I add to every tool. This tag has the tool maker and a number which codes to the index card. So, if I'm looking for a tool I go to the box with that tool type, check for the name and note the number and go to the location listed. I also have lists of the tools in another location. Note, there are no duplicate cards (tools). If I have a duplicate it is not on a card.
Awesome!! I knew I liked this guy!!
+1 and another set of cards I would willingly read.
-
You know, it's bad luck to have an odd number of any given tool type. You need to go out and get at least one more of most of the tools you listed.
339 planes? And I'm embarrassed by the number of planes I've got.
-
You know, it's bad luck to have an odd number of any given tool type. You need to go out and get at least one more of most of the tools you listed.
339 planes? And I'm embarrassed by the number of planes I've got.
339 planes.....a prodigious collection for sure! I don’t know exactly how many I have, but it’s many less than 339. I think there’s some amazing collections out there. My hat is off to coolford, not just for his plane collection, but for his entire tool collection, and his detailed documentation of every tool in the collection. Impressive to say the least!
Jim C.
-
Lets face it, a lot of Stanley collectors would laugh at my plane collection as it is full of off brands. Although, I do have Stanley planes 1 through 9 plus a lot of others. And I'm not worried about the odd number, as I have about 600 pounds of planes I have not gone through closely as yet from the lot I bought in Florida before I moved to Missouri.
I think I told this story to Jim-C, but at an auction where there was a fellow Mid-West collector I bought a Wards Master Quality No.9 for $15.00 which is like new. The Mid-West guy looked at me and said "you will buy anything". That is where I accepted the fact that I will buy anything if I want it. Note---The Wards Master Quality plane appears to have been made by Stanley.
-
I've got a Wards Master Quality plane, probably Sargent-made, that's an excellent tool. People who buy from brand name often miss out on good tools.
-
Lets face it, a lot of Stanley collectors would laugh at my plane collection as it is full of off brands. Although, I do have Stanley planes 1 through 9 plus a lot of others.......
Hi coolford,
No need to pan your hand plane collection. I’d describe it as diverse and one that includes some old Stanleys as well as other makes and models. Although the bulk of my collection is mostly full of Stanley planes, I do have more than a few others that were made by, or at least branded by other manufacturers and retailers. I got interested in old Stanleys initially out of necessity, and probably because they were, and still are so readily available. Once I turned the corner and started to actively collect them, I think I got hooked on the vast number of models, types, functions, and specialized planes that Stanley made. I’ve said it MANY times throughout the thread.....Stanley tried to fill every niche, real or perceived. As a hardcore collector, I know that trying to acquire them all could take a lifetime. I’m working on it! While I’m focused mostly on Stanley, I still admire and appreciate a diverse and extensive collection. When I started the thread, I very carefully entitled it, “Hand Planes” and left Stanley out of it. All hand planes and related discussions are welcome here!
Jim C.
-
Maybe it’s just me but I don’t typically have much luck at garage sales. By that I mean I don’t usually find hand planes. I have found old tools that are okay, but not any hand planes to speak of. When I do find one, it’s almost always a block plane, and on occasion a common, off brand, bench plane. Very often those planes are of low quality, and made by companies I’ve never heard of. On more than one occasion, I’ve found a plane that from a distance looks promising, only to be disappointed by missing parts, broken parts and heavy rust. All that being said, I almost always stop at garage sales hoping to find even a common block plane that’s in good, or better, useable condition. By now I’m guessing you know where this is headed.
Almost fifteen years ago I was in a neighborhood I had never been to on business. I made my stop, took care of things and started driving out of the neighborhood. As I was coming up to the main road, I stopped at the corner where a “Garage Sale” sign was planted in the sod. There was an arrow on the sign pointing back into the neighborhood. Okay. It would have bugged me all night if I didn’t at least go take a quick look. So, I made a U-turn and followed a few more signs to the location. I pulled up in front of the house, rolled down my window and asked the “garage sale attendants” if they had any tools. I got a, “Yeah we got some tools here.” response. I parked the car, walked up the driveway KNOWING I wasn’t going to find anything. Sure enough, rusty sockets, screwdrivers that were used as pry bars, a few foreign made adjustable wrenches, a hammer with a cracked wooden handle……. and two hand planes at the end of the table. One was the obligatory garage sale block plane and the other was a less commonly seen #3 size bench plane. As I approached the planes, I could see that the block plane was in bad condition. It had had a very hard life, but the bench plane….. I was thinking, “Look at this! LOOK…… AT……. THIS! No way!! How did this plane end up here with the rest of this junk?” I held the plane just long enough for the man running the sale to ask, “Hey, do you wanna buy that? My answer, “I’m just looking it over, but I think so.” Then his wife (I think), pipes in with, “The longer you look at it, the more expensive it gets.” Me, “Okay, I’ll take it.” So the firm asking price was more cash than I had in my pocket. I was at a garage sale and they don’t take debit cards!! I wasn’t leaving with out this plane. Then I remembered I had a few bucks in quarters in the cup holder in my car. Seventy-five cents short!!!! Thankfully, they let me have it anyway.
Stanley #10 ½:
This is definitely not your typical garage sale find! At least it’s not for me. I’ve never seen anything like it at a garage sale before or since, but finding it did solidify my determination to stop at every garage sale I see. Anyway, looking at the Stanley #10 ½, one sees that it really resembles a typical bench plane. As I stated above, it’s about the same size as a standard #3 bench plane. The #10 ½ is actually referred to as a “bench rabbet.” Stanley made several different sizes and models of bench rabbet planes. By now you’ve probably noticed the cut out sides of the plane and the fact that the iron extends from side to side though the arches. According to advertising, the bench rabbet planes were made to satisfy the needs of timber framers and carriage makers. Basically the planes were designed to fit large tenons into large mortises and cut rabbet joints on large work pieces. Back in the day, the planes probably did fill an existing niche. Notice there’s no spur/nicker in front of the iron. In instances where the user was cutting across the grain, say while cutting a tenon, a batten would need to be in place to guide the initial passes thus forming the joint’s shoulder, and although a spur isn’t needed to cut with the grain, a batten would still be needed to form the shoulder of a rabbet joint. With a sharp iron set for a light pass the plane actually does a nice job of fine-tuning, and creating large joints.
The Stanley #10 ½ was offered between 1885 and 1964. The very earliest versions of the #10 ½ had an adjustable toe section, out in front of the iron, that could be set to open or close the throat of the plane depending on the user’s preference and desired results for the job at hand. Those are definitely less common versions of this plane. The arched sides on any rabbet plane can be fragile. They crack! When I bought the plane depicted below, that’s the first thing I looked at. I also looked to make sure the chip breaker extended from side to side across the iron. If you find a #10 ½ with a chip breaker that does not extend from side to side, it’s very likely a replacement from a standard bench plane. Also, take a look at the iron itself. Only a small section of it can extend though the arches. Unlike a common bench plane iron that can be used almost forever, the bench rabbet iron only has about one inch of useable steel. Make sure there’s something left if you decide to use this plane. From a collector’s standpoint, make sure the iron logo matches the age of the plane. Notice the letter “B” casting mark on the main body of the plane. That’s an early casting, as is the logo on the plane’s iron, which dates from about 1909 to 1912. The plane’s squat knob and straight-sided brass barrel nuts also attest to the plane’s early vintage. Those clues, taken into account with the plane’s consistent patina, well, it’s the real deal and I found it at a garage sale!
Jim C.
(For more details and information relating to the Stanley #10 1/2, please refer back to Bill Houghton's comments on page 45, reply 662.)
-
Here's a few more photos pertaining to the Stanley #10 1/2 bench rabbet plane. (Notice the last photo. See the stamped initials JWP? While I don't typically like prior owners marks on tools, particularly planes, in this instance, the find was too good to pass up, and to be honest, I didn't notice the initials until I got home and started to disassemble the plane.)
Jim C.
-
Hello, Jim. Nice find, and a great story to go with it!!! Is all that from memory? Do you keep a history of your purchases, (as in the story behind the purchase), along with your other records? Regards, Lou
-
Hey Lou,
I keep pretty good notes on my plane purchases/acquisitions. If you go back up to reply 918, on page 62, you’ll see a few examples of the notes I keep on every plane I have. Some planes have more notes than others. Reading the notes on the cards usually jogs my memory. Regarding the #10 1/2, well, I can’t say that my brief conversation with the garage sale attendants is verbatim, but it’s a very close approximation. Funny you asked, I do also remember removing the lever cap and the guy saying, “If you break it, you buy it.” These two (husband and wife I’m thinking) were not overly friendly. That’s what I remember most about the whole event.
Jim C.
-
What a beauty.
I agree with your comment on garage sales, but there are often glorious exceptions.
-
Hi Northwoods,
It’s absolutely the best plane I’ve ever come across at a garage sale. Not just based on its condition, but also its uniqueness. While a #10 1/2 isn’t super rare, its’s not a plane I’d expect to see at suburban garage sale. Many years ago, I found a pretty nice user quality #15 block plane at a garage sale. I wasn’t as surprised to find that one. It was a pretty common block plane at a garage sale. Not a big deal. I guess you never know until you stop and take a look.
Jim C.
-
you're killing me. I almost never stop at yard sales...mostly gave up on them years ago because i don't need more "stuff" at home (or course that's not really true or i wouldn't be at the local Restore all the time). :tongue:
Nice find. Thanks for the pictures; especially the blade. :smiley:
-
Hi p,
I’m sorry this has become a painful event! If you’d like me to start featuring more planes with no real story behind them other than, “Bought this plane at the auction on blah blah blah” or “Got this plane on eBay.” I can do that too! I’m not always sure those features are the most interesting to read. I personally like writing about the “back story planes” more than the “no story planes.” I’ll try to mix it up a little. I promise, the next plane I feature will be no frills. :smiley:
Jim C.
-
Funny, I kind of like finding a previous owner's initials on a plane; gives me a feeling of connecting to its history, and reason to think that it was probably treated well for at least part of its life. I'm just selling, elsewhere, a No. 2 on which a previous owner proudly engraved his name (Jim Ford) and union local (222). I couldn't find a relevant union of that number listed on Google; I guess it must have merged with another local at some point.
-
Hi Bill,
Initials on a plane aren’t necessary a deal killer in my book. The old wood body planes frequently are found with names and initials of previous owners stamped onto their ends. They do add a little history to a plane, particularly if you know whose initials they are. Initials stamped on cast iron planes, when applied carefully and in a discreet location, don’t detract too much from the plane or its value. If the plane is a “user” I don’t think it matters at all. From a collector’s point of view, well, not having them on a plane is probably better. When I bought that #10 1/2, I didn’t notice the initials until I got home. Funny thing is the initials are on both sides of the plane in the same place. As you can see, they’re carefully applied and neat, but if given a choice, I’d rather not have them on the plane. Had I seen them when I was at the garage sale, I’m pretty sure I would have still bought the plane.
Many, many years ago, I was at a tool meet looking for Bedrocks. I was going after a #607 and found one in really great user condition. It was appropriately priced, but I wanted to think about it and look around a little more. Well, I came across another guy who had several Bedrocks for sale. Practically every one was engraved with large “H W” letters in the japanning right behind the tote. He had a #607 for sale that was priced significantly below the other #607 I had seen earlier. To make a long story short, I bought the “H W” engraved #607. I brought it home, tuned it up, and NEVER used that plane. Those extra large initials, while very neatly applied with a Dremel most likely, made me nuts. I absolutely couldn’t wait to dump that plane. I wanted it out of my shop. I eventually came across a new woodworker and very gladly donated it. You’re probably thinking, “Wow, this guy has issues.” What can I say?
Jim C.
-
No, I say vive la différence!
-
Holy Cow! Look at the third page of this offering on thebay.
In 1934, a Stanley #1 could be had for $2.80. That's $52.47 in 2018 dollars. I think the #1 beat inflation quite handily.
https://www.ebay.com/itm/151560304156
-
Speaking of garage sales and the chances of striking it rich, today was that day for me.
This was the second day of a sale in Lawrence, Kansas, and I collected:
HSB REV-O-NOC transitional plane in perfect condition
5/16" through 1" set of Plomb combination wrenches, perfect in chrome
Blue Point OEX 20 5/8" combination wrench
3/8" by 5/16" and 7/16" by 3/8" Plomb open end wrenches, perfect in chrome
7/16" by 3/8" Plomb box end wrench in plain steel
15/16" Proto Los Angeles combination wrench in plain steel
19/32" by 9/16" American Steel & Stamping Co, Chicago open end wrench
Craftsman underlined and Craftsman underlined Vanadium, both 5/16" by 1/4", perfect in chrome
four Bonney Zenel open end wrenches, all 7/16" or under
five-piece Herbrand Obstructo "VAN CHROME" set in sizes 3/8" through 5/8"
And I have an estate sale with multi-planes lined up for tomorrow.
Good times.
-
Holy Cow! Look at the third page of this offering on thebay.
In 1934, a Stanley #1 could be had for $2.80. That's $52.47 in 2018 dollars. I think the #1 beat inflation quite handily.
https://www.ebay.com/itm/151560304156
If I only had a time machine!
-
Speaking of garage sales and the chances of striking it rich, today was that day for me.
This was the second day of a sale in Lawrence, Kansas, and I collected:
HSB REV-O-NOC transitional plane in perfect condition..........
And I have an estate sale with multi-planes lined up for tomorrow.
Good times.
I hope you’ll post a few pictures of the planes you’ve been buying at the sales!
Jim C.
-
Okay, I promised p_toad my next hand plane feature would spare him any agony and be “no frills.” There’s no great story to this one. I bought it from a seller I occasionally buy from on eBay. He typically lists his planes with two options; “Buy it Now” or “Make an Offer.” I made an offer, he countered, I countered his counter, he accepted. That was it. I bought the plane.
Stanley #10 1/2C:
If you’ve been following along, you’re probably thinking, “Hey, that’s the plane Jim just featured last week. (See page 63, reply 941) For the most part it is. The only real difference between the two is that the #10 ½ I showed you last week had a smooth sole. The plane depicted below has a corrugated sole. We’ve seen that on MANY different Stanley bench plane models. As a matter of fact, most of the Stanley bench plane models were produced with a smooth sole and a corrugated sole. Generally speaking, the corrugated versions are a little more scarce, and in some cases, were produced for shorter periods of time. In this particular instance, while the #10 ½ was produced between 1885 and 1964, the #10 1/2C was manufactured from 1902 to 1917. It’s a tough one to find in any condition. Consequently what I’ve found over the years of collecting is that scarcity does play a role in my decision to buy a less than perfect example of a plane. Without getting into too much detail, this one of those planes, and I will go into the details in my next post.
As for the #10 1/2C and its functions/features, well, everything I said about the #10 ½ pretty much applies here too. There you have it. Short and sweet!!
Jim C.
-
Here's a few more photos of the Stanley #10 1/2C. The last two pictures show the Stanley #10 1/2 (background) and 10 1/2C (foreground).
Jim C.
-
During the last week or so, I featured a couple Stanley bench rabbet planes, the #10 1/2 and #10 1/2C. By chance, I'd say both were probably manufactured between 1907 and 1912. As I mentioned in prior posts pertaining to the planes, the #10 1/2 was in production for about eighty years, while the #10 1/2C was only in production for about fifteen years and went out of production over one hundred years ago. That being said, I would categorized the #10 1/2C as being relatively scarce. It's a tough plane to find in any condition. In the last twenty years of collecting, I've only seen a handful of them. While definitely not the most rare of all Stanley hand planes, if you're a serious collector, it's probably one to consider acquiring when you see it. The odds are you might not see it again any time soon. That "buy it now" strategy does present quandary of sorts. As a collector, a plane's condition and completeness are paramount to almost everything. We collect for the love of collecting, but like it or not, at some point we, or our heirs, will liquidate some or all of our collections. I said it before and I'll say it again; I believe that the best condition tools will mostly hold their value over the long haul. So what happens when you find a rare tool in less than top collector quality condition? There's some conflict between scarcity and top shelf quality.
Under most situations, particularly when considering a common plane to collect (not necessarily to use), I'd say, "Get the best one you can find, make sure it's undamaged, and check to see if it's complete and all of its parts are vintage correct." If the plane doesn't score high marks in all those criteria, pass on it. Basically, "do your homework." I've spouted that line throughout the thread. So now you've come across that rare plane, but its condition is more like "user" quality, and perhaps some of its parts aren't vintage correct, or maybe there's some damage. How far will you lower your "collector standards?" Well, I've found that I will be less critical of a scarce plane to a certain point. I will not forgive serious damage. Examples would include heavy rust and deep pitting, casting cracks, chips and associated repairs. I'll typically reject a plane that's missing parts which are specialized and/or unique to the plane itself. Some of those parts are difficult to find and expensive when you do find them. In some cases, like both #10 1/2 bench rabbet planes for instance, finding the correct cutting iron with the vintage appropriate Stanley logo could be tricky at best and a possible deal killer. Where I seem to soften a little is when a rare plane may have suffered minor damage to castings (scratches, nicks, etc.) and similar minor damage to associated vintage correct parts. The Stanley #10 1/2C I recently featured is a very good example of a relatively scarce plane that I had to be less critical of only because of its rarity.
Below, I've included a few photos of parts found on the #10 1/2 and #10 1/2C. In all instances, the #10 1/2 parts are on the left and the #10 1/2C parts are on the right. The first two photos depict the lever caps from both planes. Notice how the leading edge corners on the #10 1/2C cap are clearly chipped! The cap was dropped, possibly more than once, and the corners cracked off. Hardly "collector quality." The next photo shows the rear totes from both planes. Look really close. See the crack in the in the #10 1/2C tote? While both parts are replaceable, I still have to find (and pay for) vintage correct replacements. Now look at the main body castings. See the difference between the two. While the #10 1/2 has a nice even patina, the #10 1/2C has some obvious scratches and light pitting. Unfortunately, the corrugations on the sole of the main casting make the plane scarce. It really can't be replaced. The condition of #10 1/2C is far from collector quality, but its scarcity has overshadowed some of its apologies, all of which I was and still am willing to accept. Now it has occurred to me that since all the parts are interchangeable, I could swap the lever caps and totes, particularly since both were manufactured during the same time period. In terms of vintage correctness, they're a match. Still, I have some insane sense of obligation to both planes. They're both one hundred years old and from the looks of things, all of their parts appear to be original to the planes themselves. While that may just be wishful thinking on my part, based on the facts and circumstances surrounding my garage sale found #10 1/2, there's no doubt in my mind that the main casting and all of its associated parts have been together since it left the factory. After all these years, I'm not going to separate them.
Jim C.
-
This thread has motivated me to get a plane to restore.
So,at today's flea I bought a rare Stanley bullnose plane , tho I am not sure what number it is.
It is very early as the blade says Ohio, so it must have been before they moved to Connecticut.
It even comes with an extra blade, that is almost new.
I am going to very carefully clean it and get it back to as close to new condition as I can.
Any advice would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks
Skip
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/33733938058_291c8536ed_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/ToXfvG)apr077 (https://flic.kr/p/ToXfvG) by Skip Albright (https://www.flickr.com/photos/skipskip/), on Flickr
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/33733938168_4be1ea480b_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/ToXfxA)apr073 (https://flic.kr/p/ToXfxA) by Skip Albright (https://www.flickr.com/photos/skipskip/), on Flickr
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/47611211441_3b7c83004d_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2fxeUpT)apr074 (https://flic.kr/p/2fxeUpT) by Skip Albright (https://www.flickr.com/photos/skipskip/), on Flickr
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/32668719317_b87a872edd_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/RLPJ6k)apr076 (https://flic.kr/p/RLPJ6k) by Skip Albright (https://www.flickr.com/photos/skipskip/), on Flickr
-
Cool, Skip! That's the extremely rare No. 10-13/64 cabinetwrecker's rabbet (or rabbit*) chiselnose plane. The extension there on the right front can be sharpened to use for scribing cross-grain rabbets (don't try it on rabbits, as they're not pretty when they get cross).
*But not rebate: you're not going to get any money back on that one.
-
surprise cheapy - says made in usa, but is a sears; not craftsman. prior owner had it fairly sharp as i laid it up against a 2x4 and peeled some wood without trying hard.
-
Hey p,
That’s a good block plane! It’s always nice to find an old plane that’s in working order from the get go. That’s not typically the case. The front knob sort of reminds me of Sargent block planes I’ve seen. If the knob is original to the plane, I’m gonna guess it’s a Sargent made tool.
Jim C.
-
Thanks Jim. When i get a bit of time i'm going to strip it down and see if there are any other markings on it beside the made in usa. the sears is stamped (?) with a model number on the one side.
-
Hi Peter,
I did a little more checking and based on what I can see in your photo, I’m still thinking your block plane is a Sargent made tool. If I had to make a guess, I’d say it’s a lot like a model #217. Sargent manufactured the #217 between 1910 and 1953. Based on the knob and the black japanned versus nickel plated trimmings, I’d say your plane was probably made at some point between the 1930s and early 1940s. It’s a good quality plane that looks like a nice user. Great find!
Jim C.
-
Hello hand plane enthusiasts! I hope your summer is off to a great start. A little over a month ago, I found a lot of spare time to finally get some things done around the house. Some projects were things I was going to get to “some day.” One of those projects was cleaning out the garage and getting rid of stuff, some of which had been out there for a decade or more. Once the clutter was drastically reduced I figured, well, I should do some cosmetic drywall repair, apply a new coat of paint, and put up some PVC trim. Like any house, walls aren’t flat, corners aren’t ninety degrees, and as such, the custom fitting of trim is a given.
There’s a thirty inch wide pass through between the two car stall in my garage and the one car stall. The opening was never trimmed out with casing and was simply rough cut, jagged dry wall. It just needed some external corner molding to cover the rough drywall “end grain.” It looked pretty bad, but was never a priority. After cleaning up the garage, at least trimming the pass through had to be done. Rather than using wood, I went with PVC. In the winter, I get a lot of slush and wet sloppy stuff that drips off the cars in the garage. PVC is affordable and pretty much maintenance free. It’s durable for sure. It actually cuts nicely when using power tools, and as I learned, it can be hand planed too! That pass through I was talking about was a builder after thought. It’s not square anywhere, and the opening is a little wider at the top than it is at the bottom. It’s functional but was poorly executed in terms of cosmetic appeal. Since there’s variation at the top and bottom of the opening, it required me to taper the bottom third of an eighty inch long piece of molding. (If you take a look at the left side vertical molding, you might see that the molding is wider at the top than it is at the bottom.) Even though the PVC cut nicely with my miter saw, I wasn’t sure about planing it. Still, it absolutely had to be tapered to fit the corner properly. Rather than attempt it for the first time with one of my favorite “furniture making” block planes, I thought I’d go with a utility block plane.
Many, many years ago, maybe during the late 1980s, when I started getting interested in hand planes, I received a Sears branded block plane from my father-in-law as a gift. I did my best to sharpen the iron and have used it almost exclusively for planing off dried glue squeeze out on laminations. It’s a useable plane that gets the job done. It was made in England, probably by Stanley, back when Stanley had pushed a lot of its plane production over seas. The plane is the functional equivalent of the Stanley #220, which I believe was also made well into the 1980s. If you go back in the thread to page 49, reply 734, we discussed the #220, including its strengths and limitations. Anyway, this little project, planing PVC in this instance, was exactly what I was talking about back in the Stanley #220 post. Even though I used the Sears version, it proved to be a great tool out in the garage on a very basic DIYer project. As long as the plane is used on work for which it was designed, and one's expectations are reasonable, the results can be good! The last photo depicts the Stanley made Sears block plane (fore ground) and the Stanley #220 (background). Both are perfect tools for general use DIYer applications.
Jim C.
-
I have also used a small block plane on PVC trim and it works fine as long as the iron is sharp. Then again, why use a plane if the iron isn't sharp. I wonder what the outdoor life of trim PVC is if it is kept painted?
-
Hi coolford,
Thanks for stopping by the thread! You’re right, a sharp iron is half the battle, and when using a basic block plane like the Stanley #220 or its Sears equivalent, it’s mostly the whole battle. Other than the cutting depth, there’s not much more to worry about.
As you can see from the photo I included, the PVC trim is going to be out of the elements for the most part, so I’m expecting it to last for a long time. As for using PVC outside, well, I just thought that stuff would last for decades whether it was painted or not. Maybe my faith in its durability is misplaced? I will say that it does plane nicely with a sharp iron and a light depth of cut. I’ll admit that after working the taper on that one piece of trim using my Sears block plane, I did make a couple final passes with my favorite Lie Nielsen #60 1/2 block plane. (See page 19, reply 270 for more on the L-N #60 1/2 block plane.). The shavings were semi transparent and floated to the floor. I have no clue whether the PVC will dull the cutting edge faster than wood or not, but I wanted to see how precisely the PVC could be planed. With a super sharp iron set at a low angle and a light pass, the results were impressive.
Jim C.
-
PVC's a pretty soft material; I wouldn't expect it to be hard on a cutting edge.
-
Hi Bill,
Hope you’re off to a great start on summer! Yeah, I wasn’t sure what to expect so I started planing the PVC with a plane I wasn’t too worried about taking a chance with. The PVC cuts pretty easily. I don’t know when I’ll ever need to do it again, but now I know for sure, it can be done with no adverse effects.
Jim C. (Always learning)
-
This is a Stanley 60 1/2 question. I have a 60 1/2P Stanley in a box (the P is on the box, not the plane) in my collection painted midnight blue. Saturday in a $5.00 box lot I bought to get some wrenches was another 60 1/2 that is slightly different than the one in my collection.
Compared to the one in my collection, the one in the box lot has these differences.
1. Markings on the iron are about 1/2 size.
2. It is painted black
3. Knob for adjusting the throat is solid brass, not silver color like the one in my collection.
4. Blade adjustment knob is smaller with different circular markings.
5. Placed side by side they look the same as size wise they are identical.
I figure the one in the box lot is older, but how much older since there are no types listed for a 60 1/2. And, then how old is the one painted midnight blue in my collection. No indication of date on the box.
-
Blue indicates early 60s to somewhere in the 70s production. Black is older, except that the redesigned English block planes are black.
Is the profile of the adusting knob, on the knurled edge, rounded? If so, is it stamped "Made in England?" Redesign, and fairly new (last 15 or so years?).
-
Hey Coolford,
Kinda what Bill was saying. Right around 1960, Stanley started finishing their planes in a midnight blue color. Around 1970, they went to a cordovan color. Neither color was overly popular, so about 1980, Stanley went back to black. As for a Stanley 60 series block plane Type Study, I believe John Wells put one together a few years ago. I’ll look around for it.
Jim C.
-
The black one has a lot of paint missing and it is USA as marked on the blade adjusting knob. To me, the solid brass throat adjusting knob would seem to indicate age.
-
Hi coolford,
If you go way back in the thread to page 39, reply 572, we talked a little bit about the differences between the Stanley #60 and the Stanley #60 1/2 block planes. The real differences between the two, and the #65 and #65 1/2 for that matter, were the finishes. The #60 1/2 and the #65 1/2 were both finished with “brass trimmings” while the #60 and #65 were finished with nickel trimmings. I know there’s a Type Study regarding the Stanley 60 series block planes. I’ll track it down and try posting it here on the thread.
Jim C.
-
Please be patient. I found the Stanley 60 series block plane Type Study and managed to get it scanned and sent to myself in an email. So I have a file. The problem I'm having is that the file is too big and I can't post it here in the thread.
Jim C.
-
"The problem I'm having is that the file is too big and I can't post it here in the thread."
Can you save it to a file sharing site and provide us a link?
Look here- https://www.computerworld.com/article/3262636/top-10-file-sharing-options-dropbox-google-drive-onedrive-and-more.html (https://www.computerworld.com/article/3262636/top-10-file-sharing-options-dropbox-google-drive-onedrive-and-more.html)
-
file is too big
Jim C.
Text file? PDF? ODF? just curious if I can help in any way.
-
file is too big
Jim C.
Text file? PDF? ODF? just curious if I can help in any way.
Hi P,
I sent you a PM.
-
Well I really didn't need more planes, went to an auction yesterday and ended up buying 41. Included were 21 small block planes for $7.50, Yes, that was 7 dollars and fifty cents. These are all users, but not trash. The larger planes were all $3.00 each except for the No. 7 Stanley and No. 22 Millers Falls. for which I paid $15.00 each. Most need cleaning up, but what motivated me was all the good totes that I got for $3.00 each, If I don't like the plane its parts. I keep telling myself not to buy more planes, but I don't listen.
-
Well I really didn't need more planes, went to an auction yesterday and ended up buying 41. Included were 21 small block planes for $7.50, Yes, that was 7 dollars and fifty cents. These are all users, but not trash. The larger planes were all $3.00 each except for the No. 7 Stanley and No. 22 Millers Falls. for which I paid $15.00 each. Most need cleaning up, but what motivated me was all the good totes that I got for $3.00 each, If I don't like the plane its parts. I keep telling myself not to buy more planes, but I don't listen.
Yeah, I'll got to the judges for a final decision, but I'm issuing a preliminary "you suck" warning just on the block planes alone. Fantastic!
-
Well I really didn't need more planes, went to an auction yesterday and ended up buying 41. Included were 21 small block planes for $7.50, Yes, that was 7 dollars and fifty cents. These are all users, but not trash. The larger planes were all $3.00 each except for the No. 7 Stanley and No. 22 Millers Falls. for which I paid $15.00 each. Most need cleaning up, but what motivated me was all the good totes that I got for $3.00 each, If I don't like the plane its parts. I keep telling myself not to buy more planes, but I don't listen.
That is major "Suckage" right there!
-
Hi hand plane enthusiasts! I hope you’re all having a great summer so far! I picked up one block plane at a garage sale a few weeks ago for five dollars and thought I got a good deal....... Coolford, that might be the greatest hand plane haul in terms of quantity to price per unit on record! If you get a few minutes, please post a few photos. Let’s see what you got. That’s a FANTASTIC score absolutely worthy of a “You Suck” award!
Jim C.
-
I have somewhere north of 400 Stanley planes and over the years I have got some great deals price wise, but NEVER have I got a deal like that. That's a capital you suck award with a capital C.
-
Okay, I will accept the "you suck" award, but remember there were at least 40 other guys at the table and they could have bid.
Here is a picture of the 21 planes that I paid $7.50 for, a couple were not counted and the rusty #4 was thrown in. Unfortunately the $3.00 planes which are No's 3, 4 and 5's are already apart and all over the shop. However, there are two nice wood planes, a No. 29 Stanley transitional and an Ohio Tool Co. 16" all wood plane with correct iron and in fine condition also included at $3.00 each. Many years ago at a Mid-West regional meet I bought 50 steel planes No.3 and larger from another member for $100.00 which had already been cleaned---he was getting out of planes. That buy was probably my best.
-
Wow coolford,
You have a smattering of everything in that haul, even a couple razor blade planes. We actually talked about those way back in the thread on page 2, reply 16, and again on page 14, reply 207. You shouldn’t ever need another block plane again......but I suspect there will be a few more in your future!
Jim C.
-
Way back on page 33, Jim posted a picture of a Stanley No. 180 rabbet plane, a simpler version of the Stanley No. 78 rabbet: no bullnose bed, no fence. If I'm doing the link right, it's here: http://www.papawswrench.com/vboard/index.php?topic=9443.msg91435#msg91435 (http://www.papawswrench.com/vboard/index.php?topic=9443.msg91435#msg91435).
He mentions in that post that Stanley later introduced the 190 series of planes, just like the 180 series except with a spur for cutting cross-grain. This last weekend, at a yard sale, I picked up a Stanley 190, previously owned and used by the father of the nice neighbor lady who sold it to me for $2.00. Here it is:
(http://www.papawswrench.com/vboard/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=24921.0;attach=56037;image)
(http://www.papawswrench.com/vboard/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=24921.0;attach=56039;image)
It's frighteningly clean. The bevel is correct and clean, although there's chipping on the edge and it thus needs sharpening before use; but, on most planes I find in the wild, the bevel looks like it was shaped by a committee whose members could not agree on the correct angle or even what constituted "straight across the cutting iron." When I get a chance, I hope to sharpen it up, cut a sample rabbet on a piece of pine, and take it around to the nice neighbor lady, to show her that Dad's plane can still cut it, so to speak.
Stanley had a tendency to proliferate designs and sizes, seemingly often rather redundantly. I'm not sure why they needed to offer the 190 series in three widths (190: 1-1/2" wide; 191: 1-1/4" wide; 192: 1" wide); but they did. I purchased a 192 a few years back, because an online acquaintance swore that this particular model is the cat's PJs, but haven't had occasion to use it, so don't really know. This picture doesn't make the width differences as vivid as I'd hoped, but you may be able to see it:
(http://www.papawswrench.com/vboard/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=24921.0;attach=56041;image)
I do find this sort of rabbet plane quite useful; the main reason I have yet to use the No. 192 is that the cutting iron on the No. 78 is sharp, and it's at the top of the pile in the drawer where I'm forced to keep these planes due to limited shop space.
-
Way back on page 33, Jim posted a picture of a Stanley No. 180 rabbet plane, a simpler version of the Stanley No. 78 rabbet: no bullnose bed, no fence. If I'm doing the link right, it's here: http://www.papawswrench.com/vboard/index.php?topic=9443.msg91435#msg91435 (http://www.papawswrench.com/vboard/index.php?topic=9443.msg91435#msg91435).
He mentions in that post that Stanley later introduced the 190 series of planes, just like the 180 series except with a spur for cutting cross-grain. This last weekend, at a yard sale, I picked up a Stanley 190, previously owned and used by the father of the nice neighbor lady who sold it to me for $2.00. Here it is:
(http://www.papawswrench.com/vboard/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=24921.0;attach=56037;image)
(http://www.papawswrench.com/vboard/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=24921.0;attach=56039;image)
It's frighteningly clean. The bevel is correct and clean, although there's chipping on the edge and it thus needs sharpening before use; but, on most planes I find in the wild, the bevel looks like it was shaped by a committee whose members could not agree on the correct angle or even what constituted "straight across the cutting iron." When I get a chance, I hope to sharpen it up, cut a sample rabbet on a piece of pine, and take it around to the nice neighbor lady, to show her that Dad's plane can still cut it, so to speak.
Stanley had a tendency to proliferate designs and sizes, seemingly often rather redundantly. I'm not sure why they needed to offer the 190 series in three widths (190: 1-1/2" wide; 191: 1-1/4" wide; 192: 1" wide); but they did. I purchased a 192 a few years back, because an online acquaintance swore that this particular model is the cat's PJs, but haven't had occasion to use it, so don't really know. This picture doesn't make the width differences as vivid as I'd hoped, but you may be able to see it:
(http://www.papawswrench.com/vboard/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=24921.0;attach=56041;image)
I do find this sort of rabbet plane quite useful; the main reason I have yet to use the No. 192 is that the cutting iron on the No. 78 is sharp, and it's at the top of the pile in the drawer where I'm forced to keep these planes due to limited shop space.
Nice buy! Nicer neighbor.
-
Hi Bill,
Good to hear from you! I hope your summer is going great so far. It looks like you hit a home run with that Stanley #190. The condition is fantastic and the price was better than just "right." Nice addition to your collection. I hope you do get a chance to at least try out the plane once or twice. I can totally sympathize with your storage limitations. I very recently completed a MAJOR tool purge, shop cleanup and maximized the little storage space I have. Much better now! The trick is keeping it that way. To some extent, that means being a little more selective about what I buy and take in. Anyway, I can't add too much more to what I said back on page 33, reply 494, of this thread, and your recent comments. Since my shop is clean, I was able to get easier access to the Stanley 190 series of rabbet planes. I figured a few photos were in order. The planes depicted below were probably manufactured during the late 1940s to 1950s. All three sizes are represented. One thing to take note of are the little tan colored paper envelopes in each box. Those held the depth stop and associated thumbscrew. I'm pretty sure those envelopes are original Stanley factory packaging. You see, I bought all three planes separately and each time, those envelopes were included with the plane, box, etc. I've seen similar envelopes that held small parts and were included with other Stanley planes.
Great find Bill. If you do make a couple passes on some pine, please be sure to show us too!!
Jim C.
-
Hello, Bill & Jim. Thanks you both for sharing photos of fine examples of the 190 series planes!!! Regards, Lou
-
Instead of your high dollar planes lets looks at one made for a specific job. This Masonite Products plane was made to smooth the cut edges after cutting. If you ever cut Masonite with a saw you know what a messy edge resulted. This little plane was made for Masonite by the Kimball MFG. Co of Evanston , ILL. and says Pat. Pend. The cutter has two positions, a left and a right and requires taking the screw out and moving it either left or right. Also the cutter is adjustable by loosening the screw and moving it up and down in the slot to make a shallow or deeper cut. This little odd ball was in my lot of 21 planes for $7.50.
-
Hi coolford,
That is one really unique little plane, and in my opinion, because of its uniqueness, probably the “sleeper” in the bunch. I’ve never seen that one, so I really appreciate the photos! Believe it or not, Stanley being Stanley and trying to fill EVERY conceivable niche, including planing Masonite (or hardboard), produced a “hardboard” plane between 1937 and 1943. It was specifically made to clean up the edges of Masonite/hardboard. Stanley’s version was the #195. Unfortunately I don’t have one to show you. It’s a fairly scarce tool to say the least and I’ve only seen them on a small handful of occasions. Good ones in nice condition can sell for several hundred dollars. I’ll add one to my collection eventually. Anyway, thanks for the pictures! That’s a nice little find for sure!
Jim C.
-
Hello, Coolford. That is a neat little plane!! Regards, Lou
-
...Stanley being Stanley and trying to fill EVERY conceivable niche, including planing Masonite (or hardboard), produced a “hardboard” plane between 1937 and 1943. It was specifically made to clean up the edges of Masonite/hardboard. Stanley’s version was the #195.
Back then, fiberboard was the Newest Best Thing, and was offered in grades of hardness. Stanley's fiberboard planes came in versions that could plane the different grades. My bride and I used to stay in some cabins south of Crater Lake, built by two brothers in the 1930s, on which the top half of the walls were done in fiberboard of the moderately hard grade. It's different from masonite, more nearly resembling particleboard but subtly different. The walls show evidence that the brothers may have had someone's fiberboard planes, as they have V-grooves both at the joints of the panels (like plywood, sheetrock, etc., fiberboard came in panels for quick, efficient application to the wall) and periodically across the face of the panels for decorative purposes. I'm fairly confident that the V-grooves in the fields of the panels were applied at installation, as they were somewhat irregularly spaced.
Record, of England, also offered fiberboard planes; they're discussed in the book "Planecraft," which is partly a paean to Record tools, which is where most of my knowledge comes from.
Even the bathroom was done in fiberboard, with generous applications of paint to waterproof it. It was in surprisingly good shape.
What seemed crazy by modern standards is that the bottom half of the walls was done in beautifully detailed vertical wood tongue-and-groove or shiplap, from lumber growing on the property (we were told), which would nowadays be considered rustic and lovely. The cabins were furnished with beds, tables, etc., all made by the brothers and still in great shape; and the windows (sliding barn sash) could be opened and shut with one finger. So the brothers knew their stuff.
We miss that place (last time we were up there, it was closed). When we stayed there, the granddaughter (I think it was) of one of the original builders and her husband were operating it, and they told us some of the history. One brother and his sister-in-law died, and the remaining brother and sister-in-law kept operating the cabins into the postwar period. As they got older and slowed down, if the sister-in-law hadn't gotten around to doing the laundry and had no clean sheets for the cabins, they would just say they had no vacancies.
Even though we have an RV now, and will probably stay in that on our next trip to Crater Lake (we need to get up there again soon...one of America's natural cathedrals), I'd be willing to park it and stay in the cabins just to soak in the experience. So sad that they closed.
Also in that part of the state is the Grand Lodge at the Oregon Caves, the last National Park Grand Lodge built. Since it was built during the Depression, it was built to a budget, and, when we toured it on our first visit some years back, the rooms were paneled in a somewhat softer fiberboard that had sagged between the nails holding panels to the walls. "Dingy" is a polite description (actually, the rooms in the Grand Lodges are often not very impressive; the lobbies are where the architects focused their attention). Last we were up there, earlier this year, the Chateau was closed for renovations. The description of the chateau on their website (http://www.oregoncaveschateau.com/Page.asp?NavID=20 (http://www.oregoncaveschateau.com/Page.asp?NavID=20)) specifically mentions the fiberboard, so it will be interesting to see if they replicate it.
Drywall drove fiberboard out of the market, for the most part, because it could be finished to resemble plaster, although homasote, one of the softer fiberboards, is still offered, mainly (at least in the residential building market) as a sound reducer.
-
Hello, Jim. There were a few planes in that series, starting with the 193, which was a Cutter Plane that had attachments for beveling, grooves, ship-lap, etc,. (sort of like the 45 of fiber board bevelers). I believe the 195 was a dedicated Fiber Board Beveler. These were used on Celotex which I believe is now referred to by the product name Homasote, Beaverboard ( black in color, nasty to work with, it is the sheathing on my 1954 built home), and Masonite. These products all went by the wayside with the introduction of plywood, and OSB. There was also a 193A, 193B, and a 194. Stanley felt the need for these specialty planes, but I don't think they worked well. What I don't know is; how common are they? Did Stanley cease production quickly on these?. Just my 2 cents, Lou
-
Hello, Bill. Looks like we were typing at the same time, although I am much slower!!! Regards, Lou
-
Hey Bill and Lou,
GREAT comments! Bill, I really enjoyed reading your recollections of days gone by. Thanks for taking the time add some good stuff to the thread. You wouldn’t happen to have a photo or two of those cabins would you? Lou, also thanks for bringing a few other related Stanley planes into the conversation. I have zero experience with any of them, however, I do occasionally use Masonite to make electric router jigs/cutting guides. Talking about these planes now makes me want one to try out. Oh boy........ I might have to start hunting for one.
Jim C.
-
Had a strange beasty come into the Restore today - a Stanley 139. Two blades but no accessories. Sorry i didn't get pictures but will try Thursday if I can. Also had a Stanley Bailey groovy number 7. :smiley:
-
Had a strange beasty come into the Restore today - a Stanley 139. Two blades but no accessories.
Stanley 139? I didn't realize there was such a tool - is it a plane? It's not listed in Patrick Leach's website on the Stanley planes. There's a 239, which looks kind of like this 238 (picture courtesy of Patrick Leach's website):
(http://www.supertool.com/StanleyBG/238a.jpg)
Is that what you've got? And, when you say, no accessories, do you mean, no fence? In its early days, the 239 apparently had no fence.
I'm tempted to ask what your price is...but, no, no, I don't need it...must resist.
-
If anyone is looking for a little more information and photos, we covered the #238 back on page 34, reply 506, and discussed it again on page 41, reply 603, while covering the #248. The #239 was covered back on page 58, replies 858 and 859. Peter, take a few photos and show us what you have.
Jim C.
-
My bad... I meant 193 (don't know my numbers yet). There are a few listed on fleabay.
-
I recently started working on a project I started several months ago, but had to put on the back burner for a while. Just before I stopped the process, I had chopped out some mortises in the legs and cut tenons on the ends of the stretchers. For what ever reason, when I’m making joints, I tend to cut one or sometimes both mating parts a little big. I don’t necessarily do that on purpose, but it seems to happen almost always. It must be sub conscious because I do it a lot without really thinking about it. The result is a joint that’s too snug for glue, or just won’t go together. In order to make the parts fit correctly, I need to “sneak up” on the final fit by making little adjustments using a chisel, plane, sandpaper, or combination of tools. A block plane is typically in the mix. Stanley and other manufacturers made planes specifically for purposes of fine tuning furniture joints. You might be thinking, “Oh, Jim’s gonna feature a special purpose block plane.” Well, you’re sort of correct. There’s a block plane involved, but I want to show you a simple jig that helps in the planing process.
One of my favorite joints is the mortise and tenon. It’s tried and true and I use it frequently in furniture construction. Going back to what I was saying above, I seem to ALWAYS cut the tenons too wide for the mortises. Now maybe I’m wrong about this, but in my opinion, it’s a lot easier to adjust the tenons to fit the mortises than the other way around. A special block plane with rabbet sides, like the Sargent #507 covered back on page 11, reply 162, is such a plane. If you already checked out the photos below, you probably noticed that Lie-Nielsen also makes a version of the plane. I’m sure others do too. Anyway, both are perfect for taking fine shaving from the cheeks of tenons that are a little too thick for the mortises they’re supposed to fit into. So what I really want you to focus on is the simple jig underneath the work piece. It’s called a bench hook, I guess for obvious reasons. The cleat on the bottom of the jig “hooks” to the edge of the workbench, while the cleat on top provides a solid, stable surface to push against while advancing a plane across the grain of a rock hard maple tenon. Now, the bench hook is not a crutch for a dull, or just sort of sharp cutting iron. Your plane iron needs to be sharp!! With a sharp iron set for a light pass, and a solid bench hook, adjusting the tenon cheeks is a breeze. I typically make a pass and then test the fit in the mortise. If it’s too tight, I flip the work piece over and make another light pass on the opposite cheek. That keeps the tenon centered on the end of the stretcher. Test the fit again. In the case of my particular project, two passes on both cheeks did the trick and the joint fit perfectly.
In an effort to make the adjustments to the tenon using a bench hook, the jig itself must be solid. I like to make the bottom cleat substantial. It should be wide enough to accept several drywall screws without splitting and deeper than the edge of my workbench so it doesn’t pop off the edge of the bench while in use. Can you imagine the bench hook “letting go” or failing somehow while you were pushing the plane forward and pressing the workpiece into the top cleat? That would be bad for your project and worse for your knuckles, hands, etc. Both cleats should be glued and screwed to the base. The screws need to be countersunk to prevent hand injuries. I guess the bottom line is to take pride in your jigs and make them user friendly. They should be as important as the project you’re working on, and made just as well. Take your time making them and they’ll serve you for years to come.
Finally, I think I know my audience here, but I’m not always sure. I hope I didn't insult anyone's woodworking intelligence. I know this was a simple presentation relating to a very basic jig. I know many of you are familiar with bench hooks and probably use them without ever thinking twice about it. But, there may be a new woodworker/hand plane enthusiast who just discovered an unknown technique and now has the confidence to take that next step.
Jim C.
-
I still have the small bench hook I made probably 40 years ago. I used dowels rather than screws, and it's held up.
-
Hello, Bill. Bench hooks are indeed a simple, but very useful fixture to woodworking!! I like the idea of the dowels, to prevent damage to the edge tools???? Jim, we do a lot of mortise/tenon joinery at work, although with a horizontal mortiser and table saw. The final fit still comes down to tweaking the tenon to the mortise. Regards, Lou
-
........ The final fit still comes down to tweaking the tenon to the mortise. Regards, Lou
No doubt Lou. Adjusting the tenon is a lot easier than trying to fix the mortise. A good bench hook and a rabbet plane with a sharp iron are essential.
Jim C.
-
A nice supplement to a bench hook that I've seen but never gotten around to making is a short version of the same thing, to support the end of longer boards as you work them on the bench hook.
-
Attached are a few pictures from the Stanley 193 - apparently made for fibreboard. Unfortunately none of the accessories appeared with it (at least none that i found).
-
and more... when you talk about "fill every niche", i believe it after seeing this. :grin:
-
Thanks for the pictures, Peter. It looks like one of the blade clamps and a couple blades are still there. My wife likes to watch home improvement/remodeling TV shows, and I can’t recall any of them using/installing fiberboard as part of the finished product. I’d guess when it comes to older homes, the fiberboard is probably being removed as part of the demolition phase. While Stanley appears to have tried to fill every conceivable niche, I think there was a time when installing fiberboard was considered a low to moderate cost home improvement project. Back in the 1970s, my parents installed paneling on one wall in our family room. I don’t think many people would use paneling today. During the “fiberboard era” that #193 may have actually been a worthwhile tool to have. I don’t know for sure, but maybe so. In today’s world, it’s an oddity, and probably not recognized by younger generations. If I wasn’t a Stanley plane enthusiast, I probably wouldn’t know what it was either. Like I said earlier, now that we’ve been talking about these particular tools, I’m interested..... stay tuned.
Jim C.
-
............. During the “fiberboard era” that #193 may have actually been a worthwhile tool to have. I don’t know for sure, but maybe so. In today’s world, it’s an oddity, and probably not recognized by younger generations. If I wasn’t a Stanley plane enthusiast, I probably wouldn’t know what it was either. Like I said earlier, now that we’ve been talking about these particular tools, I’m interested..... stay tuned.
Jim C.
Okay, so I got this box in the mail a few days ago...... :grin:
-
............. During the “fiberboard era” that #193 may have actually been a worthwhile tool to have. I don’t know for sure, but maybe so. In today’s world, it’s an oddity, and probably not recognized by younger generations. If I wasn’t a Stanley plane enthusiast, I probably wouldn’t know what it was either. Like I said earlier, now that we’ve been talking about these particular tools, I’m interested..... stay tuned.
Jim C.
Okay, so I got this box in the mail a few days ago...... :grin:
Hmmmmmmmmmm...?
-
yup. good call. that's a box. :grin:
-
I’m going to guess that no one was wondering what was in the box. If you’ve been reading along, a little while back, by chance, site member, coolford, introduced a hard board/Masonite plane into the conversation. Well, after that, it’s also no surprise that the line of Stanley fiberboard and hard board planes entered the conversation too. That’s fine with me. As long as we’re talking about hand planes, I don’t care where the thread goes or what type of planes we end up talking about. Anyway, the more we talked about them, the more interested I got in trying to find out a little bit more about these specialty planes. What I knew going in was that they existed, and they’re mostly obsolete in terms of the material they were designed to cut. That was about it. I’ve seen them at auctions and tool meets, usually missing parts, and can’t think of a time I even bothered to pick one up to simply look at it. Maybe because I knew there was no real use for it anymore. I don't know. Needless to say, I didn’t have any of the Stanleys in my collection. Doing a little online research, I also learned that it’s sinful (or at least shameful) to admit owning one. Not caring what the naysayers may think and for purposes of enhancing my collection and basic hand plane knowledge ……. I bought one anyway!! In a later post, I’ll get more into the actual parts that were included with the plane (there are several) and details regarding the Stanley #193. For now, I just wanted to figure out how to use it and experiment with it.
Once I got the plane unpacked, I had to figure out how to use it. Fortunately I found an owner’s manual online. It was detailed enough to walk me through the basics. Next, I had to find some fiberboard. I went to my local Home Depot sort of thinking I was wasting my time. I was correct in my assumption. Who stocks fiberboard anymore? After looking around a little, I came home with a 24” x 24” x 1” piece of Owens Corning pink insulation board. Okay, I have a plane; I have some material; time to give it a try!
The Stanley #193 was designed to cut various decorative designs and assembly joints on fiberboard. Stanley referred to the assembly joints as “shiplap.” I’d call them overlapping rabbet joints. With the correct accessory and blades mounted in the plane, it was capable of producing “V” grooves, shiplap (rabbets), slits, and through-and-through vertical cuts in 1/2” thick fiberboard. With the fence attached to either side of the plane via two rods that screw into the casting, the working range, or width of cut from the sides of the plane, is about six inches. Anything wider, say one wanted to cut twelve inches from one side of the work piece, would require the use of a straightedge. Like I said earlier, this plane was equipped with several accessories that either mounted to the plane via a “slide casting” and the extension rods (mentioned above), or directly onto the main plane body casting. In some instances, several of the accessories were necessary to perform one function. The other thing I noticed about this plane is that it was capable of employing cutters that could be re-sharpened or disposable razor type blades to make the same type of cuts. That created a lot of accessories and blades to keep track of. If you have any desire to own one of these planes, once again, like I’ve said so many times before, do your homework and know what you’re looking at. Unless you’re really a hardcore collector, there’s probably no reason to have this plane. Still, if you really like “contraptionism,” then this plane delivers big time!
In an effort to demonstrate the plane in action, I decided to try cutting a V groove in the pink insulation board. If you look at the second photo below, you’ll see both blade options available for cutting a V groove. The accessory on the left holds the blades that can be re-sharpened, while the accessory on the right holds the disposable razor blades. Since the re-usable blades were dull, and I didn’t want to take the time to put a cutting edge on them, I opted for the razor blades. Take a look at the third photo. There you can sort of imagine how the razor blade accessory (clamping mechanism) mounts onto the main plane body casting. Once mounted and tightened down, it’s very secure. Also notice there’s a set screw with a knurled nut on the back arm of the blade-clamping accessory. That allows the user to adjust and hold true the depth of cut. The fourth photo depicts the clamping mechanism attached to the plane with the cutting portions of the razor blades protruding though the sole of the plane. Take note that the tips of the blades slightly overlap. That will produce a nicely “pointed V” at the bottom of the groove in the work piece.
Okay, now for the fence assembly. With the threaded rods screwed to the sides of the plane, a fence accessory can be attached. Although there are a few different accessories that can be used as guides, or cutters (shiplap) on the side of the plane, nothing can be mounted to those threaded rods without the slide casting. That part is really important! It’s the only part with holes that will slide over those rods. It can be set at any distance from the side of the plane and is held in place with thumbscrews. All other accessories intended to operate from the side of the plane MUST be attached to that slide casting first, again via thumbscrews. Like I said, it’s definitely a contraption! Once the cutters are mounted in the clamping accessory and it’s attached to the main body of the plane, and the fence and slide are mated and on the rods, you’re ready to make a cut. (See the sixth photo below.)
Off we go! The plane cut surprisingly well. What I did notice was that if I stopped (to take a picture in this instance) the cut before reaching the other end of the work piece and then started pushing the plane again, it tore chunks out of the sides of the V groove instead slicing though it cleanly. Now I don’t know if fiberboard would react the same way or not, but pink insulation board needs to be cut without stopping.
With my first groove cut, I decided to make a couple more evenly spaced parallel grooves. That required the use of a “V” shaped guide that needs to be mounted to the side of the plane. You know what that means. The fence must be removed from the slide casting and the V guide needs to be attached to the slide. The V shaped guide will ride in the first groove. Are you getting the hang of this? (See the second set of photos below in the next post.) Can you see how evenly spaced decorative grooves could be cut using this tool? If you really want to get fancy, try making the grooves perpendicular to each other. Like it or not, based on my first experience using a #193, I’d say that it delivers results as advertised ....... for making V grooves at least. It was sort of fun to tinker with too. I think I’ll try the shiplap cut next. Believe it or not, this plane also came with an accessory designed to cut circles in fiberboard. :smiley:
Jim C.
-
Here's a few more photos depicting the Stanley #193 using the V guide to cut evenly spaced parallel grooves.
Jim C.
-
scary. looks like it actually works. thanks for that tutorial. :smiley:
-
Okay, I think it is neat. Those grooves are darn near picture perfect.
-
Good job Jim,those grooves look very good. You've got the plane tuned right in. I have one of these but I've never tried it out any type of material. It just sits on a shelf and look pretty.
-
Hello, Jim. Nice score on the plane, it looks to be in great cosmetic and mechanical condition. Great results too, shows off the plane's function , and your skill!! Regards, Lou
-
Great post, no doubt that it really was capable of doing the job it was made to do. Did you get every part to it that was available from Stanley?
-
I’m glad you guys liked the post! Thanks for keeping up with the thread. While I wouldn’t recommend buying any version of the Stanley #193 to use, mostly because the material it was designed to cut isn’t popular in home decor, and isn’t really available any more, I won’t lie, it was kind of fun to play around with for a couple hours. At some point, I’ll probably try some of the other attachments. If you’re a serious Stanley hand plane collector, well, I guess you’d want one in your collection. There are several parts and cutters which I’m still trying to nail down. In the short time that I’ve been focused on this plane, I still haven’t conclusively determined what parts were included with each version. There were three versions of the Stanley fiberboard plane; the #193, #193A, and #193B. Some of my questions pertain to which cutters came with which version of the plane as well as the knob and tote type of wood and finish. A couple of my informational sources are conflicted on a couple points. So, coolford, I’m not sure if I have all the cutters that were included with the 193A or not, and I’m still checking on the wood. Once I get those questions conclusively answered, I’ll add a post laying out the parts, details, etc.
Jim C.
-
All the plane posts, and not a word about the Stanley 102?
I got a nice example of the 23-32 Sweetheart the other day. It is pretty as a brown speckled puppy in a little red wagon.
-
All the plane posts, and not a word about the Stanley 102?
I got a nice example of the 23-32 Sweetheart the other day. It is pretty as a brown speckled puppy in a little red wagon.
That’s great! Let’s have look at it. I’m not sure why we haven’t hit on the #102 yet, but now that you brought it up, feel free to post a few photos and a little write up too if you’d like. You can do it or I can, but if you’re waiting for me, it could be a while!
Jim C.
-
Nice plane indeed Jim, it’s in great Nic!
Jimmy
-
Hi Jimmy Joiner,
Thanks for stopping by the thread. Feel free to add some hand plane related content any time. We’d all like to see the hand planes from across the pond!
Jim C.
-
All the plane posts, and not a word about the Stanley 102?
I got a nice example of the 23-32 Sweetheart the other day. It is pretty as a brown speckled puppy in a little red wagon.
Hey Northwoods,
We’re not even gonna get a picture or two?
-
Hi Jimmy Joiner,
Thanks for stopping by the thread. Feel free to add some hand plane related content any time. We’d all like to see the hand planes from across the pond!
Jim C.
[/quote thanks Jim, I get some shots and info together.
Jimmy
-
My Carter no4, these were made in Sydney from ‘roughly’ 1948-1972. Cast at different foundries around Sydney, they vary dramatically, my one pictured is very heavy and larger than the Stanley next to it. I’m not saying it’s better just heavier,Carters didn’t have fore and aft frog adjustments like Turner and Falcons (two other Aussie makers) did. I like this one as it is hardly used and has a great transfer in place on the handle.
Jimmy (http://)
-
Turner planes were made in Melbourne same post war 2 to 1970ish. These were obviously modelled on Millers Falls version from the 30’s with the red plastic handles. This one is a 4 1/2 and is a good looking item and sold well, sort after with local collectors. These feel a bit nicer in the hand in my opinion.
Jimmy (http://)
-
Falcon or Falcon Pope, were made from 46 to 56, after that they went on with a name change to just “Pope” along with design changes such as an alloy frog and cap design change emulating Stanley’s this time, over Falcons earlier Millers Falls design. Falcon seemed to of copied MF’s number system also.
Although it was a short ten or so years of production, there are plenty of these 09’s (no 4’s) around still.
The 5 1/2 is mine ready for a tune and I’m looking for a new handle also. (http://)
Jimmy
-
Popes remodelled No 4, looking more Stanley like than the previous Falcon.
The Village Woodworker, Hand tool preservation Society and The Traditional Tool Group all have good information on Australia’s Hand tool history if anyone is interested.
Hope you all have a great day.
Jimmy
-
Wow!!! Some GREAT looking hand planes, Jimmy! I wasn’t familiar with them but they appear to be pretty good quality tools. Do you have a favorite to use? It looks like you’ve got a nice collection. Is it mostly comprised of Australian-made planes? I haven’t come across those manufacturers planes when I’m at the old tool auctions and meets here in the U.S. Some of the British-made planes are available and for a time, some Stanleys were made in England. How do the Australian made planes compare in terms of quality, fit, finish, etc. to other planes from the same era that were made in the U.S.?
Jim C.
-
Thanks Jim, I do like the look of them also. The Carter is the most unique looking, less of a copy of your US planes, and I love those super thick sidewalls!! I haven’t compared them all as yet, I do have a no 4 1/2 Stanley type 15 or 16 which is beautiful, just bought an earlier no 3 Stanley lower front knob, and have a sixties no 5 which is the only one I’ve used recently, time poor. The Turner feels nicer than its compatriots almost as nice as the type 15 Stanley. I’m setting up a workshop in the next month and will be giving them all a run including my Spiers infill!
Jimmy
-
My Carter no4, these were made in Sydney from ‘roughly’ 1948-1972. Cast at different foundries around Sydney, they vary dramatically, my one pictured is very heavy and larger than the Stanley next to it. I’m not saying it’s better just heavier,Carters didn’t have fore and aft frog adjustments like Turner and Falcons (two other Aussie makers) did. I like this one as it is hardly used and has a great transfer in place on the handle.
Jimmy (http://)
Hey Jimmy,
I found the dimensions of your Carter smoother sort of interesting, and it’s approximate date of manufacture also of interest. Right around the same time period, about 1948 to 1961, Stanley added significant proportion to its #4 1/2 smoother. The main body casting got significantly heavier and wider than its earlier offered #4 1/2 models. It looks more and more like Stanley might have been responding to the European market. I wrote a little about this topic way back in the thread on page 28, reply 419. Thanks again for your posts. Good stuff!
Jim C.
-
Thanks Jim, I’m researching Stanley’s conquest of Titan, here in Aust. Titan are still prized for their edge holding properties and there is some brazing technique on these cutters which seem to be unique maybe worldwide. I’ll research more into these Titan/Stanley offerings.
Most Stanley’s sold here in the eighties, were either, made in Aust or Eng. Record planes were another offering at the time.
I guess the local Titan/ Stanley cutters, must of worked well in our tough to work eucalyptus species that dominate here.
I’ll look up the post you suggested Jim.
Kind regards
Jimmy
-
Hello, Jimmy. Nice group of planes!! Thanks for sharing, always good to see manufacturing from other countries. Jim C. , were you referring to the Stanley #4-1/2 Smoother in general? Or to the #4-1/2 H? Regards, Lou
-
Hey Lou,
I was referring to the standard #4 1/2.
Jim C.
-
Just a little while back, we started talking about fiberboard planes. At the time, I had zero experience with them as a hand plane collector other than the knowledge that they existed. Prior to our conversation here in the thread, I hadn’t even picked one up. Decades of collecting and using planes and I knew nothing about the Stanley #193. With just a little searching around, I tracked down a pretty good early example with most of its parts. I know what you’re thinking, “Jim’s always telling us to buy complete examples of planes, particularly when they include lots of parts. Chasing parts is no fun and can be expensive.” Okay, I broke the rule. That being said, I had a little trouble determining what parts were included with the three versions of the plane, those being the #193, #193A and #193B. When I bought the first plane (I ended up buying two) I was confident that all the parts were present and accounted for. Well they were if I had purchased the #193 version of the plane (and still one cutter was missing). Anyway, I eventually tracked down another version of the plane, the #193A, and pretty much collected all the parts necessary to present all three versions of the Stanley fiberboard plane.
What I determined was that the #193 included everything necessary for using the six re-useable cutters. The #193A included everything needed to use both re-useable cutters as well as the disposable razor blade cutters. And, it performed the most functions, to include cutting circles in fiberboard. Finally, the #193B was a stripped down model that only used disposable razor blade cutters and did not include a fence assembly. It was capable of making partial depth slit cuts, through-and-through cuts and “V” grooves (all with the assistance of a strait edge). The other thing to notice about the #193B is the fact that it included one re-useable blade and four disposable razor blade cutters. That re-useable cutter is thinner gauge steel than the other five re-useable cutters included with the #193 and #193A. It’s only as thick as the disposable razor blade cutters. Just something to think about if you come across one of these planes and you’re thinking about it for your collection.
Although I searched through my “go to” reference materials and online sources, there doesn’t seem to be too much information about these planes. What I did find was incomplete information and some conflicting information. Using an earlier instruction manual I found online, and a later version that came with my #193A, I think I got everything figured out in terms of what parts came with what versions of the plane. What I also learned was that older examples of the plane were outfitted with traditional rosewood knobs and totes and were attached to the main body casting with typical threaded rods and brass barrel nuts. Later examples of the plane used stained hardwood knobs and totes that were attached to the main body casting with slotted head screws. Take note of the last two photos below. See how the light colored hardwood is visible on the bottoms of the one knob and tote set? Other than that, none of the other parts differed in visual appearance and function between earlier and later examples. All three versions of the #193 overlapped each other in terms of years in production.
Stanley #193: 1933 – 1943
Stanley #193A: 1936 – 1952
Stanley #193B: 1940 – 1958
So there you have it. It’s probably a lot more than you’ll ever need to know about the Stanley #193 fiberboard plane. And now that you’ve seen what versions of the plane included what parts, there’s no excuse for buying one that’s incomplete!!! Do your homework.
Jim C.
-
Jim-C----Thanks for the info on your 193A if I ever come across one I will at least know what I am looking at.
Now, I think its time to stir up this forum. I was looking at a sorry cheap plane that was part of my 21 planes for $7.50. Rusty, one with a pressed steel frog, no name on the iron and sides that were not finished and just cast and painted. However, it was all there and the painted side gave me an idea. So, here is what it looks like now. I didn't paint the sole or the iron and after sharpening the iron I tried using it and found that it certainly didn't measure up to a #4 Stanley. How do you like it???
-
Salute!
-
Nicely done!!!!
-
Well...you didn't add much value...but you didn't take much away, either, since it has about zero value. No, that's not true: you added some nice entertainment value. And, if you move it along, someone will think it was originally painted that way!
-
It’s clearly time to close the loop on the Stanley #193 fiberboard plane. Earlier I mentioned getting an operations manual. It's in rough shape but it's still legible and does provide enough information to effectively and efficiently use the tool. What I found interesting was the advertisement within the manual itself for some other tools to include the #194 fiberboard beveler and the #195 hardboard beveler. Leave it to Stanley to make the most of an opportunity to sell more tools! The plane also included an envelope that I suspect held the blades. I've seen similar "parts envelopes" in boxes with other Stanley plane models with multiple little parts, cutters, etc. (See page 71, reply 1054, for more on this little paper envelope.) Finally, the #193A I tracked down came in its original box. While it's somewhat tattered, I guess it's better than no box at all.
Jim C.
-
Thanks for the extra info on the 193. I had never seen one before that one came into the Restore. Hope none of the extra stuff came in when i wasn't there... :tongue:
-
Thanks Peter! It was an educational series of posts for me as well. I literally started from scratch with the #193. Up until a week or so ago, I didn’t have one and I had no clue how to use one. In the end, my Stanley collection is another step closer to complete, and I learned a thing or two about an old tool, even though it’s mostly obsolete. The #193 is a real contraption, but I must admit, it was kind of fun to use. It sort of reminded me of using a plow plane, like a #50 for instance. Now that I’ve tried it out, I only wish there was some reason to use it on a future project. I just can’t imagine what that project would be.
Jim C.
-
Great information Jim C! Very interesting I haven’t seen one here.
Jimmy
-
Great information Jim C! Very interesting I haven’t seen one here.
Jimmy
Thanks Jimmy,
The Stanley #193 turned out to be a fun plane to feature in the thread. I’m glad you got something out of the posts. I guess I’m not totally surprised that you haven’t run across one. Since the plane is so specialized and was designed to cut a material that’s essentially no longer available and hasn’t been for decades, it’s mostly a forgotten tool. Unlike many old planes from decades ago that are still applicable to woodworking today, the #193 had its time and that was it. Couple that with all its parts, cutters, etc., the #193 is a tough one to find completely intact. The individual parts themselves look so strange and unique, trying to identify them without some background knowledge might be difficult. Anyway, thanks for keeping up with the posts! Stay tuned......
Jim C.
-
My friends plane collection, he is mainly into Axes and also like farm machinery, looks like a couple of full hours of fun and beers at his house soon!
Jimmy
-
Wow, wow, wow!!! What a collection! I studied that picture for a while and picked out several very nice planes. A #62, #130, compass planes, routers, rabbets, and a full compliment of bench planes! That’s an outstanding collection! Thanks for the picture. When you go visit your friend, take a few more pictures of his planes! Looks like a heck of a “man cave” too.
Jim C.
-
Wow, wow, wow!!! What a collection! I studied that picture for a while and picked out several very nice planes. A #62, #130, compass planes, routers, rabbets, and a full compliment of bench planes! That’s an outstanding collection! Thanks for the picture. When you go visit your friend, take a few more pictures of his planes! Looks like a heck of a “man cave” too.
Jim C.
+1, more pics warranted. I definitely want close up pics of the stuff he considers important in the wall case behind the table.
-
Ha ha just you wait to see this blokes collections, if you think his plane collection is good, which in his words are “just a sideline for fun collection’. I can’t wait, I’ve been working on and off with him for five years now and have just found out regarding his man cave.
Jimmy
-
I'd love to see more pics of his collection.
-
That’s two of his six Axe cabinets,
Blacksmith Corner
And his colonial mock up hut, displaying his cross cuts and pit saws.
I’m impressed...
Jimmy
-
I agree, impressive!
-
Awesome pictures. Thanks Jimmy.
-
On occasion, for whatever reason, I’ll go back through the thread and re-read old posts. Sometimes I do that in preparation for a post I’m working on, plan to add in the future, or to correct mistakes. Well, although I was done writing about the Stanley #193A fiberboard plane, I’m still fooling around with it out in my shop. A few days ago I decided to try cutting a circle with it. Don’t’ worry, I’m not going to demonstrate that procedure here, but in the process of setting up the plane, I realized that I had made some mistakes in the prior post on page 70, reply 1041.
At first I thought I’d just leave it alone, but it bugged me enough to feel the need to make some corrections to my prior statements, particularly in that reply. I guess it’s just my OCD tendencies kicking into overdrive. Anyway, in reply 1041, I mentioned having received a small paper envelope with one of the two planes I bought in an effort to make one complete example to present in the thread. I mentioned that the envelope likely held small parts or cutters. Looking back, that doesn’t make sense. Sharp cutters in a paper envelope? No way. I will say, Stanley was pretty good about using the right packaging for their planes and associated parts/cutters and providing the appropriate hardware necessary to operate them. After a little more research, I did find a photo online (at Handplane Central) that clearly depicts the #193 cutters in their own little box, and not a paper envelope. (See the first photo below) So what about that little (empty) envelope that came with one of my #193 planes? I know it held small parts or HARDWARE!!!
So, let me go back to cutting a circle with the #193. As I was reading the manual (see second photo), it clearly says, “Fasten the Circular Attachment to the Plane bottom by means of two screws which fit in the arm holes.” ……… SCREWS!? What screws? The manual further instructs the user to make a wooden bar and attach it to the circular attachment with “wood screws.” …… MORE SCREWS ……. that were also not included with either plane I bought! After doing more research online, I came across one photo (on Jim Bode tools) of a Stanley #193 plane with screws and washers attached to its side for what I would guess were there to mount the circular attachment on the side plane, just like the instructions say to do. See them on the side if the plane in the third photo?
In an effort to at least give you an idea of what was included in that little envelope, I tracked down some non-original hardware. The screws that mount the circular attachment to the plane are ¼ - 28 x ½” with appropriately sized washers. The wood screws that seem to best fit the countersunk holes on the circular attachment are #8 x 3/8”. I'm guessing the screws and washers were originally in the envelope from the factory. I would also venture to guess that all the screw heads were slotted and not Phillips, etc. As a matter of fact, I don't think Stanley ever used anything but slotted head screws on any of their planes. I'll bet you're all relieved to know that...... :embarrassed:
So there you have it. I learned A LOT about the Stanley #193 during this series of posts. Sorry to bore you with the minutia, but for my own sanity, I had to get the correct information into writing. Thanks for hanging in there on this one.
Jim C.
-
Hello, Jim. Thanks for sharing. Good job identifying the screw sizes, although not rare, not many suppliers stock a 1/4-28 x 1/2" slotted screw. Regards, Lou
-
Hey Lou,
You’re right about that. Those 1/4 - 28 x 1/2” slotted head screws were a little harder to find than I initially thought they would be. I’ll admit that I wasn’t happy to find out that after buying two #193 planes, I was still missing a few Stanley factory original parts, even if the parts were just simple screws. I think the original Stanley machine screws were flat on top of their heads (like bench plane frog screws) versus rounded like the replacements I found. Like I said, I learned a lot on this one.
Jim C.
-
Hello, Jim. Could you send a photo of what the original screw heads look like? We have a pretty good supplier here, I will check to see if they have a slotted pan head, or, a slotted fillister ( did I spell that correctly? ) head screw. Regards, Lou
-
Lou,
The Stanley original screw depicted below is EXACTLY what I think the screw should look like.
Jim C.
-
Hello, Jim. Thanks for the photo, I will send you a PM. Regards, Lou
-
it's not a stanley, bailey, or anything else i ever heard of...
only got a couple of shots of it and they're not very good.
appears to be fairly well made.
-
Hi Peter,
Very cool find! I’m not familiar with Rugol planes. It’s particularly nice that you got the box with it. I think it’s sometimes hard to come across lesser known brands in original packaging, so it’s a pretty unique. Did you try it out? How does it cut?
Jim C.
-
No, i haven't tried it yet. Still have some more cleaning of rust and dirt (actually not TOO bad). Noted it has cast iron frog and seems to be fairly well fitted (except the loose tote). Screws are all in good shape and i'll try to get more pictures. yes, pictures before i bought it...didn't want to have it go to a bad home and lucky the guy there found the box it came in (most boxes seem to get pitched :tongue: ).
-
Nice find Peter! Looks well made like Jim said. When would you date it? Between the wars?
Jimmy
-
A little while back, I finally found myself in a position to do a lot more woodworking. I had a few projects on hold from some time back. I’d get them started with good intentions but get sidetracked for a multitude of reasons I’m sure we can all relate to in one way or another. I’d spend an hour or two here and there working on a project and then not touch it for a couple weeks, or months…….. or years. Somewhere in there, I had to replace most of the window sash in my house so the machines became dedicated to that project. Along the way, the shop got over cluttered with stuff and going out there wasn’t fun anymore. It was kind of a shame, because it’s a nice little space that was originally designed to accommodate a small woodworking hobby. Well, the window project came to an end, I have time now, and I got motivated to get my shop back in order. Time to start enjoying woodworking again.
Many, many years ago, I made an island and stools for my kitchen. It was one of my first big woodworking projects that I started and finished in my shop. If you need a refresher, go back to page 8, reply 116. Recall that the island top and stool seats were made from walnut that I sourced from a single tree in Michigan. From that same tree came a large branch that had a curve to it. When the tree was being cut up, I asked for a section of that branch, right where the curve started heading upward. It’s basically a slab of walnut that I’ve been hanging onto for at least twenty years or so. I always saw it as a foyer bench or possibly a plant stand situated in a floor to ceiling bay window. With some ideas and design help from my wife, it looks like the slab will be incorporated into a coffee table in the living room. While that will be its primary function, it will also have the versatility to convert into the foyer bench or bay window plant stand if desired.
So how does this relate to hand planes? Well, the whole project involves hand planes. If you recall, back on page 67, reply 1001, we discussed using a bench hook to fit tenons with a rabbet throated block plane. Remember? The stretcher used in the bench hook demonstration was a part of this same coffee table project and will connect one set of legs. Another identical stretcher will connect another set of legs. But how to connect the two sets of legs to each other? Well, the simple answer is a center stretcher that will run the length of the table…… but remember, the walnut slab has a curve to it. That adds a dimension of interest to the finished piece and some extra complexity to the construction process. I ended up laminating four strips of wood together in a plywood press that mimicked the curve of the branch. (You can see the plywood press in the background.) While that doesn’t deal specifically with hand planes, detailing that stretcher, that is, easing the sharp edges does! Any time I can reasonably use a plane to do a job, I’ll use the plane. In this instance, I wanted to lightly break the edges of the three stretchers with a block plane. The short straight stretchers were simple with to do with any (preferably low angle) block plane. I went with my “go to” Lie-Nielsen #60 ½.
Tackling the curved stretcher presented a different challenge. On the convex side, the L-N #60 ½ was up to the task by simply canting the plane’s sole as I pushed it along to follow the curve while keeping the cutting iron in contact with the work piece. On the first try, I occasionally lost contact between the plane’s cutter and the wood. I’d pick up where I lost contact and finish the cut. By the fourth and final pass, I made good cutting contact from start to finish and ended up with a nice finished surface free of a sharp edge. Unfortunately, the concave arc was a bit too curved to allow me to use a flat-bottomed block plane like the L-N #60 ½. What I needed was a plane with a shorter sole that was also curved. Okay, is anyone thinking about the Stanley #100 ½ for this job? It was the perfect answer. (For more on the Stanley #100 ½ please refer back to page 19, reply 270.) By also canting the sole of the plane as I pushed it along the concave arc, I was able to slice off “dental floss” like shavings for a subtle break on the edge, again leaving it smooth to the touch.
Now, you might be thinking that I could have eased the edges of the stretchers with some fine grit sandpaper. Well, I could have and it might have been less involved and faster too. But I think sandpaper tends to dull the surface of wood, while a sharp plane iron leaves a crisp, bright finish. Sandpaper definitely has its place out in the shop, but any time I can reasonably use a hand plane……… you know what I’m saying.
Jim C.
-
Hey Lou,
You’re right about that. Those 1/4 - 28 x 1/2” slotted head screws were a little harder to find than I initially thought they would be. I’ll admit that I wasn’t happy to find out that after buying two #193 planes, I was still missing a few Stanley factory original parts, even if the parts were just simple screws. I think the original Stanley machine screws were flat on top of their heads (like bench plane frog screws) versus rounded like the replacements I found. Like I said, I learned a lot on this one.
Jim C.
Jim, Out of curiosity, did you try the bench plane screws to see if they would fit? Stanley would surely have used something in their "parts bin" if they could, especially on a low volume plane like this.
Mike
-
Hey Lou,
You’re right about that. Those 1/4 - 28 x 1/2” slotted head screws were a little harder to find than I initially thought they would be. I’ll admit that I wasn’t happy to find out that after buying two #193 planes, I was still missing a few Stanley factory original parts, even if the parts were just simple screws. I think the original Stanley machine screws were flat on top of their heads (like bench plane frog screws) versus rounded like the replacements I found. Like I said, I learned a lot on this one.
Jim C.
Jim, Out of curiosity, did you try the bench plane screws to see if they would fit? Stanley would surely have used something in their "parts bin" if they could, especially on a low volume plane like this.
Mike
Hi Mike,
Thanks for stopping by the thread. To answer your question, yes, I did try the typical Stanley bench plane frog screws. When I saw the screws attached to the side of the #193 in the photo from Jim Bode Tools website, I could see that the heads were very similar to the typical bench plane frog screws. I was thinking what you were thinking. Stanley would probably use a common screw that they had on hand for use in other models. In this case, the bench plane frog screw is one of the most common screws there is! Once I figured out the threads per inch (tpi) on the #193 attachment arms that thread into the sides of the main casting and determined they were 28 tpi, I was pretty sure that the thread count was too fine for frog screws. I thought the tpi on the frog screws were more coarse. Well, they were, actually 20 tpi to be exact. Too bad for me because you know how much I detest "Chasing Parts!" Frog screws are easy to come by. Those for the #193 not so much. What I noticed is that the frog screw diameter is also 1/16" smaller than the screws used to join the circle cutting attachment to the sides of the #193. Check out the photo below. The appropriate screw for the #193 is on the left and the typical Stanley bench plane frog screw is on the right. See the difference between the two? For the record, the screw needed for the the circle cutting attachment on the #193 is, 1/4 -28 tpi x 1/2" and the standard Stanley frog screw is, 3/16 - 20 tpi x 3/8".
Jim C.
-
Went to an auction yesterday, no box lots, but what I call table piles. Everything in the picture was laid out on a table and then pulled together in a pile. Bidding stopped at $15.00 and I was high bidder. Obviously no one knew what the plane in the middle was except maybe me, Stanley No. 93 Made in the USA. Also a nice Stanley No. 80 spoke shave in the back.
-
Well, you scored, Coolford! The 93 is not a common size, either.
The No. 80 is a cabinet scraper, by the way, not a spokeshave: used for scraping flat surfaces without wearing out your fingers as fast as holding a card scraper.
The smoothing plane - well, if the rest of it is of the quality of the lever cap, it'll make a nice donation to your local ReStore. But you still made out quite well.
-
Hello, coolford. Nice group of tools, and a great buy!!!
-
Hey coolford,
For fifteen dollars, the #80 cabinet scraper alone would have been a nice score. That’s a super useful tool. Getting a #93 in the deal was a HOME RUN! For anyone engaging in fine woodworking, well, it’s a must have tool. Yours appears to be in top condition, so you literally stole it. Well done!
Jim C.
-
Hello hand plane enthusiasts! I hope everyone enjoyed a great end of the summer and the one or two days of autumn weather we had. Was it just me, or did we skip fall altogether? Here in the Midwest it went from summer to winter over night. Winter weather makes me want to go out into the shop and get a project going. Of course that gets me thinking about using old woodworking machines, tools and hand planes. Last night I started roughing out some lumber for a bed. That means starting with a scrub plane. You’ve heard me say that my shop isn’t very big, so most of my planes are puzzled together on shelves or in boxes not necessarily according to their pattern, or frequency of use, but purely in a manner that most efficiently utilizes the space I have to store them. So many times, a user quality block plane (or scrub plane in this instance) can find itself sitting right next to a top notch, collector quality plane. There’s no rhyme or reason to it. My organization is based on available space. I just need to be careful when I’m reaching for one plane, not to accidently pull another one off the shelf with it. Anyway, that brings me to the plane (actually scraper) I’d like to feature today. I picked it for the thread because it just so happens to sit right next to my favorite scrub plane.
Stanley #85:
If you’re not familiar with this tool, just giving it a quick glance might make you think that it’s a bench rabbet plane. It’s very similar in size to a #10 ½ bench rabbet plane and obviously has rabbet sidewalls for getting right into the corners of a work piece. Well, there’s a lot more going on with this plane that might not be obvious without really studying its features. First off, it’s really a scraper, designed to make fine lace-like shavings one would expect from any other properly tuned scraper. What makes this one unique is the fact that its knob and tote can be adjusted to tilt either to the right or left while the tool is being used to make a pass in a ninety degree corner thus saving the craftsperson’s knuckles/fingers from getting in the way and/or getting chewed up by the vertical portion of the work piece itself. I’m not sure why, but I’m fascinated by the mechanism Stanley used to securely attach the knob and tote to the main body casting, allowing them to tilt in either direction with the simple adjustment of a screw.
The main casting was made to include what I’ll call a “tunnel” that was located beneath the front knob and the rear tote. Those tunnels run parallel to the length of the main casting. On the top of both tunnels, a perpendicular slot/arc was added. That slot accommodates a screw that runs through the respective knob or tote into a cylindrical metal dowel-like anchor that fits into the tunnel. The dowel-like anchor has a threaded hole in it that accepts the threaded screw that holds the knob or tote to the main casting. Loosening the screw head at the top of the knob or tote allows the user to adjust them into any side-to-side position desired. Tightening the same screw heads then hold the knob and tote in place by pulling the dowel-like anchors into the top of their respective tunnels. Also notice the knurling on the anchors. I’m guessing that adds a little extra bite once the anchor and tunnel come into contact while being tightened together. I feel like a lot of thinking went into that whole design! Pretty cool. But things didn’t end there. Since the knob and tote each sit on those tunnels in the main casting, their bottoms can’t be flat like they are on most other planes. As a result, the bottoms of the knob and tote had to be contoured to match the arc of the tunnels themselves. Once again, I’m impressed by the thought that went into this design.
The frog mechanism is functional but includes an adjustment that could prove to be a design flaw. I’ll address that issue below. What I do like about the frog is its ability to provide solid support to the cutting iron as the scraper is being pushed into the cut. The iron is inserted into the scraper through the sole of the main casting, up into the frog, where it is sandwiched between two pivoting sections. A knurled screw located at the top rear section of the frog, when tightened, pushes the top of the iron into the top front section of the frog. By pushing the top of the iron forward, the bottom of the iron is canted back towards the heel of the main casting slightly opening the throat thus allowing wood shavings to escape without clogging the throat. It’s a good design that works. That being said here’s where things can go wrong. If you take a look at how the frog attaches to the main casting, you’ll see two common frog screws running through the oval shaped slots in the base of the frog down into the main casting. That’s nothing new. Now take another look just behind those two frog screws. See that little slotted set screw centered between the frog screws? If the user loosened the frog screws and advanced that set screw, he/she could slightly change the iron’s pitch, perhaps achieving a more aggressive, or less aggressive cut. The problem with advancing that set screw is that it no longer allows the base of the frog to sit flat on the base of the main casting. Essentially it creates air space between the two flat surfaces. Now if the user over tightens those two frogs screws, well, the base of the frog is going to crack somewhere between the frog screws and the set screw! That would be an extremely frustrating and expensive mistake to make.
When looking at a #85 for your collection, or to use, be very cautious and inspect all of its components carefully, preferably with a magnifying glass under good lighting. Check the arches on the rabbet sidewalls, the tunnels on the main casting, and the frog for cracks, and make sure the knob and tote are correct, original and undamaged. I’ve seen more than one #85 with homemade knobs and totes, and more than a few with cracked frogs. Most of the parts on this particular scraper are unique to it. I’d be reluctant to buy one, even in user condition, that was incomplete and/or damaged in any way. Parts for the #85 are scarce and costly if you can even find them.
Stanley produced the #85 between 1905 and 1934. The example depicted below is a Type 4, manufactured between 1921 and 1934. From a collector’s point of view, it includes some desirable extras, those being the visible remnants of the “Stanley” decal on the rear tote and a Stanley logo stamped on the iron. The tote decals are typically worn off and most irons I’ve seen are unmarked. I got lucky with this one! Now that doesn’t mean I didn’t pay for a nice scraper with a few extras. I bought it from another hardcore collector several years ago. He certainly knew what he had and priced it accordingly. Like I’ve said so many times before, if you’re considering adding a #85 to your collection, make sure to do your homework and know what you’re looking at. Even a user quality example can be pricey.
Jim C.
-
Additional photos of the Stanley #85 scraper. Thanks for stopping by the thread!
Jim C.
-
Hello, Jim. That is a beauty!!! I have never seen one dis-assembled, thanks for sharing!! Regards, Lou
-
Hi Lou. Thanks for stopping by the thread! The #85 is definitely a nice scraper. It’s one of my favorites. I’ve been looking for a user quality example for awhile now, but even those that are in complete original condition can still run a few hundred dollars. I either see them in collector quality condition or examples that are really rough. Finding one somewhere in the middle seems to be difficult, and like I said, even those are pricey. I’ll keep looking.
As for seeing the plane in its disassembled form, well, I think that makes it easier for the readers to see what I’m talking about as I’m rambling through the narrative. Taking it apart also gives me an excuse to re-lubricate it. Who knows when I’ll pick that plane up again? Anyway, I haven’t put the #85 away yet, so if there’s some aspect/detail of the plane you’d like to see up close, just let me know and I’ll post a few more photos.
Jim C.
-
Hey Jim---a great post will need to look it up again when a find a No.85. Hope springs eternal, If I can buy a No. 1, 2, 602, 93 etc. at a farm auction I may find a No.85.
-
Hi coolford,
Thanks for checking out the Stanley #85 post. I hope you do find a nice #85 for your collection. If anyone is going to find one, and get a smoking hot deal on it to boot, my money is on you! You’ve had some amazing luck finding some great tools for little or no money. While luck is certainly a part of the equation, I fully believe that you also have an educated eye for old tools. You seem to have a real knack for spotting stuff that others miss. Happy hunting!
Jim C.
-
Jim,
Thanks. That's a sweet looking "plane"/scraper and i would never have known to look in all those places for damage. i have a block plane i'll have to photograph some time so you can see what some prior owner did to it (it ain't pretty).
I figure by the time i get planes 1 to 100, i'll be close to 100 myself...lol...ain't gonna happen. :tongue:
-
Hey Peter,
Who says you have to collect #1 through #100? Go after those models that you like/need/want. If you come across something special and the parts are all there, the condition is good, and the price is right, then go for it! I’ve seen plane collections that focus exclusively on early Bedrocks or just scrapers, etc. Although my collection is mostly focused on old Stanley planes, also remember that I typically go after Sargent Autoset bench planes too. I have a few other Sargent models, but I don’t actively seek them out even though I do like the Autosets. There’s no wrong way to collect. :smiley:
Jim C.
-
And, it's not even required to collect them; I see myself as more of a gatherer with a plan to use the planes - although I find my gathering outstrips my using, I'm still oriented toward functional planes.
But it all works.
-
And, it's not even required to collect them; I see myself as more of a gatherer with a plan to use the planes - although I find my gathering outstrips my using, I'm still oriented toward functional planes.
But it all works.
Amen to that Bill! Right on point. It all works.
Jim C.
-
I hope everyone has a very happy Thanksgiving with family and friends!
Jim C.
-
Right back at you. Hope all have a safe and happy Thanksgiving.
-
Hello Jim. Happy Thanksgiving to everyone!!! Regards, Lou
-
I hope all who observe Thanksgiving enjoy the day .
-
Well, it’s Sunday night and the end of what was a pretty good holiday weekend. I went to visit my parents for Thanksgiving and in the process totally over indulged myself and have zero regrets for doing so! I hope you all enjoyed a great Thanksgiving as well. Anyway, I’m sure no one wants to read about my over eating. So where is this going? About a week or so before Thanksgiving I was talking to my mom and she happened to mentioned that she and my dad recently visited an old family friend who had given my dad a garage sale found hand plane. She said I could pick the plane up when I came by for Thanksgiving. Not that I needed any more incentive to go enjoy a perfect turkey dinner with my family, but an old hand plane made the anticipation all the better!
On more than one occasion throughout the thread, you’ve heard me say that people have given my dad old planes to donate to my collection. He doesn’t really know anything about them, and neither does my mom. He just takes the planes, thanks the donor, and passes them along to me. The process always interests me because I don’t know what I’m getting until I actually see the plane. I typically ask questions, get the best answers my dad can muster, and generally get some idea of the plane’s condition, manufacturer, size, etc. Since I was talking to my mom, I went through the same quiz with her. In the end, all she could really tell me was that the plane seemed to be in okay condition and that it was manufactured in the U.S.A. I just figured I’d see it in a week and go from there. And that’s what happened.
Shortly after I arrived at my parents’ house, I asked my mom about that plane. We went into the spare bedroom and there it was sitting on her computer desk. I could immediately tell that it was not an old Stanley. I’m not gonna lie, I’m always hoping for a Stanley. Not this time. Still, at first glance, it seemed to be in reasonable condition, undamaged, and all the parts were present and accounted for. There was a little crud and light surface rust here and there, but generally speaking, the plane was at least worth a little more attention. My next thought was to determine who manufactured the plane. Nothing on the main casting other than “MADE IN U.S.A.” right behind the front knob, and again “MADE IN U.S.A.” at the top of the cutting iron. That was it! I checked the external cheeks on the main casting, removed the lever cap and closely inspected the chip breaker and underside of the iron, and behind the frog on the main casting. Basically, I looked at all the spots on a bench plane where one might find the manufacturer’s name or logo. I found nothing. So, my mom did give me accurate answers to my questions.
Once I got home I cleaned the plane up and spent some time scouring my hand plane reference materials and the internet in an effort to determine who might have manufactured it. So far, I’m leaning toward it possibly being a Shelton, or on an outside chance, perhaps a Millers Falls plane. Looking at its physical features, the first thing I noticed when I removed the lever cap and chip breaker/iron assembly is that the plane does not have a lateral adjustment lever, and its frog is a static part of the main body casting. While there is a knurled cutting iron advancement/retraction screw that operates a yoke and inserts into the chip breaker, much like many other bench planes produced by several manufacturers to include Stanley, the entire assembly sort of reminds me of what one might see on a block plane. The lack of a lateral adjustment lever and the “block plane-like” frog lead me to think that the plane was designed and marketed as an economical choice for casual hand plane users. The knob and tote are made from a hard wood and stained an orange/red color. They alone make me think the plane was made by Shelton. Coupled with some of the plane’s other shortcomings, Shelton might not be a bad guess. Still for a plane that might be an “economy model,” it does have some substance in terms of weight. It’s relatively heavy and sports an attractive cast iron stippled lever cap. The main body casting is 9.25 inches long and 2.125 inches wide. The iron is 1.75 inches wide. That’s all I can say about this mystery plane. Does it look familiar to anyone? Anyone have any thoughts about who may have manufactured it? Don’t be afraid to chime in!
Typically, I probably wouldn’t spend too much more time with a plane like this, but for some crazy and unexplainable reason, I want to sharpen the iron and see how it works! While I may never know who made this plane, I guess there’s no reason to wonder if it can produce a nice shaving. Maybe I’ll give it a try.
Jim C.
-
It resembles a Defiance-marked plane I've got (I think I actually have two - can't recall if I gave one away). If/when I get a chance, I'll try to pull it/them off the high shelf the "not really ever gonna use this, but it's interesting" planes live on, do a comparison, etc.
-
The color of the wood says Millers Falls.
But....
-
Bill,
You’re a fountain of hand plane knowledge and 100% correct! It is a Defiance. Thanks!
Jim C.
-
Jim----Well, you still have your reputation, Defiance made by Stanley. I have a number of Defiance planes and here are a couple. The one in front is equal to a #3 and the other to a #4. In the next picture the one you have appears to be the #3 as shown by the narrow width and yours matches mine as the tote is flat on the side. Last picture shows the frog as part of the casting which also matches your plane. I like the frogs on these planes as they are somewhat ornamental.---Charles
-
So now I know what I have thanks to Bill's initial identification and coolford's confirmation!! You guys are sharp! I have a Defiance smoother, which was an economy line of tools produced by Stanley. In an effort to better identify the plane, in terms of model number and production time, I went back to some of my reference materials and did find what I believe is the plane in question. I found it in Alvin Sellens's book, "The Stanley Plane", first published in 1975. In reference to Defiance planes, Sellens commented that, "The illustrations and descriptions (in Stanley catalogs and Stanley advertisement materials, etc.) do not indicate any means of identification such as (model) numbers cast or stamped on the parts. The lack of marking plus the paucity of catalog descriptions make identification of this (Defiance) series practically impossible." Obviously Mr. Sellens didn't consult with Bill and coolford before he wrote that. Anyway, I have included pages from Sellens's book that show and describe what I believe is the plane I featured above in reply #1085. Based on that information, I'd say my plane is a model #1243 and was manufactured between 1940 and 1962. The only discrepancy I see is that Sellens described the plane as being 8" long, while my plane is a little over 9" long. I guess it depends on where the measurements are taken from on the plane’s sole. Notice the photo depicts the stippled lever cap as I described above, and Sellens's physical description also mentions the unusual frog configuration. Based on the totality of things, I'd say, "Mystery solved!"
Jim C.
-
I forgot to mention, pressed into the wood on the side of the tote of the #3 is "Defiance by Stanley".
-
I forgot to mention, pressed into the wood on the side of the tote of the #3 is "Defiance by Stanley".
That would have helped me tremendously in the identification process if my example of the plane would have had the same thing stamped on its tote. No such luck, but I got the information in the end, and we got to talk about hand planes. All good stuff!
Jim C.
-
I once found - and, oh joy, just found again!* - a good article on the Defiance line of tools: https://www.farmcollector.com/tools/stanley-tool-co-defiance-zm0z12augzbea (https://www.farmcollector.com/tools/stanley-tool-co-defiance-zm0z12augzbea).
I was struck by how thin the cutting iron is on my examples of the Defiance planes. You wouldn't want to plane any wood that was in a resistant mood. I have idly considered turning one of my Defiance planes into a roughing plane, like a scrub but with less radius to the iron; but, if I do, I'll need to adapt some other, thicker plane iron.
And thanks for the compliment, but I would consider myself more of a leaking faucet of knowledge about hand tools.
---------------
*You never know with the internet. Stuff comes, stuff goes...
-
Hey Bill,
Thanks for posting that link regarding Defiance planes.......Again! I noticed you previously posted it back on page 45, reply 663, almost three years ago. Many thanks for digging it up again! It’s always interesting to see how Stanley tried to fill every niche in the market, and the reasoning behind its decision to aim a specific plane at a particular segment of the tool using population. Why should farmers be excluded? Anyway, I’m thankful that I’ve kept up the index. There’s a lot of great content sprinkled throughout the thread. A few times I’ve gotten mentally lazy and considered letting it slide a little, but my OCD won’t let that happen.
In terms of your tool/plane knowledge, well, I think you’re being modest to say the least. I can appreciate that. I’m sure if we went back through all 73 pages of the thread to date, your well written, concise, experience based responses would be evident. All I can say is thank you for frequently stopping by and adding some outstanding content to the thread! I really appreciate it.
Jim C.
-
Thanks for posting that link regarding Defiance planes.......Again! I noticed you previously posted it back on page 45, reply 663, almost three years ago.
I do seem to be approaching the stage in life when I'd better pick my favorite book, because I'll be able to read it over and over again, and rave to people every time about this new book I found.
-
Got an Anniversary plane (Defiance from what i've read) in the Restore the other day. Marked "made in usa" and "anniversary" on the blade, but otherwise, nada. Pretty decent shape overall. somewhere i took pictures. :tongue:
-
Got an Anniversary plane (Defiance from what i've read) in the Restore the other day. Marked "made in usa" and "anniversary" on the blade, but otherwise, nada. Pretty decent shape overall. somewhere i took pictures. :tongue:
Yes, pictures would be helpful for identification.
-
Got an Anniversary plane (Defiance from what i've read) in the Restore the other day. Marked "made in usa" and "anniversary" on the blade, but otherwise, nada.
That would, I suppose, be an 11th anniversary plane, since 11th anniversaries get steel. I couldn't find "tools" or "hand tools" listed in the various anniversary gifts by year, although the annual gift designation seems to fall off after year 15, and it becomes every five years; so I suppose you could select a year - say, the 49th year - for hand tools. 51st year for power tools. Or you could just say every year that wasn't a fifth year, starting with year 15, gets tools. I'm sure, if we tried this, our brides/lifemates would believe us.
-
Found them. did a partial tear-down and put it all back together. had to tighten down that tote a bit.
-
Hey P,
Thanks for the photos! It’s not a plane I’m familiar with and I can’t say that I recall ever seeing one. I also can’t claim much knowledge when it comes to Defiance planes, but I’m learning and that was one of the reasons I started this thread. Good stuff!
Going back to Alvin Sellens’s book as mentioned earlier on page 73, reply 1090, I’d guess that the plane you depicted is either a #1203 (#3 size) or #1204 (#4 size) smooth plane. The #1203 was available between 1939 and 1953, while the #1204 was offered between 1932 and 1953. I couldn’t find anything about the word “Anniversary” being stamped on the iron. I have no idea if it’s a rarity or not. It’s certainly interesting and unique. If I find any more information I’ll be sure to post it.
Jim C.
-
Some place in heaven, there's a couple who occasionally reminisce about the year Gladys gave Max a new hand plane that she had specially stamped in honor of their anniversary.
-
Hey Bill,
I’ll go with that since I don’t have a better explanation! :smiley:
Jim C.
-
I hope everyone enjoys a great holiday season and a very Merry Christmas with family and friends!
Jim C.
-
Merry Christmas everybody.
Irons migrate . I once picked up an English #5 1/2 or #6, I've forgotten both the brand and the #, for parts. But it came with an Swedish Anchor iron ! It just so happened that I had an Anchor brand plane with a Stanley aftermarket iron. Anchor brand is the brand used by Sweden oldest and largest chisel maker, Jernbolaget. BTW, the parts were too crude to be useful.
-
Got an Anniversary plane (Defiance from what i've read) in the Restore the other day. Marked "made in usa" and "anniversary" on the blade, but otherwise, nada. Pretty decent shape overall. somewhere i took pictures. :tongue:
That plane didn't sell so i ended i buying it myself and bringing it to its new home. :tongue:
If anyone wants more detailed breakdown pictures just let me know. Probably won't get to them right away; it's already
lost in the garage (or hiding, not sure which :grin:).
Merry Christmas to all. :smiley:
-
Sitting here, waiting for plumbers to come by and get the information to bid on a job...time to add to this thread with several topics.
Duplex rabbet planes:
We've talked about these before, Jim about the Stanley No. 78 in reply #220 (http://www.papawswrench.com/vboard/index.php?topic=9443.msg68501#msg68501 (http://www.papawswrench.com/vboard/index.php?topic=9443.msg68501#msg68501)), and John (of johnsironsanctuary) about the Sargent No. 79 in Craftsman clothing in reply #36 (http://www.papawswrench.com/vboard/index.php?topic=9443.msg63056#msg63056 (http://www.papawswrench.com/vboard/index.php?topic=9443.msg63056#msg63056)). But I wanted to bring them up again to offer a couple of ideas.
Here's a picture of mine, a Stanley of England item identical to the U.S.-built plane:
(http://www.papawswrench.com/vboard/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=25330.0;attach=57900;image)
Most of us who gather planes from the wild have noticed that planes often come dotted with white paint, for reasons unknown. Mine apparently belonged to a maintenance worker in a Barbie factory, since mine is dotted with pink paint, not much visible in the picture.
It appears that Stanley originated this design, with Stanley's production starting in 1885, before any of the other major manufacturers (Sargent: 1910; Millers Falls: 1929; Record of England: 1932). It was clearly a carpenter's plane, and equally clearly developed at a time when that carpenter would be carrying the toolbox to the jobsite on his/her shoulder; so it offered both standard and bullnose positions. I find it a much better plane than you would expect: with no chipbreaker and a fairly wide mouth, it should produce more tearout than it does. But it's an awkward bullnose plane, mainly because of its length; when I need to work a closed rabbet, I find a bullnose shoulder plane, about 4" long, far superior. And the bullnose position makes for awkward gripping when you use it without the fence, as is at times appropriate; I find my finger wedging down uncomfortably into the mouth.
John showed his Craftsman-badged, Sargent-made version of this plane (link above). It's a later version of the plane. Much of Sargent's production was very clearly oriented toward people on a budget. The Sargent No. 79 has no adjuster for the cutting iron; Stanley adopted an adjusting lever about the same time Sargent started making their version. The handle on the Sargent is built in a way that would have been much easier to cast than the hollow handle on the Stanley. But Sargent did two very nice things with the early No. 79:
(http://www.papawswrench.com/vboard/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=25330.0;attach=57904;image)
First, it's an absolutely lovely, graceful thing. The swoopy curve was probably intended to strengthen the body, since the mouth is open on one side, but dang, it's sexy!
Incidentally, note the depth stop on the right; this is standard on these rabbet planes, which were designed to be used right handed. The depth stop will encounter the face of the stock being planed when the rabbet is at its correct depth. This location will be important to remember later on/lower down.
Second, they added a little horn to the front of the plane, to make gripping it when working without a fence easier. Some Sargent collectors call it the "rhino horn," for obvious reasons:
(http://www.papawswrench.com/vboard/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=25330.0;attach=57902;image)
This picture also shows the absence of any adjustment mechanism besides your own fingers and skill.
Sargent held onto the lovely floral designs on their planes longer than Stanley, before eventually making less entrancing tools; I'm not sure when that change occurred.
Record produced a clone of Stanley's No. 78, in the No. 078, but they upped the ante in 1959, improving the Woden W78, which had featured a full-length fence with two rods (everyone else had a fence on the front half of the plane, held in place with one rod), and adding adjustment with a knurled nut:
(http://www.papawswrench.com/vboard/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=25330.0;attach=57906;image)
Incidentally, I'm missing the depth stop on this; if anyone has a Record 078/778 depth stop and screw, I'd sure like to talk.
Dado planes:
One topic we haven't addressed before is that of dado planes. A dado, for those just catching up to the terminology, is a groove running cross-grain on a piece of stock. Imagine building a bookcase with shelves fixed at a particular height. A dado is one way, probably the best, to locate those shelves. There are numerous hand-powered ways to cut dadoes (saw and chisel, saw and router plane, etc.), but the plane manufacturers didn't want to be left out of the party, so they developed dado planes. I suspect the design is fairly old. I own two wooden dado planes, not pictured here (I forgot them when I was taking the photos). Dado planes are distinct in a couple of ways: the iron is skewed, so that the cutting action presents as a slicing action across the grain; they have cutting spurs on both sides of the body of the plane, since the plane winds up buried in the stock; and the plane is designed to be used against a batten on the right side of the plane, so the depth stop is on the left (as opposed to the rabbet planes discussed above). Stanley and Sargent made dado planes; I don't know who else did. Patrick Leach, in his extensive "Blood and Gore" essay on Stanley planes, describes Stanley's No. 39 plane as very uncomfortable to use, because the depth stop is exactly where you'd place your hand on the front of the plane. Sargent, in developing its dado planes, adopted the rhino horn, as seen earlier on its duplex rabbet plane, so, when I decided my life would be nicer if I owned some dado planes, I decided to get Sargent planes:
(http://www.papawswrench.com/vboard/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=25330.0;attach=57898;image)
Sargent cleverly numbered its dado planes in a way that includes the width of the plane body in eighths. Thus, the No. 32 dado plane is 1/4" (2/8") wide; the No. 33 is 3/8" wide, and so on, up to the No. 38, 1" wide. I own Nos. 32, 33, 34, and 36. I doubt I'll ever need other sizes. Here are two pictures of my No. 36, showing the features I mentioned:
(http://www.papawswrench.com/vboard/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=25330.0;attach=57894;image)
(http://www.papawswrench.com/vboard/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=25330.0;attach=57896;image)
and here's a sample board with a dado, which came out with a surprisingly smooth floor, considering it was cut in tearout-prone pine:
(http://www.papawswrench.com/vboard/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=25330.0;attach=57892;image)
(The spurs on this plane need work; one's locked closed, the other needs sharpening - so I didn't use them. I think the edges of the dado would have been a lot cleaner if they'd been working). And yes, that rhino horn definitely improved the ease of gripping the front of the plane; so I was smart, something that's a rare occurrence.
A bit more on the Stanley 190/192:
When I posted my excitement about acquiring a Stanley 190 for $2 this summer, I included a picture with its buddy, a Stanley 192 I acquired some years back. I recently realized something about these two planes, to do with the handle shapes. The Sweetheart era Stanley 192 has a handle with top and bottom horns, like the handle commonly found on a handsaw:
(http://www.papawswrench.com/vboard/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=25330.0;attach=57908;image)
It's smaller than a handsaw handle, and, although it fits my large hands (I wear XL in gloves), it would be tight on hands wider than mine. The pressures on a plane handle differ from those on a handsaw handle, and the bottom horn does not really have a function. Stanley may have been thinking about people with big hands in later iterations of these planes, or they may have just been eliminating non-essential features to save money, but the handle on my later No. 190 is sure not a thing of beauty, as functional as it is:
(http://www.papawswrench.com/vboard/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=24921.0;attach=56037;image)
I hope everyone has as boisterous or quiet a New Year's Eve as they want. We're having dinner with friends, and then music will break out; and we'll declare it midnight when we get tired - after all, it'll be midnight somewhere in the world.
-
I had some deja vu the other day when another Anniversary plane came into the Restore. Not quite as nice of condition as the first one (rusty and dirty), but i still only see "Made in USA" and "Anniversary" on it. Starts to make me wonder how many of these things they sold.
-
I traded Jim C. for this plane and when I saw the number of parts I realized it needed a box. Took awhile, but finally got around to it. The box is 14 1/2" long, 8 1/4" wide and 7 1/4" deep. It has two levels, the second level floor is removable and it has a sliding top. I kept it as small as possible while not having to pile parts on top of each other. It is made of odds and ends laying around my shop. First picture is the box, second picture looking down is the top level and last picture is the lower level with the floor removed.
-
Here are some pictures, from the Internet, of the cabins we used to stay in that used fiberboard extensively:
(https://i1.wp.com/takemytrip.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/1050_wilsons.jpg?resize=1000%2C600)
They even used it in the bathroom! A heavy coat of paint helped the fiberboard stave off moisture.
(https://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/04/ab/b3/81/wilson-s-cottages.jpg)
Inspiration for your projects with your fiberboard plane!
-
Hello, Coolford. Nice job on the box!!! Regards, lou
-
That box is indeed a work of art. Excellent job Coolford
-
Well, as there are no auctions and I have to stay home I'm spending a lot of time in the shop. Some might remember that I bought about 900 pounds of planes and parts two years ago. Out of that mess I assembled 27 planes for my collection. The Stanley planes being correct according to the big book. The picture shows three No.4 and three No.5 Stanley planes that I'm bringing back to life. of the six, three are type 11's and three are type 15's. Now the purists will not agree with what I'm doing, but these are to be users and not collected. I start by cleaning the sides and bottoms with a course wire wheel and finishing with a fine. Then I use blue tape on those surfaces and take them to my blast cabinet and remove all the original paint and rust. Yes, they were all rusty. In the picture I have repainted them with three coats of black Rustoleum all in one. I'm now in the process of trying to find all the correct parts for each plane, it is not an easy process. By the way, if anyone needs a part for a plane in their collection I might have it.
-
Hello coolford. Nice job on bringing those back to life!! Regards, Lou
-
Hello from up in Canada, I have quite a few Stanley planes (about 400 at last count) along with a couple of small boxes of parts. I don't have any spare wooden knobs or totes,I do have 3 or 4 original aluminum totes made by Stanley if that's what you need. Let me know what you are looking for and I'll have a look in my parts boxes. I recently picked up a early number 7 bedrock type 4 in real good condition but it's missing the short style front knob. I could rob one of my standard style short knob planes but I'd rather find one if I can. Maybe you have what I need and we could work a deal. Let me know. Thanks Jim.
-
Hello, Jim. Only 400? :grin:
-
Jim--------I looked through my box of knobs and have a short style knob that fits the brass top, it is just short of two inches high. I will put a photo on later today.
-
Jim---Here is a picture, will send a PM to tell you the story.
-
Hello hand plane enthusiasts! I know it’s been a while since I’ve posted anything in the hand plane thread, but that doesn’t mean I’ve lost interest in them. I’m still collecting them and still using them as much if not more than ever. I’ll admit that I’ve been sidetracked by a bunch of different interests that I’ve been able to pursue now that I have a lot more free time on my hands. As some of you may or may not know, I retired last Spring, and I gotta say that I like it. I’m busy every day. While I can’t tell you what I do all day, I can say that it takes all day to do it. Like I said, I have a lot of interests and things I’d like to try at least once. If one or some of them “stick” then I’ll keep up with them, if not, there’s sure to be something else. So where am I going with this and how does it relate to hand planes?
Well, I mentioned having more time to pursue things that I’d like to know more about. One of the things high on my list for many years has been to build my own beehive and fill it up with bees. I know there’s a lot to learn about bee keeping and I’m sure I’ll make a ton of mistakes, but I’m still going to give it a try. I’ll let you know how it works out. Anyway, part of the fun was building the hive. Now you’re thinking, “Where the heck is this going?” Okay, I’m almost there. I need to fill in a little more of the back story before I get into the featured plane…….
For the past few years, my son has taught English in a Japanese high school. He recently returned home. It was an outstanding experience and one that I think he’ll look back on with good memories for the rest of his life. It was a big step for a young guy to take. Pretty much as soon as he hit the ground in Japan, he had to go to work, set up a household and assimilate into the population……and learn the language! Some his first “adventures” out of his apartment were to the grocery store and to a small hardware-like/convenience store. During the course of his time in Japan, he naturally visited the stores and shops near his apartment on a regular basis. As I mentioned, one of those businesses was a small store that seemed to focus on hardware type products, but also carried other household goods, some food and clothes. On one of his early trips to this hardware store (in search of a screwdriver), he noticed the tool aisle included a variety of wood bodied hand planes of various widths and lengths. He estimated that there were at least a dozen different models. Obviously knowing my affinity for hand planes, he picked up a small block plane and bought it for me. There was no real rhyme or reason for picking the block plane versus another model, other than the fact that according to my son, it was small and easy to carry back to his apartment. Okay, I’m good with that!
Japanese block plane:
As far as I can tell, this little plane is a mass-produced item that one might find in any Japanese hardware store. Based on its very affordable price (about 1500 yen or $14 - $15) it appears to have been designed and marketed to the average consumer/homeowner who needs a plane to knock the edge off a piece of wood, etc. I would equate it to a common block plane like the Stanley #9 ¼ in terms of its utility and target market. That’s about where the similarities end when compared to a block plane one might find today at their local hardware store, Home Depot, etc. So, in an effort to “get to know the plane,” and since I don’t have much experience with wood bodied planes, I decided I’d use it as much as possible for any “block plane-like tasks” I might encounter while making my bee hive. It took a little practice and some experimentation setting the cutting iron, but with a few lightly applied hammer taps to the front and rear of the plane body and some practice cuts, I was able to produce some very nice shavings.
Upon closer inspection the Japanese plane seems to have a few features that make it a desirable tool. First off, the throat and iron bed are really precision milled into the wooden body. The cutting iron and chip breaker fit snuggly into the recess under the perpendicular retention bar that runs from side to side. Again, with gentle hammer taps to the front of the plane, which advances the iron forward for a heavier cut, or taps to the back of the plane, which retracts the iron for a lighter pass, fine adjustments can be made. The other feature I noticed was the wood grain direction on the plane body itself. Either it was just a lucky choice by my son, or it was intentionally manufactured that way, but it seems to have been quarter sawn, which I think lends itself to stability and maintaining a flat sole. The cutting iron is hollow ground and about 1/8” thick. I like that feature, as it reminds me of my tried and true Lie-Nielsen #60 ½” block plane, which also is outfitted with a thick cutting iron. I will say that the iron really held an edge and remained very sharp. The plane cut fairly well right out of the box, but with just a little honing, it was razor sharp. During the course of my beehive project, I used the Japanese block plane exclusively. Although I think it was designed to be pulled instead of pushed, I pushed it more often than not. I guess it’s just habit. Anyway, the little Japanese block plane performed well and really exceeded my expectations. I guess you’re never too old to try something new.
Jim C.
If you're wondering what the paper label affixed to the top of the plane says, here you go:
(40mm x 150mm) How to pull out the blade How to pull out the blade Item No. 110412 A Precautions for use As this is a blade, handle it with care. ● Do not use if there are cracks in the canna body or cutting edge. If there are foreign substances such as nails on the material, remove them before use. → Do not touch the blade. After use, keep it out of the reach of children. Sold by Fujiwara Sangyo Co., Ltd. 2115-1 Fukui, Miki-shi, Japan TEL.079486-8200 77292 110419 MINNISNE
-
Looks like a good son and he made a good choice ( even if by chance ) on the plane.
Good luck with the bees and try not to get stung!
-
Looks like a good son and he made a good choice ( even if by chance ) on the plane.
Good luck with the bees and try not to get stung!
Thanks Papaw! He is a very good son and I think we all know I’m gonna get stung.... hopefully not too often!
-
Jim--C---I like the beehive, obviously you and the plane did a fine job. I just bought my first plane off e-bay. E-bay sent me a Happy 25 coupon (a coupon for $25.00 as I have been on line with them for 25 years). However, I never bought a plane as for the most part have been a wrench collector. As I only had a few days to spend the coupon I could not find a wrench of interest. So, looked at planes and "buy it now". Wrenches I particularly like are those marked "Revonoc". As I did not have a Revonoc plane in my collection of nearly 400 planes I decided to see if such existed. Well, I found one and it is a 24" fluted plane with a good mark on the iron. I'm going to restore it and it should look good since it has good wood and no pitting----just a lot of missing paint. Oh by the way, if you will spell Revonoc backwards you will see why I like such tools.----Charles
-
If you do Facebook, there is a relatively new page that is sales during the week and auctions on the weekend. Many of the items offered are planes, and most of them are top quality.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/CanIHaveItToolAuctions (https://www.facebook.com/groups/CanIHaveItToolAuctions)
-
Papaw----Belated thanks for the link on Facebook. I had not been on Facebook but went ahead and joined. I have been watching the sales just getting a feel for the process.
-
Papaw----Belated thanks for the link on Facebook. I had not been on Facebook but went ahead and joined. I have been watching the sales just getting a feel for the process.
Takes a bit of watching to see what is happening. I have been able to sell a few wrenches there and hope others will give them a try. In essence, direct sales go from Monday to Thursday and auctions go from Friday evening to Sunday night. Fewer people than Ebay of course, but fewer hassles and no Ebay fees. Using Paypal by invoice is the way I do it.
-
Jim--C---I like the beehive, obviously you and the plane did a fine job. I just bought my first plane off e-bay. E-bay sent me a Happy 25 coupon (a coupon for $25.00 as I have been on line with them for 25 years). However, I never bought a plane as for the most part have been a wrench collector. As I only had a few days to spend the coupon I could not find a wrench of interest. So, looked at planes and "buy it now". Wrenches I particularly like are those marked "Revonoc". As I did not have a Revonoc plane in my collection of nearly 400 planes I decided to see if such existed. Well, I found one and it is a 24" fluted plane with a good mark on the iron. I'm going to restore it and it should look good since it has good wood and no pitting----just a lot of missing paint. Oh by the way, if you will spell Revonoc backwards you will see why I like such tools.----Charles
Hey coolford,
Thanks for checking in! Congratulations on your first eBay hand plane purchase. Hard to believe you’ve been on eBay for twenty five years and never bought a hand plane even though you have several hundred in your collection. Over the years I’ve bid on many and won more than one or two. For the most part I’ve been happy with the plane I received, but I can think of a couple that I sent back, which is a hassle for me and the seller. Like I’ve said so many times throughout the thread, take a close look at the plane, disassemble it if possible, etc., etc. Unfortunately eBay doesn’t let you do that. You have to ask the right questions, look carefully at sometimes less than clear photos, then ask more questions and pray nothing gets damaged in shipping (which has happened to me once). I hope your plane arrives safe and sound.
I must admit that I’m not familiar with Revonoc planes/tools, but I can see why you’re drawn to to them!! What are the odds of that? Well, I’d like to see the plane once you receive it and get it back into shape. Make sure to post a few pictures.
Jim C.
-
Jim-C----Did a little checking on the Revonoc plane and compared it to Stanley, Sargent and Union. Best I can tell, it was made by Union. The Revonoc plane has no markings except the iron. A similar Union plane is marked No. 8 but has no other marks except the iron. The sizes of both planes are similar, 3 1/8" wide and 23 7/8" long. The frogs are similar and are not adjustable and the weight of both planes are 9 1/4 pounds. I have a No.8 Union, that is also grooved and is just like the Revonoc, so it was not hard to see they are likely made by the same Company. The main difference is the iron, the Revonoc iron is tapered, twice as thick at the cutting edge as the Union which is not tapered. I found one reference that thought the Revonoc irons were made by Ohio Tool Co.
Here are some pictures, I think I can make it look good as new with a little work.
-
Hey coolford,
Thanks for the photos! I do like the logo on the iron. I’m not familiar with the brand, but you could be right about it having been manufactured by another company and then re-branded. I noticed that it has a corrugated sole. For some reason, I don’t think corrugated soles were the first models to get re-branded. Usually they’re common sizes, like a #4 or #5, with smooth soles. You have a #8 jointer with a corrugated sole. That’s a little less typical. It leads me to think there may be other Revonoc models. It’s an interesting topic. Based on your “backwards” association with the logo, are you going to collect more Revonocs?
Jim C.
-
About twenty years ago, I was in a local Walden Books Store near my house. Every time I went there, which was typically about once every month or so, I’d check out the new woodworking magazines, the current Corvette and/or hot rod magazines and then take a tour of the DIYer book aisle on my way over to the American History/Biography aisles where I’d pick a paperback to buy and read. On my way to the register, I always made a quick stop in the woodworking/craft aisle. I’d thumb through the pages of some books like “How to Get the Most of Your Table Saw, or “How to Build Better Cabinets” etc., etc. etc. The color photos and seemingly foolproof techniques described in those books made them very tempting and occasionally I’d by one. Looking back, I can’t think of too many that really significantly impacted my quality of life out in the shop. I got a few tips here and there, but nothing earth shattering. So anyway, you’re thinking, “Where’s he going this time?”
Well, like I was saying, about twenty years ago, on my way to the register with my American history related paperback I made my usual stop in the woodworking/craft book aisle. As I was scanning the book titles, I came across the book depicted below, “Making and Mastering Wood Planes” by David Finck. I had never seen that book on any of my previous visits to the store. Finding this book coincided with my growing interest in hand planes and with no more than a quick glance through its pages, I bought it without a second thought. I could hardly wait to get home and start digging into this book. I was going to make my own hand plane! As I recall, I think I read the entire book in just a few days. I have to say that the book was very well written, taking the reader though every little detail of not only making a plane from a block of hardwood, but also the use of traditional hand tools in its construction.
Prior to starting on my plane, I had to get two things, a block of hardwood and a blade assembly. For the wood, I turned to guy who my parents knew from church. He made extra money sawing logs into lumber with a mobile tow-behind saw mill. At first I didn’t want to ask him, because I just assumed my choices would be oak, cherry or walnut and I didn’t want those. The book recommended, maple or beech to name a few. Since I didn’t have any other potential sources for wood at that time, I figured it wouldn’t hurt to at least meet the guy and check out his operation. So my dad drove me out to his place and I gotta admit that I was really impressed. There were several barns full of wood, a huge kiln for drying it, and several “car sized” piles of saw dust scattered around the barns. When we pulled into the driveway, a man came out of one of the barns and introduced himself. After we shook hands and he showed us around, he asked me what I was looking for. I told him I needed some beech. His response was, “How much do you want?” From that day forward, I’ve never gone anywhere else for wood. Tracking down a blade assembly was pretty easy. I ordered one from Hock Tools, in California. A week later it was in my mailbox. So, I had my block of beech, my blade and my book. I was ready to go.
The day the blade arrived, I got started. I followed the instructions in the book line by line up to the point where I had cut the block up into cheeks, a front ramp and a rear ramp. (See the photo below depicting the book open to the page that details the plane parts cut to size and dimension.) For whatever reason that I can’t even remotely recall, I put the plane aside for a week or so. Maybe it was work, the kids, some other project around the house, etc., or probably some combination of all of them, but the partially completed plane got moved to the side of my bench. As expected, I kept having to shuffle it around to get it out of the way, so I eventually moved it to the bottom drawer of a rolling tool box with every intention of finishing it. Occasionally I’d go into that drawer looking for something and I’d see that plane. Every time I’d think to myself, “One of these days I’m going to finish that plane.” Well, as much as I hate to admit it, that plane sat in the bottom drawer of the tool box for twenty years..... I never finished it.
About a week ago, I went into that tool box drawer looking for something and like every other time, saw that little stack of wood blocks that would someday become a plane. The blade assembly was right there too. For whatever reason, the unfinished plane suddenly became a priority. I can’t even tell you why but I took it out of the drawer, found where I left off in the book, and got to work. Two days later it was done! I took my time and I gotta say that I’m pretty happy with it’s performance. With just a few well placed hammer taps and outfitted with that thick Hock blade that just barely penetrates through the sole of the plane, it cuts a shaving that’s whisper thin. Along with the beech body, I made the cross pin from a little scrap of red oak and the wedge from a small piece of walnut. The oak and walnut were no coincidence, but rather a reminder to keep an open mind and to find out all the facts before making a judgment. (As I get older, I seem to be getting more introspective.)
While the book goes into detail relating to shaping and contouring the plane’s body, I choose to leave the plane closer to its original block-like form. It’s heavier and I believe that the extra mass adds positively to its cutting performance. I must say that I really enjoyed the process of making the plane and I’m already planning my next one! I just hope it doesn't take twenty years to complete!
Jim C.
-
Very nice!
-
Cool!!! If it takes 20 years for the next one you may be putting it off because you are playing a harp. I see those hand made planes every once in awhile at auctions. Sometimes they go high and other times no one wants them, go figure?
-
Very nice!
Thanks :smiley:
-
Cool!!! If it takes 20 years for the next one you may be putting it off because you are playing a harp. I see those hand made planes every once in awhile at auctions. Sometimes they go high and other times no one wants them, go figure?
Yikes!! Let’s hope the harp thing is much further down the road, but I guess you never know. I’m going to get started on my second plane today. I have a cherry 9” long, 3” x 3” laminated cut off I’m going to try to turn into a smoother. I’ll keep you posted.
Jim C.
-
If you look closely at the cover of the book I referred to in reply #1128 above, you’ll see a small brass hammer beneath a chisel. The hammer is used to adjust the plane’s iron. The author of the book goes though the step-by-step process of making the hammer. Well, I made the plane, so I figured I’d take a shot at the hammer too.
Jim C.
-
The plane and the hammer are sweet. Keep us apprised.
-
The plane and the hammer are sweet. Keep us apprised.
Many thanks! :grin:
-
Great job on both !
-
Great job on both !
+1
-
Nice work, Jim!! Please keep us posted on the progress of the plane, and all of your other endeavors!!!
-
Thanks for the kudos! The hammer and the plane were fun projects. I gotta say that retirement has been pretty good. Everyday is a Saturday and I’m finally starting to get some projects done that I’ve been putting off for a long time.
Jim C.
-
Heres a little bit of information on Hibbard, Spencer , & Bartlett. The very large hardware distributor who used the Rev-O-Noc trademark. If memory serves me right(always a question), Conover was a vice-president? of the company and it was to honor him that they used the trademark. Kind of what Stanley did with the Sweethart logo.
Mike
-
Mike----Most of the Conover part is lost in history, but he did something that allowed the use of Rev-o-noc on the tools as well as many other items. If you will check rev-o-noc on e-bay you will see the items with that logo. I also have a number of rev-o-noc monkey wrenches.
-
.......I have a cherry 9” long, 3” x 3” laminated cut off I’m going to try to turn into a smoother. I’ll keep you posted.
I’m making progress! I spent some time last night opening the throat just enough to allow a shaving to pass through it. Time to shape the body and wedge.
Jim C.
-
Great work!! Thanks for sharing!!!
-
Thanks! I’m almost done. I need to slightly camber the iron just enough to keep the corners from leaving track marks on the workpiece. I’m hoping this will be a good smoother for small to mid size projects.
Jim C.
-
Well, here are two more that I bought at auction recently and rejuvenated to be users or better. The Stanley #7C from about 1900 and a Stanley #8 somewhat later. They came as a pair for $25.00. I really bought them for the wood which was near perfect on both, but when I got them home they were too good to part out. There were other planes at the auction, but all were trash compared to the two I bought.
I have caught the hay trolley virus and have just restored my second one.
-
Nice looking planes!! Great job on bringing them back to life!! $25.00 for both?? Great score!!
-
$25 for both is insanely good, although my free No. 7 at a contractor's retirement sale beats that slightly - but it came all dirty and somewhat rusted.
-
Well done coolford!! A couple more very nicely finished restorations. It’s good to see these old planes getting cleaned up and put back into working order. I truly admire your appreciation for them. Nice job!
Jim C.
-
Even though things might be a little different this year, with social distancing, etc., I hope everyone still has a very Happy Thanksgiving!
Jim C.
-
Hello, Jim. Happy Thanksgiving to you too!! And another Happy Thanksgiving to everyone!!!
-
Hope everyone has a safe and Happy Thanksgiving. :smiley:
-
We miss our usual large family Thanksgiving, but are appreciative that the close ones are together. Big feast at our #2 son's house and in a hour or so, we will go across the street to our #1 son's ladyfriend's family for more !!!
-
I hope everyone enjoys a very Merry Christmas with family and friends.......even if it’s from a social distance. :smiley:
Jim C.
-
Merry Christmas Jim! You've been busy! They look great!
-
Looking good, Jim!! And a late Merry Christmas!!
-
I'm wondering about these two Stanley No. 4 1/2 planes. They both check out to be type 16's, except for the width of the side walls which makes the one on the right a type 17 (war production). Everything else about them is type 16. However, the adjuster knob is wrong for the one on the right to be a 17. What to you think?
-
I'm wondering about these two Stanley No. 4 1/2 planes. They both check out to be type 16's, except for the width of the side walls which makes the one on the right a type 17 (war production). Everything else about them is type 16. However, the adjuster knob is wrong for the one on the right to be a 17. What to you think?
I think no one told Stanley the dates for the type studies, so they rudely kept doing stuff like using up existing inventory even after a type change.
The type studies are akin to management models, which are conceptual frameworks laid atop an organization to try to make sense out of what is, in actual fact, a somewhat chaotic mass of people working together. That is, the type studies don't represent the reality of years of production of tools.
-
Hey coolford,
Thanks for stopping by the thread. Bill makes a good point. When these old planes were being manufactured, type studies were not a consideration. As I’ve said throughout the thread, and as Bill states, Stanley did not waste inventory, and parts that were made for a plane that was later categorized by collectors as a “type x” would also fit in the same model plane that was manufactured many years later and categorized as a “type y.” The parts were interchangeable. That was pretty typical of standard bench planes like your #4 1/2 smoothers. If you take a look at the bench plane type studies, notice that Type 16 examples ended right around 1941 and Type 19 examples began right around 1948. Within a seven year period, four “types” were identified, those being, 16, 17, 18 and 19. It’s foreseeable that left over, but still interchangeable parts from an earlier type could have easily been installed on subsequent later types. Somewhere back in the thread, I might have mentioned the lack of uniformity in war year production planes. They were typically assembled from a hodgepodge of parts the were cobbled together from the inventory that was on hand and for some reason the main body castings were thicker and heavier.
From what I’ve seen, I believe the generally accepted bench plane type studies produced by those collectors with a vast knowledge of the facts are somewhat soft in terms of definitive traits that can be attributed to war era planes and those that were produced immediately after WWII. There’s just too much variation and combinations of parts that were being used during that brief time period to say, “Type 16 planes had this, this and this..... while Type 17 planes had this, this and this...... “ I wrote a little bit about the #4 1/2 back on page 28, reply 419. From my perspective, when it comes to the #4 1/2, it seems that Stanley was trying to figure out how to make it competitive with the heavy British made infill smoothers. The parts they used to make the plane and when those parts were manufactured weren’t as significant as long as they worked and the plane was heavy. I also wrote a little bit about war era planes specifically as they related to main casting thickness back on page 11, reply 163. Take a look back if you have a minute.
Jim C.
-
Not too long ago, someone asked me (with my wife standing right there) if I really used all those hand planes in my collection. “Well, of course I do! Why else would I have them?” I’ve been floating that story to my better half for years. I think she’s wise to it, but figures I could be involved in worse things. So my answer is still the same….. “Well of course I use all the planes!” Anyway, since I do like using the planes when I’m engaged in some kind of wood working, I thought I might show you how I use them for the simple task of flattening a short board.
I wanted to use this short piece of maple to make a pizza cutter. It was an easy project and I had this cut off piece of maple that was destined for the fireplace. Still, I hate to waste wood, so I hung onto it thinking some day I’d use it. The big problem with it was that it was badly cupped and had a little twist. Looking at it standing on end, the defects are plainly evident. So how do you fix it? This was clearly a job for a few hand planes. What I had to do was flatten one side by hand so it could be laid flat on the bed of a motor powered thickness planer, which would make quick work of surfacing the opposite face making it flat and co-planer to the face I flattened with planes.
When I have a cupped board like this, I usually hand plane the convex side, leaving the concave face down. Clamping the board securely is important. Since I start this process with a #40 scrub plane, anything less that a tightly held work piece is unacceptable. Recall that a scrub plane takes a fairly thick shaving, removing a lot of stock quickly. The work must be secure in order to stand up to the force of the cut. Starting in one corner of the board, and angling the plane at about forty degrees, I’ll start removing the apex of convex section of the board going from one end to the other. Once I’ve gotten to the end of the board making several forty degree passes, I’ll turn the plane around and move back down the board again making forty degree passes that run opposite to those made in the first pass down the board. It might sound complicated, but it’s not. What I’m trying to do is knock down that high spot so that at least two thirds of the centerline of the board are flat and will run through the powered thickness planer without rocking and then creating a board where the two faces are not co-planer. As one can see, the scrub plane makes quick work of knocking down that high spot that ran down the centerline of the board.
Now with a much flatter surface, the scalloped face left by the scrub plane can be initially smoothed by the jack plane. Once again, angling the jack plane at about forty degrees, I’ll plane out the scallops going one way down the board. When I get to the end of the board, I turned the plane and angled it about forty degrees in the opposite direction, just like I did with the scrub plane. The formerly convex section is almost gone and the board is almost flat enough for the thickness planer. I occasionally check my progress by laying the hand planed surface on a table saw top to see if the board still rocks. If it does, I must identify the high and low spots and make the adjustments to eliminate them. Once I’m close to having that one side of the board flat, I’ll finish with a #4 ½ smoother. The board is now ready for the thickness planer. Laying the hand planed face of the board on the bed of the thickness planer, only a few passes through the machine will level off the concave face of the board making both faces co-planer and project ready.
Jim C.
-
Just keep enough planes around to use, unless one comes by me at a giveaway price. Was unpacking a box that been put away. The middle one is quite different from the usual Stanley, plane iron is Union tool. Is this correct?
-
John,
Thanks for stopping by the thread. From what I can see, your Union plane looks like a real deal X Series example. That’s actually a really nice plane. The Union X series was seen by Stanley as a legitimate competitor to the Bedrock series. Based on a little research, and looking at the features on your plane, it appears to be Stanley made. It seems that Stanley bought Union at some point (likely to eliminate the competition) around 1921, and continued selling and manufacturing Union planes for a period of time, actually improving its lateral adjustment lever. Clean it up and start using it! If it doesn’t make the list of “users” in your shop, let me know! Check out the link below. Thanks for the photo and feel free to post a few more!
https://www.unionmfgco.com/x-plane-series-study
Jim C.
-
The rest of that box. Sort of getting acquainted with old friends. The Union plane has gotten some use, and is becoming a favorite. Laid down some salvaged 120 year old flooring, had to smooth out some high spots. No. 45 was in there because it needed some major cleaning. I collect saws, drills, wrenches, just never got the plane bug. Like I said, got them to use.
-
I was traveling and had a lay-over in Portland, Maine. I saw this in the airport.
Jim C.
-
no free samples? :embarrassed:
-
Hey P,
How great would that be!? The Portland, ME airport is not that big. There are a few small shops and eating/snack businesses there but nothing even remotely dedicated to Lie-Nielsen tools. There were other similar sized display cases that featured other Maine based businesses, products and manufacturing. While I knew LN was based in Maine, I got off the plane not expecting to see that display case full LN tools. Had there actually been a LN store or vendor selling LN planes, I probably would have missed my connection flight. Anyway, I made my “pit stop” took a couple photos and got back on the plane.
Jim C.
-
Hello hand plane enthusiasts! I hope all is well with you. It’s great to see things finally starting to resemble life as it was prior to the COVID pandemic, including the return of tool auctions and swap meets. I know I don’t write about hand planes as much as I used to, but that doesn’t mean I’m done collecting them or using them. I still go to the auctions and swap meets when they’re being held and I’m willing to travel a little bit further to attend them now that I’m retired. You might recall that I’ve gotten more interested in making my own planes as well. Still, if you add in a few other more recent hobbies like beekeeping and disc golf along with those I’ve been engaging in for decades, particularly woodworking, my days are full. Anyway, I hope you’re doing okay and your hand plane collections have grown or at least are seeing some use out in your shop.
A little while ago we got into a discussion about fiberboard planes. The Stanley #193 specifically. You might recall that I added several posts to the thread discussing its use, variations, parts, etc. As I poked around on the internet, I found very little useful information about them, other than they’re not worth owning and that admitting to owning one was grounds for being officially banned from the hand plane collecting/using community. As I learned more about the #193, I also discovered more information about a couple other Stanley planes with a similar stigma, the #194 fiberboard bevel plane, and the #195 hardboard bevel plane. Like the #193, I never gave either plane a second thought. But as a card carrying Stanley hand plane collector, the real crime was not knowing much about any of them nor having a least one example of each in my collection. So for the last couple years the #194 and #195 have been on my list of planes to watch out for. Like I said earlier in this post, I haven't been writing too much about hand planes, and I do apologize for that. These days I need to be motivated by a certain plane in order to write about it. I guess if I'm going to write about a plane, I'd like it to be one that has a story behind it or adds to the base of knowledge regarding the plane and its use. Almost a year ago, I started drafting a post pertaining to the Stanley #9 block plane. While it's a desirable plane to own, there's already a ton of information out there and I'm not too sure how much I can add to it. Furthermore, my #9 really doesn't have a good story to go along with it. I bought the plane from a collector, who bought it from a collector, who bought it from another collector. That's literally it. Thats the whole story. Boring. I’m just not motivated to write about it, and every time I try to, nothing happens. So by now you're probably wondering, "Where is Jim going with this? Well, let’s get into it.
Ever since we covered the Stanley #193 a while back, I've been on the lookout for a #195 to add to my collection. Last week I finally found one …… and it comes with an unusual story. I've been a member of the Midwest Tool Collectors Association for a long time. Prior to COVID, the MWTCA held two national meets per year. I believe COVID messed things up last year, but the schedule was resumed this year. Are any of you MWTCA members? Anyway, last week I attended a national MWTCA meet in Middleton, Wisconsin, which is sort of near Madison. (I should mention that a few months earlier, a good friend of mine gave me a mint condition, Millers Falls ratcheting brace, but no bits.). So, I went to the MWTCA meet intent on buying a nice set of bits to use with the brace. As I’ve described in the past, once inside the ball room being used to hold the swap meet, one is overwhelmed with the sight of old tools. It never gets old to me. So I started to walk around methodically taking notes of what I saw and where I saw it.
When I got about half way through my first tour of the tables which were full of old tools for sale, I came across a table that had several very nice sets of auger bits! I looked them over carefully and then as I was about to pick up another set, I spied what looked like a #195 one table over. I got the owner’s attention and told him I was interested in the #195. So I finished my business with guy selling the bits and ended up with a real nice set of Greenlee’s. Mission accomplished. I had a good set of bits and I still had some cash left over for a plane or two. With that, I turned my attention to the #195. I picked it up off the table and took note of its condition. It wasn’t in the top collector category, but given its relative rarity, it was definitely worth consideration.
As I studied the plane, I noticed the seller thumbing through a copy of Blanchard’s price guide. I wasn’t sure why he was doing that, but I soon learned why. While I don’t typically discuss the price of the planes that I buy, in this instance, knowing that adds some perspective to the story. When I see a plane I’m interested in, one of the first things I look at is the price. At a swap meet, it’s almost a given that the asking price isn’t usually the selling price. The seller more often than not will knock off a few bucks. Well, the #195 was priced at $200. Given its condition and rarity, I thought the price was reasonable. I reached in my pocket for my remaining cash and started to peel off twenties. At that point, the seller stopped me and said he couldn’t sell the plane for $200. He wanted $250 for it. In all my years of collecting planes, no one has ever raised the price above the price stated on the sticker or tag. According to the seller, after conferring with the price guide, he came to the conclusion that he underpriced the plane and wouldn’t take less than $250 for it. I protested to some extent, but he wasn’t going to budge. I offered $225, asking if he’d split the difference. Nope. It was gonna be $250 or nothing. Well, you know the rest of the story. Anyway, that was a first for me, and hopefully the last time that happens.
If you were to do an internet search for the Stanley #195, like the #193 featured earlier in the thread, there’s not too much out there other than some sarcastic comments and a few pictures. That being said, I do have to admit that the #195 is extremely limited in what it was designed to do. Cutting a beveled edge on hardboard hardly seems like a task that was worthy of its own plane. But like I’ve said so many times throughout the thread, Stanley tried to fill every real or imagined niche in the hand planing world. At some point however, Stanley accountants, or sales people, or hardware retailers came to the conclusion that the #195 wasn’t worth the cost to produce, sell or carry in inventory. As a result, the #195 was in production for a very short period of time, 1937 - 1943. Its limited use capabilities coupled with its short production life created a plane that is considered rare today, hence it’s $200+ price tag.
While I may never use the #195 again, I had to give it a try at least once. The problem was that I didn’t have a piece of hardboard, or Masonite, or some similar type of material. After looking around my shop and coming up with nothing, it eventually occurred to me that the top of my workbench was covered with a 1/4” thick sheet of Masonite. I added the Masonite to the top of my workbench as a protective layer that could easily be removed and replaced. With just a minor adjustment to the fence and the depth of cut, I was able to slice off the edge of the badly worn Masonite with no trouble, leaving behind a clean beveled edge. Had I sharpened the cutter before using it, I believe the finished edge would have been even crisper and cleaner. I will agree that the intended purpose of the #195 doesn’t make a lot of sense, that is, cutting a beveled edge on hardboard, however I will say that it delivers very nice results and works as designed.
Finally, this is an expensive plane, if you’re looking for one to fill a hole in your collection, make sure you know what you’re looking at. From a distance, and to the untrained eye, the #195 and the #194 are very similar looking planes with interchangeable parts. Do your homework.
Jim C.
-
I've never had anyone bump the price on something after I had it in my hand, either. What gall. Pulling it off the bench and correcting the price tag, sure; but, once you picked it up, he was obligated to honor his price, in my opinion.
I think I've commented before, when you posted about the fiberboard planes, that Stanley was offering them at the time that fiberboard of various consistencies was the Newest Best Thing. I think I've also posted about the cabins near Crater Lake, Oregon, that we've stayed in (no longer open, alas), in which the top half of each wall is fiberboard of about particleboard grade, in terms of chip size and hardness, that are grooved to imitate vertical boards, most likely by a fiberboard plane.
Had drywall not done such an effective job of replacing plaster, I suspect we'd see a lot more fiberboard in use, because it's an efficient way to do interior finish walls in the same way that drywall is: big panels, installed quickly. And, too, at the time fiberboard was in its glory, plywood wasn't yet a very reliable product. So, between drywall and plywood, fiberboard's range of usefulness narrowed to the uses we see these days, few or none of which need a fiberboard plane.
-
Hi Bill,
Great to hear from you!! You did provide some excellent content when we were discussing fiberboard planes and it would be an understatement to say that you’ve provided excellent content and commentary throughout the thread. You’re input is ALWAYS welcome and valued here.
As for the deal on the #195……. You could have been standing right there with me. I had the plane in my hand and said the same thing. I pretty much told the guy, it says $200 and I’m not even going to try to get a better price. I put the plane down and got my money out and started counting. As soon as I started peeling off twenties, he said he couldn’t sell it for $200. I told him, that’s what the sticker says and I’ll pay it, He took the plane off the table and peeled the $200 sticker off its sole. Then he said it’s $250 and good luck finding another one. At that point I should have said good luck finding another buyer and walked away. But like a dummy, I offered to spilt the difference and threw $225 on the table. He wasn’t budging and then referred to his out dated price guide saying the plane could sell for as much as $400. I guess he thought $250 was a deal. Anyway…….
I finished walking around, talked to a couple guys I knew and ended up buying a #194 from another seller for less than its initial asking price. While it doesn’t make the #195 seller’s behavior acceptable, and I do think it was a bush league thing to do, he was right about one thing; I didn’t see another #195 anywhere in the room.
Jim C.
-
I guess while we’re on the topic of unusual hand plane deals, I’ll tell this story now. I was waiting to tell it when I featured the plane associated with it, but who knows if or when I’ll ever get to it…….
Ten years ago when I turned fifty, I had set aside some cash with the intent of adding a Stanley #164 to my collection. I figured I’d go to an auction and duke it out with other potential buyers. Well, I went to the Fall Meeting of the MWTCA and couldn’t believe there was an older gentleman there with his wife and they were selling his hand plane collection. Needless to say, he had some really high end stuff on his table to include a very nice Stanley#164. I couldn’t believe my good fortune! Here’s the plane, here’s a motivated seller (at least I thought so), the price for it is within my budget and I have no competition or auctioneers fees. I remember thinking, “Holy s**t, I’m gonna buy this 164!” And after some very close inspection and some haggling, I bought it!!
Well, I should have paid for the plane and left immediately, but I didn’t. I walked around a little bit, talked to a few people I knew and started heading for the door about an hour later. As I stopped to zip up my coat, two older gentleman that I did not know and the wife of the guy I bought the plane from approached me. The two men didn’t say anything but the guy’s wife asked if she could buy the 164 back. She had my money in her hand and an additional $100 bill. I told her I wasn’t too interested in selling it back. She persisted and said she had been the driving force behind her “husband’s decision” to start liquidating his collection and he was very upset about selling the 164. To make a long story short, I gave in and sold the plane back to her for what I paid for it. I drove home kicking myself.
Jim C.
-
There are things in life worth more than plane collections, and un-breaking the seller's heart was surely one of them.
-
There are things in life worth more than plane collections, and un-breaking the seller's heart was surely one of them.
Hey Bill,
That’s what my wife said when I came home and told her I had been the proud owner of a #164 for about an hour. It was at that moment I made her promise not to pressure me when the time came to start liquidating my collection. It was at that moment she made me promise not to leave her with the burden of getting rid of the collection after my passing or incapacitation. Then I asked her, “What if you go first?” :grin:………. My kids have made it perfectly clear, if left to them, that they’ll have a garage sale and everything will be priced to sell. At some point I’ll have to start liquidating on my terms. I’m not there yet but I am slowly starting to part with other tools and some machinery. It took a long time to amass all this stuff and it’s gonna take some time to part with it.
Jim C.
-
This is about the Stanley No. 1 I bought at auction last week and listed in the discussion section. As you know from reading that post I paid $12.50 for a box lot of three items, a tool box, and two milk crates. The plane was in the bottom of the tool box which is in itself interesting, as it appears to be the type found on the running boards of early cars. I was going to restore the plane, but decided instead to just clean it as it will never be more than just a good user. Pictures attached. After I bought the plane I wanted to find out more history, but ran into a dead end. It was an estate sale, the owner passed, and there were no children. As you know, finding a No. 1 in the wild is not something that occurs everyday. When I arrived at the auction I went first to the garage area where there was a long table of tools. Almost all of it was very early Taiwan and China of very low quality. I thought at first another wasted trip, but when I walked behind the house there was on older shop with rows of rusty tools on tables and on the ground. The tool box and milk crates were on the ground as was a very old large master carpenter wood toolbox. It was mostly rotten and not repairable and contained only worthless tools. Back to the plane, it appears to be a type 7 from 1893-1899 with "S" foundry casting marks.
-
Not a lot of room for fingers on those smaller planes.
-
Happy 4th of July to everyone! I hope the weather is great where you are and the BBQs are fired up.
Coolford,
That is one of the greatest “in the wild” hand plane finds that I’m aware of. I’ve had a few good ones over the years, but never a #1. As you have stated, and I fully concur, leaving the plane unrestored is probably the way to go. Refinishing it or even over cleaning it would very likely devalue it. This is one those planes that’s better left untouched even if you plan to use it. A gentle wipe down and some lubricant on the threaded parts should do the trick. Congratulations on making a fantastic find!!
Jim C.
-
A few more comments on the #1. It was in the tightly sealed metal toolbox while a number of other planes from their appearance were in the large wood carpenters chest. Those that were too far gone to save were a #45 (no blades), 103, 8, 9, 5, 4 and some block planes all Stanley. However, there were bidders on them (maybe for parts?), the 103 went for $30.00 and it was a rock solid piece of junk heavily pitted.
-
Coolford,
Why didn’t you go after the #9? Was it that bad?
Jim C.
-
$30 for a No. 103? Seems to me I walked away from a clean (not fancy clean, just usable clean) example of one of those for $1 a couple of years back, because I couldn't see the point of buying it.
-
I think one of my best finds was a No 2C in good condition for $ 10 Canadian at a garage sale, but that's not even close to your No 1 find. Your a lucky man.
-
Jim-C the #9 had pits that were at least 1/16" deep and great pieces of flaking rust.
-
This weekend at an estate sale I came across this English router plane and having never seen one, I bought it. It has two or three previous owner/user names and a company name. The iron is marked T. S. Kaye & Sons. The just previous owner inherited it from his father and brought it to the states 40 years ago. The estate sales guy wrote the price on the wood with marker. It may never come off.
-
Nice, I would have also bought it! :smiley:
-
At an auction on Saturday I bought four planes but only took home two. The four planes were sold as a group and included a Stanley #8, Ward Master #3 and 4 and an unknown block plane. Someone else wanted them and I had to pay $45.00 for the lot. As I was picking them up the other bidder asked me if I really wanted the Ward Master planes. I really did not so asked what he would pay for them and he replied $25.00. Sold!!! So, I figure I paid $20.00 for the number eight. The #8 is an 8C and figures out to be a type 14, 1929-30. It is already apart and is an unmolested example with everything correct for a 14. However, someone used it on a pitch containing wood and has been very difficult to clean. The tote and knob are perfect and in excellent condition and I originally bought the lot for them to use on my #8 but will leave them on the 8C when I finish restoring it. Will show the 8C when I finish it.
-
Well done Yatta! What a nice little plane. I can’t believe some idiot wrote on it with a marker. I hope you can carefully remove it. You might try a squirt of WD-40 on a clean cotton rag, keeping the contact as close to the marked area as possible. About two years ago I tried this on an old wooden Sargent level and successfully removed a previous owner’s name that had been written in black magic marker. The level had a lot of patina much like your plane. Still, PROCEED WITH CAUTION AND GREAT CARE! If you try it, let us know how it goes.
Jim C.
-
Hi coolford,
Very nice price for a #8C. I’m looking forward to seeing it once you get it cleaned up. I agree that leaving the knob and tote on the 8C is the way to go. They’ve been on the plane for 90+ years. Why separate them now?
Jim C.
-
You can get citrus-based cleaning products that are, in my experience, hugely effective on pitch. Your hardware store, if it's any good at all, will have them.
-
I agree 100% with Bill. Several years ago we built a new sawmill for a company in northern British Columbia. After the new mill was up any running we dismantle the old mill and the owner sold one of the main breakdown lines to a Chinese company. This was is the time period when the Mountain pine beetle was devastating our forests. We had given the Chinese company a firm price to clean and load out the equipment. they were adamant that all the pitch had to be removed 100% to prevent the spread of the beetle or it's eggs embedded in the pitch. Our older steam cleaner wasn't doing the job so we bought a new high powered steam cleaner and tried many many different cleaning products and finally after several weeks we tried a citrus based cleaner made by Zip and it was the ONLY product that worked. We went thru cases and cases of the stuff and I still use to this day.
-
Believe it or not, I’ve had really good results soaking pitch encrusted machine parts, saw blades and cutting irons in warm water infused with plain old ordinary liquid laundry detergent. Fully immerse the part, blade, iron for about 20-30 minutes. The pitch gets soft and comes right off.
Jim C.
-
Hello Hand Plane Enthusiasts,
I hope everyone is off to a great start in 2022. I’m doing okay, and do engage in a lot of woodworking since retiring almost three years ago. Last summer we moved from the Midwest to the east coast. It took a few months just to pack up my shop. Anyway, I have a new shop and it’s just about 100% up and running. I’m out in the shop between four and six hours every day working on a few different projects from furniture building to machinery rehab/restoration, etc. And yes I’m still collecting and using and making hand planes……
At least 15+ years ago I started making a queen size bed. For whatever reason, the project stalled about halfway to the finish line. Maybe it was work, kids activities and sports, or just a combination of things, but my woodworking sort lost momentum for several years. The bed project was the victim of bad timing in my life. I had too many other priorities. So, I wrapped all the parts in movers blankets and set them aside for a long time. Well, when I was packing up my shop, I had to decide what to do with this half finished bed. I hated to scrap it because the wood is really beautiful, and I already had a lot of time into it. I decided I’d move it with the rest of the contents of my shop. Wrapped in the blankets, the bed parts made the trip in the ramp compartment beneath the trailer along with some other long planks. Fortunately the bed parts made it here without a scratch. I spent a good part of the summer and fall setting up my new work space and vowed that once I got things operational I’d get going on the bed. So after fifteen or more years the bed project is nearing the finish line.
The bed construction is almost exclusively accomplished using mortise and tenon joinery. As a result, one can imagine what type of planes I’m using to accurately fit the joints together. I hope you’re thinking shoulder planes. With the right combination of carefully adjusted planes, set for a light pass, I can make joints that fit perfectly. Recently I used a Stanley #90, a #92 and and a #60 1/2R Lie-Nielsen rabbeting block plane modeled after the Sargent #507, to fit the tenons on two natural edge boards that will act as center stretchers in the headboard and footboard. Check out the photos below.
Jim C.
-
Jim-C---I'm glad you have adjusted to the wilds of New Jersey. Certainly you appear to have made great progress on the bed using "planes", and maybe some other old tools. I have missed your posts even though I have moved on from planes. By the way, I have yet to find the drive tool you need for the Walden socket set.----Charles
-
nice. what size mattress is that bed designed for? Happy New Year
-
Jim-C---I'm glad you have adjusted to the wilds of New Jersey. Certainly you appear to have made great progress on the bed using "planes", and maybe some other old tools. I have missed your posts even though I have moved on from planes. By the way, I have yet to find the drive tool you need for the Walden socket set.----Charles
Hey coolford,
Thanks for stopping by the thread. It’s always good to hear from you! Although you may not be hunting for planes, I suspect that your tool collection has been steadily growing. I’m getting used to NJ and landed in pretty nice neighborhood. The house we bought needs a little work inside and out, but we’re making progress. The draw was the four car garage. With some significant improvements it has become my new shop. What started as an open space with four sixty watt lightbulbs hanging from the ceiling, one 120 electrical outlet, and four uninsulated garage doors was transformed into a very nice workspace. I'll try to post a few pictures. As for that Walden drive tool, I have no doubt that you will eventually find it! Happy New Year my friend.
Jim C.
-
nice. what size mattress is that bed designed for? Happy New Year
Hi p! Thanks for checking in! The bed will accommodate a queen size mattress. I’ll post a few more pictures when it’s done. Happy New Year to you as well!
Jim C.
-
Jim, now that you ae a resident of the Garden State checkout CRAFTS of NJ, tool collecting club, meeting coming up the beginning of February, outside tailgate tool swap.
-
Hey Lew,
Thanks for the heads up! I went to their website and it looks like an organization I’d like to know more about. Will you be attending the club meeting in February?
Jim C.
-
I'm not sure if I will make the February meeting, I usually attend the auction. A great bunch of guys with lots of trading going on at the tailgate events. They have a FB page as well as the website. You usually see Jim Bode and Martin Donnelly at the events.
-
It’s the start of another day out in the shop. My bed project is nearing the end and my soldiers are at the ready!
Jim C.
-
Prior to finishing, I like to plane off any machine marks particularly on the long edges. Medium to small smoothers do a great job on this task. I’m not going so much for dead flat as much I’m aiming for clean, silky, machine mark free surfaces.
Jim C. (1,000th post)
-
Congratulations on your 1000th post!! Always entertaining & informative!!
-
Congratulations on your 1000th post!! Always entertaining & informative!!
+1
-
Many thanks lptools and Yadda and everyone else for reading along all these years. I don’t think I would have made it to 1000 posts if there weren’t “regulars” on this thread keeping it going. It’s hard to believe this thing got going in 2013! I’ll try a little harder to keep up my end by adding some new content occasionally. I’m out in the shop every day using hand planes almost without even thinking about it. I’ll take some photos and make sure to post them.
I very recently finished a bed project that involved using hand planes throughout the entire construction process. Are you guys interested in seeing the planes being used or just being featured in information type posts? Let me know what you think.
Jim C.
-
Beautiful job, and I really like the live edges !! I would like to see which planes were used, and how they were used! Thanks, Lou
-
Thank you Lou! Funny you should mention the live edge planks. When I started the bed several years ago the original plan was to make the headboard and footboard in the more traditional frame and panel style. When I started back working on it, I asked my wife if that was still the plan. Well, times change and so do design elements. According to the “Style and Design” expert (my wife), the “in thing” is live edge furniture. I just so happen to have had a few live edge cherry boards that would work perfectly……. that is if you like bug holes too. After she inspected the boards, I got the green light and got to work.
Jim C.
-
Beautiful job Jim, when I get a new computer I will send you a few pictures of one of my projects. Oh yes, powder post beetles. After a hurricane in Missouri (really, 2007) and a serious ice storm I had a number of trees on the ground. This included red oak, green ash and walnut. I decided to harvest the best trees and have them cut into one inch lumber in a band saw mill. I ended up with a lot of lumber, especially walnut and red oak. I air dried it in one of my barns and after two years put it in my shop. There was so much that I had to put some where I work on my equipment. However, after about six months I noticed a lot of very fine sawdust in the wood shop where I had the green ash and the best oak and walnut. Now what? So, I got a couple of those aerosol bombs and applied it at the recommended rate. No luck, didn't seem to phase them at all, so I bombed them again at double the rate and again no luck. Rather than give up I bought a case of the bombs (8) and set them all off at the same time (I wore my pesticide mask, also have a pesticide permit and know how to be safe). No more powder post beetles and that was seven years ago. Now, you will probably wash your hands of me, but they had damaged the green ash so bad that I used it in a corral.
-
Hey coolford,
You’re not getting dismissed from the thread that easily. If the bugs got to the wood, then they got to the wood. What can you? At least you used it for something instead of just sending it to a landfill. Thanks for the kudos too!
Jim C.
-
Recently I got into a conversation with a fellow woodworker about old tools, and hand planes in particular. He was having some issues with an old plane and seemed frustrated with it to the point of potentially giving up on older planes and tools and sticking with more current Lie Nielsen and Lee Valley models. The following was my response.
“I can’t argue with you when it comes to Lie-Nielsen planes. They’re absolutely a pleasure to use. I don’t have any Lee Valley examples but I read nothing but good things about them. I still think that vintage hand tools do work well. It’s just a matter of getting them back into working order sometimes. Like I said earlier, once you get an old plane cleaned up and dialed in, it will provide results that you might expect from a LN or LV model. Usually the older planes are less expensive too.
Stanley #6, type 11, manufactured over 100 years ago
Stanley #4 1/2C, type 14, manufactured about 90 years ago
Stanley #608, type 4, manufactured 110 years ago
Millers Falls 14” premium bench plane, type 3, manufactured 70 years ago
Sargent #708 Autoset, manufactured at least 80 years ago
Old planes can still produce some fantastic results. Don’t give up on them. I’d hate to see you miss out something that really can be “magic.”
I guess the point I was trying to make, with photos included, was that old tools still can produce great results. The average age of the planes depicted below is about 75 years old. Provided they’re not significantly damaged or missing parts, old hand planes are always going to be useful tools to own and use. And those great results aren’t just limited to old Stanleys. Anyway, I’m sure you already know that, but I thought I’d just give you a reminder. Keep using your old planes!
Jim C.
-
Thanks for the post, Jim. Nice shavings there!
-
Hello Jim. Nice planes, and nice work!! What is the wood you are planing? Is it the nature of that species that gives the shavings that lace look to them? Combined, of course , with your expert sharpening/honing/tuning skills!!
-
Hello Jim. Nice planes, and nice work!! What is the wood you are planing? Is it the nature of that species that gives the shavings that lace look to them? Combined, of course , with your expert sharpening/honing/tuning skills!!
I thought he was showing shavings of Baby Swiss cheese. :grin:
-
Thanks for the post, Jim. Nice shavings there!
Hi Bill,
Thanks for stopping by! If I get a little time I’ll try to add some new content soon.
Jim C.
-
Hello Jim. Nice planes, and nice work!! What is the wood you are planing? Is it the nature of that species that gives the shavings that lace look to them? Combined, of course , with your expert sharpening/honing/tuning skills!!
It’s nothing fancy or exotic. Just a chunk of red oak. I guess the point I was trying to make is that old tools can easily get the job done if they’re set up correctly and have a sharp iron. With a light pass, they’ll peel off shavings as well as any high end plane past or current….. for the most part. Now everyone knows I’m a fan of Lie Nielsen planes so I don’t want to leave them out of the conversation. As you can see, the LN #4 1/2 below is a nice tool that delivers. But that being said, even a home made plane that was carefully crafted and set for a light pass does a pretty nice job too.
Jim C.
-
Somewhere way back in the thread I remember saying something about maintaining my collection of planes only temporarily and preserving them for a time when at some point they’d be scattered around to other hand plane enthusiasts and probably a few collectors. The plane I’ll feature today is one of those examples that has resided in various collections for decades. Next month I’ll have owned this plane for twenty one years. I (collector #4) bought it from a collector (#3) who owned it for approximately fifteen years. He (#3) bought it from a collector (#2) as well (who I had also known and bought a few planes from in the past). He (#2) bought from another collector (#1) who I never knew. I can sort of trace the plane’s ownership history to roughly the 1960s. I have no idea where it was or who owned it prior to that time. Looking only at the trade mark on the iron, which Stanley used between 1912 and 1918, there’s about thirty to forty years that I can’t account for. Still, by the looks of things, I think it’s safe to say that the plane saw little or no use whatsoever. My guess is that when the time comes, another collector(#5) will end up with it.
Stanley #9:
Believe it or not, the #9 is a block plane. It very clearly does not resemble any of the block planes that we’ve covered earlier in the thread, but it is a block plane. Like a traditional looking block plane, the cutting iron is seated bevel side up at about twenty degrees. Although the earliest versions of the #9 did not have an adjustable throat (prior to 1912), almost every #9 that I’ve seen has one. The #9 was made to be a precision tool, marketed to cabinet and piano makers. If you’re familiar with the H.O. Studley (piano maker) tool cabinet, then you might recall that he had what looked to be well used #9 in his arsenal of tools.
I seem to recall reading that the #9 was Stanley’s first block plane offering having been produced in some form between 1867 and 1943. That’s about seventy six years. There may have been a brief period that the #9 was out of production, but generally speaking, Stanley was committed to this tool. It was designed to compete with British infilled miter planes. With both sides of the main body ground dead flat and at ninety degrees to the sole, the #9 was capable of producing extremely accurate results particularly when used with a shooting board. For years it came with a handle or palm rest that could be mounted on either side of the plane. With the handle mounted on the side of the plane and held in place with a set screw, it created a perfect place to put one’s hand, particularity right beneath the fat pad of the thumb. This provided the user with a way to really guide the plane through the cut while his/her other hand grasped the squirrel tail handle and pushed from the rear. The side mounted handle is often referred to as the “hot dog” handle because it does resemble a hot dog. Real hot dog handles were castings, so they’re hollow inside. Beware of reproduction hot dog handles which are usually manufactured from solid bar stock. They are not hollow inside. If you’re thinking about adding a #9 to your collection, don’t make the mistake of just assuming that the hot dogs handle is factory original. Take the time to remove it and check to see if it’s hollow or solid. A real hot dog handle can easily cost a couple hundred dollars.
For whatever reason, my #9 did not come with the hot dog handle. Under magnification and bright lighting, I can’t see anything that would make me think there ever was a hot dog handle on this plane. I would expect at least a small indentation on the plane’s side from a tightened set screw or some sort of discoloration/shadow on the body casting where the hot dog handle may have once been located. Still, it’s one of those parts that once separated from the plane, is likely to be lost forever. Prior to the late 1880s, none of the catalogs depict the #9 with the hot dog handle. The plane depicted below, if relying only on the logo on the cutting iron, was likely manufactured between 1912 and 1918. Based on that information, I think the plane probably left the factory with a hot dog handle and somewhere along the line, it was separated from the plane.
Based on the reference materials that I have on hand, the #9 initially measured ten inches long and remained that long until 1936 when they were shortened to 8 1/4 inches. Now this is a tough plane to acquire, and I’ll admit that I haven’t seen or examined that many in person. But of the handful I have had the chance to see and hold in my hands I have never come across one that’s 8 1/4 inches long. Not a single one. What I have consistently seen is that the #9 planes were just a tad short of 9 1/4 inches long. I almost think the plane’s length was accidentally misstated at 8 1/4 inches long and it perpetuated from one catalog to the next finally becoming “fact.” Mine measures 9 3/16 inches long. If you have a #9 or have access to one, please measure it for me. I’d be interested in knowing its length.
As useful as this plane may be, it’s also very fragile and prone to cracking. The squirrel tail handle at the rear of the plane screws directly into the main body casting. You know where this is going. If the iron is just a little bit dull and set for anything less than a really light pass, it can dig into the work piece and with the force of the craftsperson pushing from behind create enough stress to crack the handle off the main body casting. As a collector, I don’t even want to think about it!! Yikes! The same goes for the adjustable throat screws located on the top and front of the plane. If over tightened the plane could crack. The point is this, if you are even considering a #9 for your collection examine it closely for hairline cracks. Like I’ve said so many times before, do your homework and know what you’re looking at. Getting it wrong could be an expensive mistake. I’m not trying to dissuade anyone from acquiring a #9, it’s a great plane. Just be really careful with it. A couple other things to remember… The Stanley #9 was never manufactured with the #9 anywhere on it. Also, the correct lever cap on a #9 has a neck that’s longer than those found on bench planes. In my next post, I’ll compare the #9 lever cap to a standard bench plane lever cap so you can see what I’m talking about.
Jim C.
-
At the end of the Stanley #9 write up, I mentioned that the lever cap on the #9 has a longer neck than those found on a typical bench plane. See the difference? I also included a couple pictures of the hot dog handle. I spent so much time talking about it, I figured I better add a photo or two so you could see what I was talking about.
Jim C.
-
As always Jim an informative post.
-
Thanks Les! And more thanks for following the thread after all these years. I have a lot more planes that I’d like to cover and I will try to get to a few more in the near future. I had some trouble getting the Stanley #9 post finished. I must have started and stopped writing at least ten times. As I said, it’s been in collections for decades. I’ve never used it or even made one pass with it. Still, from a collector’s perspective, if you’re into old Stanleys then you have to have one. But I don’t feel any real connection to it. There’s no story behind it, and I never made anything with it. You know, while I was taking some pictures to post, I did consider testing it out. Who knows, maybe I’ll see if it’s any good or not. If I do, I’ll be sure to post the results here. Stay tuned and again, thanks for stopping by the thread.
Jim C.
-
I've never quite understood what made those superior to regular block planes. You could get pretty precise with a good block plane, and the longer series planes (7") aren't that much shorter than this one.
Still, there must have been a market.
-
Hello, Bill. From what I have read , ( Patrick leach), the sides of the No. 9 were ground square, more accurately to the sole, than your average block plane. This made the No. 9 a good candidate for a shooting plane. Regards, Lou
-
I wish I could provide an answer that’s based on my experience using a #9 in comparison to other block planes. But like I said, I have never used a #9 in any capacity. Maybe the time has come. I will say that I’ve used several block planes over the years and I’ve gotten more than satisfactory results in relation to the application of such planes. Basically I’m saying that I try to use the right plane for the job at hand. If I’m going with an old Stanley for cabinet work then the #60 and #65 are typically my go to planes. If we are using Leach as the as the standard, then the #65 gets very high praise from him. Of course there are some great block planes currently being made by Lie Nielsen and Veritas that I know will deliver top notch results. I think any block plane that’s really well tuned, outfitted with a razor sharp iron and set for a light pass will produce a nice cut on end grain as long as the user isn’t applying it to a job that it’s not suited to do………. It may be time to give that #9 a try.
Jim C.
-
Like so many other posts to the thread, this one is no different. I was out in my shop this morning working on a project and stopped to look for a particular plane. As you may recall, we moved about one year ago and that consequently caused me to pack up my planes along with the rest of the tools, machines and other stuff. Anyway, while my shop is back up and running, a lot of the planes and vintage tools are still packed. I get them out as I need them and if it’s something I don’t think I’ll use too often, I’ll repack it. I’m really trying to keep my shop free from clutter and that includes never used or infrequently used planes. Fortunately, I took the time to clearly and completely label each box and the contents of each box when I packed them. So while I was digging through a box looking for a Rumbold butt mortise plane (see page 17, reply 254 if you forgot about this one), and I came across this.
Stanley #378:
I know I said it at least once or twice in the thread….. I like weather stripping planes. I can’t say exactly why I like them, but I do. Maybe because they look back to a time when people made repairs to wooden windows and old places that required skilled craftspeople who needed such tools to maintain them. Having replaced and repaired a few dozen window sashes in my previous house, I have an appreciation for that sort of work and can imagine what it took to make such repairs with hand tools. While I did engage in some hand tool operations to complete the task, my shaper and two table saws were the work horses. When it comes to weather stripping planes, there’s also a certain level of “contraptionism /gizmosity” that seems to attract me to them. The Stanley #378 is no exception.
What I know from reference materials, is that the #378 was designed to make cuts for installing metal weather stripping. If so, it seems like a very specialized plane aimed at a relatively specific task. But if you’ve been reading along all these years, you’ve seen me say that for the most part, Stanley tried to fill every hand plane niche whether it truly existed or not. Still, the #378 remained in the Stanley product line for about twenty five to thirty years. For a plane to stay in production that long, someone must have been buying them. Now I say the plane was available for “about twenty five to thirty years” because there seems to be discrepancies in terms of when this plane actually went into production and was available to purchase. I’ve seen reliable sources that say 1928, 1930 and 1933. I’m really not sure which is correct. The consensus however is that the #378 was last offered in 1958.
There are other aspects of this plane that seem to also lack definitive answers, and again, depending on which source one might consult will provide conflicting information. Looking at the photos below, you’ll notice that the #378 was equipped with several depth stops each of which has its own unique length and width and could be mounted on either side of the plane via included thumb screws. When I acquired the example depicted below, it came with four such depth stops. Well, depending on which source one may rely on, the plane included either four depth stops or three depth stops. I’ve seen various photographs of the plane being offered for sale that advertised it as “complete” but only included three depth stops. Again, it really depends on the source of information you might look at. I can’t think of another plane off hand that is described by reliable sources with conflicting information, particularly as it relates to the parts included with the plane itself.
Prior to 1937 or 1939, again depending on the source of information one might refer to, the #378 was outfitted with an 11/16” wide cutting iron. After 1937 or 1939, it came from the factory with a 13/16” wide iron. The example below has a 13/16” iron that appears to retain its original factory grind. From what I can see, the plane appears to have never been used, or used sparingly at best. Optional cutting irons could be purchased separately that came in 11/16”, 3/4”, 7/8” and 1” sizes. These aren’t the easiest to find today. I’m still looking for a set!
As you can see, the #378 came with several little parts that could very easily be separated from the plane. You know what that means. Buying an incomplete example and then trying to find the missing parts could be frustrating and expensive. I try to avoid that at all cost, as I really dislike chasing parts! So do your homework and make sure you’re getting a complete example. Along with the four (or three) depth stops, the #378 came with two brass stop collars that could be mounted on the rear fence rod and are held in place with slotted head screws. By mounting a collar on either side of the fence, two repeatable cuts could be made by securing the fence against one collar or the other. You may recall that Stanley incorporated other methods of making repeatable cuts on other weather stripping planes as well. I believe the #378 fence is unique to the plane. Don’t buy one without the correct fence. Finally, there’s a little cotter pin that was included with the #378. Some sources don’t even mention it, but if you look very closely at Stanley generated drawings and advertising materials depicting the #378, the cotter pin is installed in the rear fence mounting rod. I suspect that it was a preventative measure taken by Stanley to make sure the outer collar didn’t slip off the rod and get lost if it came loose. That would be a real bummer particularly if the person using the plane didn’t notice the collar had slipped off. Certainly low tech, but it probably worked.
I’m not so sure anyone really needs this plane today. If you’re a collector and you find one that’s truly complete, maybe you add it to your collection. In an effort to provide you with the best and most accurate information available, I can honestly say that the example shown below represents a complete #378 with all of its correct parts and is assembled in the configuration intended by Stanley.
Jim C.
-
Neat info Jim!
-
Hey Yadda,
Thanks for stopping by the thread and checking out the Stanley #378. It’s sort of an odd ball plane, and with all the discrepancies associated with it, I thought it might be an interesting plane to feature……….. but I could be wrong about that.
Jim C.
-
Back about fifteen to twenty years ago, I used to attend an annual swap meet and antique tool auction in rural Indiana. The venue was a place called Darley’s Barn. Anyone here familiar with it? Anyway, one of the highlights of the trip was the lunch provided by Scott Darley. I think that was his name, and if I got that wrong, please forgive me Mr. Darley. The food was great and worth the trip all by itself. I always had pretty good luck at that event in terms of finding a nice plane or two either on someone’s for sale table, or at the auction, or both.
Like most auctions, potential bidders have an opportunity to look over the lots before the fun starts, and the Darley’s Barn auction was no different. After I walked around looking at all the tools for sale and taking some notes, I made my way into the barn to see what was going to be auctioned off. There were some good tools and among them several nice planes in mostly top user quality shape. Well, one in particular caught my eye. As I stood just a few feet away pretending to show interest in another plane, I listened to two gentlemen discussing the plane that I intended to bid on. After they moved on, I took a closer look at the plane and satisfied myself that everything was correct and sound in terms of the plane’s patina, continuity of its parts, and its overall condition. It wasn’t gem mint perfect, but its original box had protected it from the “white paint splatters” and other shop mishaps that seem to occur over time. So the auction started and the plane I wanted was lot #32. Things moved pretty quickly as they always do at an auction and lot #32 was only a couple away from hitting block. All along I kept an eye on the man who I had seen earlier showing interest in the plane. Up to this point, he hadn’t bid on anything. I got to thinking he was saving his money for lot #32. I was doing the same thing.
Finally lot #32 was on the auction block and his bid card went up as soon as the auctioneer opened his mouth. Not just up with a bent elbow, but a fully extended arm. This guy was serious! Just a couple rows ahead of me, another man jumped in and these two went back and forth for what seemed like a long time. In reality it probably wasn’t much more than a minute and by then, the plane was reaching what I thought was its reasonable value. Apparently, the man in front of me thought so too and he dropped out. The auctioneer looked around the room, asked if there were any more bids and started the count down. As he got to “…….Going twice.” I raised my card, blurted out my bid and hoped the man I had seen earlier looking at the plane wouldn’t counter, because my one and only bid was my budget and I had to save a little for the buyer’s premium too. The auctioneer looked around the room, asked for any more bids, waited a second or two and the count down started again, “Going once. Going twice. Sold!”
Stanley #72:
I didn’t go to the Darley’s auction looking for anything in particular but when I saw this #72 chamfer plane in its original picture box, I knew I’d have to at least take an honest shot at it if I ever expected to add one to my collection. The #72 is not a very common plane, and in its original box, it became almost too much to resist. I got lucky on that one. This isn’t the type of plane that the typical homeowner/DIYer would have likely purchased back in the day. I’ve never seen one at a garage sale, flea market or antique shop. Maybe a professional cabinet maker would have had some need for a dedicated chamfer plane but even still, it reminds me of tool that’s a luxury versus a necessity. I think it’s just another example of Stanley trying to fill every potential niche in the world of hand planes. Cutting a forty five degree chamfer along the length of a workpiece can easily be accomplished with a simple block plane. Still, there must have been some measurable demand for the #72, as Stanley offered it for more than fifty years between 1886 and 1938.
In 2009, John Wells and Chuck Wirtenson, published a type study regarding the #72 chamfer plane. In that paper, they speculated that, “An economical size batch of chamfer plane castings was probably made, then castings were used as needed to assemble planes required to fill orders.” I tend to agree with that statement. Like I said, cutting a chamfer can easily be done with a block plane. Those examples that I’ve examined over the years didn’t change too much, suggesting that they were sold only as requested from the plane using public. So parts and castings for the #72 could have been used for years into the future even as trademarks on cutting irons changed and casting marks and patent dates progressed and were evident on other Stanley models. Like I’ve said so many times, Stanley did not waste inventory. They used it until it was gone, and in the case of the #72, that could have been several years after the parts were made. I guess in short, I’m of the opinion that the #72 was a specialty plane that one had to order and was not necessarily available in hardware stores across America. It’s very likely that a #72 could be ordered several years after it was eliminated from Stanley catalogs, so long as there were castings and parts still in Stanley’s inventory. Based on the referenced type study, the example below has physical characteristics that are consistent with a Type 6/Type 7, manufactured at some point between 1910 and 1920.
At some point right around 1909, the #72 included a bullnose attachment that allowed the user to cut a chamfer into the corner of a workpiece. As you can imagine, it’s a part that’s frequently missing, and it’s fragile along the leading edge and corners. It’s an expensive part that’s tough to find. The cutting iron is another part to closely inspect. Since the iron is adjusted by hand or with the aid of a small brass hammer, there are no slots or gear engagement ridges that one would find on a typical block plane outfitted with an iron advance/retract mechanism. Basically, an original, correct #72 cutting iron is flat on both sides. It will have a trademark stamp, but that’s all. A block plane iron will work, but be aware that it’s a replacement. The rear tote is also unique to the plane itself. If you look closely, notice that its toe is sort of squared off to fit the casting below.
Over the years I’ve used the #72 when I have a long chamfered cut to make on a table leg or some other relatively long workpiece. While it delivers a very nice, uniform chamfer, it’s difficult to start the cut. Because there’s really no support on the front section of the plane, the user must start the cut a couple inches away from the end of the workpiece. Then as the cut develops going towards the opposite end of the workpiece, the user must turn the plane around and cut the chamfer on the few inches that were uncut at the beginning of the chamfer. Typically, that means cutting those few inches against the grain. That might cause some tear out. But if the plane is set for a very light pass and outfitted with a sharp iron, such tear out can be minimal or even avoided. By raising the front section of the plane, the chamfer will be subtle. Lowering the front section of the plane will result in a more prominent chamfer. What’s nice about the plane is that the chamfer is repeatable. That being said, until the inverted “v” sole on the rear section of the plane fully registers on both sides of the workpiece, the user is essentially cutting the chamfer freehand. Only when the plane is fully seated on both sides of the ninety degree corner of the workpiece will a forty five degree chamfer be achieved. I know that might sound confusing, however I hope the photos below will help with my explanation.
This is a fun plane to use and it will deliver a uniform chamfer. It’s considered somewhat rare even though it was offered by Stanley for five decades. If you’re going to buy one, inspect it carefully, do your homework, and if it’s missing parts, pass on it. Parts are tough to come by and they won’t be cheap.
Jim C.
-
Jim,
Thanks for the interesting discussion, not just on the history of the making of this plane, but on its use.
Like many hand tool folks, I've always been intrigued by the No. 72, but, yes, never enough to go buy one.
I did acquire a No. 65 chamfer spokeshave (they, at least, are affordable), and wonder - if you happen to own a No. 65, too - how use of one of these compares to using the plane?
-
Hey Bill,
Thanks for stopping by the thread. I’m glad you enjoyed reading the Stanley #72 post. Unfortunately l do not have a Stanley #65 spokeshave so I can’t make the comparison. During the past twenty or so years, I’ve been making chamfers with various block planes, my Delta joiner and the #72, in that order from most frequent to least. I don’t want to put you on the spot, but if you get a little time, maybe you could post a few pictures of your #65 spokeshave.
Jim C.
-
I was pretty happy to find this under the Christmas tree! Happy holidays!
Jim C.
-
Very nice!! Is that the Low Angle Jack? Happy Holidays to you!!
-
Happy holidays Lou! The low angle jack is the #62. The plane above is based on the Stanley #164. I think Stanley categorized it as a block plane, which is also what I think it is. Lie-Nielsen advertised their version of the #164 as a low angle smoother. The Stanley version of the #164 is extremely collectible. The Lie-Nielsen #164 was discontinued a few years ago along with several other models. Very recently, L-N produced a limited number of 164 planes, so I bought one knowing that they’d sell out quickly and might not be manufactured again any time soon. As attractive as the plane is, it will not be relegated to its box as a collectible. I fully intend to use the plane.
Jim C.
-
Thanks! I flipped a coin between Low Angle Block , and Low Angle Jack! Nice purchase!!
-
The L-N #62 is in the background. The L-N #164 is in front.
Jim C.
-
Beautiful planes!! I'm guessing they are great workers, too.
-
Hey Lou,
I know you’ve been keeping up with the thread for years, so you’re familiar with my affinity for Lie Nielsen planes. They really are beautiful tools that function and deliver better than expected results right out of the box with very little adjustment at all. Over the years I’ve been lucky enough to acquire a handful of L-N planes. Most have been gifts for which I am extremely appreciative. And while I’d really like to keep them as collector planes, I can’t resist the urge to use them whenever possible. Now that being said, I don’t abuse them, but those that I have are well used.
As you may know, a few years ago, L-N started dramatically cutting back on their hand planes offerings. Several planes were discontinued either temporarily or permanently. I now look on line at the prices of some of those models that are not being made by L-N any more and I’m astounded at the prices being paid for them. In some instances, the discontinued L-N models cost more than the vintage Stanley planes from which they were inspired. The L-N #164 that I recently received was out of production for some time, and I regretted not buying one when they were still available. When L-N manufactured another batch, I mentioned it to my wife and she didn’t hesitate. Within a week, they were sold out. Who knows if and when another production run will occur. With that type of situation, perhaps I should have just left my new #164 in the box and waited to capitalize on the collector market. I opted against that and will always lean in favor of using any L-N plane that comes my way. That may be foolish in terms of potential financial gain, but that line of thinking is outweighed by the fact that these tools were made to be used.
I very recently finished the cabinet depicted below. The L-N #62 shown above (reply 1228) was an active participant in its construction. I bought that plane over twenty years ago. It was one of the very first L-N planes I acquired and has served me well over the years. I’m careful with it, but I use it frequently! The #164 will see plenty of service time as well. They are great workers!
Jim C.
-
Hello, Jim. The cabinet is stunning!! Judging from the way you take care of things, you will get top dollar ( should you ever decide to sell ) for your used, but not abused, LN Planes!!
-
Stunning cabinet Jim!
-
Hello, Jim. The cabinet is stunning!! Judging from the way you take care of things, you will get top dollar ( should you ever decide to sell ) for your used, but not abused, LN Planes!!
Hi Lou,
Many thanks for the kudos on the cabinet. It’s gotten some mixed reviews. As you can see, it’s very tall and narrow. It’s just a little over eight inches wide and about thirty inches tall. Unless I’m making something very specific, that has to fit perfectly, I typically don’t work from any plans or drawings. I just start cutting. This, like most of my other projects, is another free form idea that just took shape as I went along. It was a fun project to make. I was somewhere around 75 - 80 hours into it by the time it was completed. It’s been dubbed the “Enigma Cabinet” by my wife, because I can’t answer two simple questions, “Why did you make this?” and “What are we going to do with it?”
As for my little collection of L-N planes, well, those could very likely be left to my kids to keep or dispose of. Maybe when the time comes, they’ll send me off with one……or two.😁
Jim C.
-
Stunning cabinet Jim!
Thanks Les! Much appreciated! The little bits of cherry are suspended by 1/8” square dowels of various lengths. The cherry bits themselves are the waste pieces that came from the cutting the dovetails.
Jim C.
-
Way back in November of 1999, my wife and I moved into a brand new house. When the house was being built, the builder asked us if we wanted a deck off the back. I said no, a concrete patio would be sufficient. I went on to tell the builder I was interested in some kind of screened in structure that adjoined the patio. Maybe a gazebo. By the way the lot was graded and in an effort to keep rain water, etc. running away from the house, any sort of structure would have to be built on a sort of steep slope off the end of the patio. Not impossible to do, but also not the easiest outdoor living space project. Then he hit me with the cost. Forget it! When we moved into that house, were counting every last penny. “I’ll build it myself.”
Over the winter, I drew up some plans for purposes of pulling a permit and started saving for materials to build a gazebo. By the late spring of 2000, I was ready to go. And like a lot of my projects, I tend to over complicate them for some reason. Anyway, in my initial plan, I intended to cut a shallow rabbet joint all the way around the top plate of the walls to accommodate a bird’s mouth at the end of each rafter. I don’t know why I thought I needed that, but it was in the plan. I just had to figure out how to cut the joint.
Stanley #10:
The #10 is the carriage maker’s rabbet plane. With its arched sides and full width cutting iron, it was designed to cut rabbet joints on larger pieces of wood and in situations that called for large structural joints on timbers and planks…like building a gazebo. Well, based on my gazebo plan, I needed a large rabbet plane to cut some rabbet joints and somehow convinced my wife that I needed a Stanley #10. I tracked one down on eBay and had it within a week. Looking back, I really lucked out with this plane. I knew little or nothing about it and fortunately got one that was what I still believe is factory original.
Looking at the bottom of the lever cap and the main casting below the rear tote, one can see a foundry mark letter “B.” That foundry mark was a characteristic of Stanley planes manufactured between 1899 and 1905. The lateral adjustment lever on the frog bears a single patent date that reads, “7 24 88,” characteristic of planes manufactured between 1899 and 1902. The trademark on the cutting iron was used by Stanley between 1891 and 1904. Based on the telltales, I would guess that my #10 was made at some point between 1899 and 1905. When I bought the plane, I had zero clue as to the plane’s age nor even if the sum of its parts were original to each other. Like I said, it was pure luck that I ended up with this plane.
Stanley carried the #10 for decades between 1870 and 1957. I guess if one is working on a larger project that requires large rabbet joints, such a plane would be a valuable tool to have on hand. But like any other plane with arched sides, it’s prone to cracking along those arches. Also, because the iron is full width and must fit between the arched sides of the main casting, the useable part of the iron isn’t very long. Make sure there’s still some steel left to grind if you’re planning to buy a #10 to use. Another thing to watch out for is the frog itself. I don’t think the #10 was ever outfitted with a frog advance/retract adjustment screw like is found on most standard bench planes.
So maybe you’re wondering, when the time came to build the gazebo, how did the plane perform in terms of cutting that rabbet joint. Well, once the walls were up and I got started on the roof, I distinctly remember asking myself, do I really need that rabbet joint???…….
Jim C.
-
Wow. That's a lot of rabbeting. I think I'd have been tempted to do a "built-up" rabbet, face-nailing two pieces of stock of suitable (different) widths together. Or, if I had to rabbet it from the whole stock, roughing it out with a carpenter's gouge and then refining it with a suitable rabbet plane. From what I understand, that's fairly common in boat building, where the rabbets are often in compound curves.
I picked up a Stanley 10-1/2 early in my tool-gathering years - I can still remember finding it (broken on one side - my uncle fixed it) and a Stanley No. 40 scrub plane in the same sale. I use the No. 40 a lot, but I have yet to figure out what the No. 40 can do that the No. 78 can't (obviously, "really wide rabbets" would be one response).
-
Hi Bill,
Happy New year to you and everyone else following the thread all these years! This coming October will be ten years! I’m really honored to have had you and others keeping up with the thread since I kicked it off. Many thanks to you all! So about that #10 bench rabbet plane…….. The gazebo was twelve feet by twelve feet. When I got the walls up and nailed on the top plate, I started to lay out my lines for a rabbet joint that would go all the way around all eight sides. For whatever reason I thought it would look cool and would also sort of lock the ends of all sixteen rafters in place. I tacked on a batten and got to planing. After literally three or four light passes with the plane on the first board, I looked around at the eight walls and pretty much thought what you just said. That’s a lot of rabbeting! Then I asked myself if I really needed a joint that would be mostly unseen, unnoticed, and unappreciated by future gazebo visitors? The answer came pretty quickly and I made a design change on the spot. That was the one and only time I used my #10.
As I got more into planes, I came to realize how lucky I had been to have purchased an example that was still in possession of all of its very likely factory original to each other parts. The plane was and still is in great condition considering its 115+ year old age. It’s one of the older planes in my collection.
You mentioned using a #40 scrub and a #78 fillister and comparing their functions. I use a #40 at the beginning of almost every project to start the rough stock flattening process, and that’s about it. I think the #40 is better at removing stock quickly and efficiently. I suppose the #78 could do the same to some extent but I think of it more as a joint making/joint refining plane.
Jim C.
-
Sorry, I meant "what the No. 10 or 10-1/2 can do that the No. 78 can't." Brain fade.
-
Sorry, I meant "what the No. 10 or 10-1/2 can do that the No. 78 can't." Brain fade.
I agree.
-
I was digging through some old hand plane reference materials and came across this Stanley block plane chart that I made for myself several years ago. I had forgotten about it. I recall putting it together during a slow day at work. Stanley made so many block planes that I had trouble keeping them straight. What I wanted to make into a handy reference guide turned into a full sheet of accounting paper. Hardly compact or easy to put in your pocket. I’m not even sure it’s 100% correct. If you find any errors, don’t be afraid to point them out.
Jim C.
-
That's a great chart Jim. I'll definitely print out a copy to tack on the wall in my shop & 1 for the house. I really like the columnar pad. I still have a file cabinet drawer full of them upstairs. Many construction projects were estimated on them before Excel spreadsheets & estimating programs.
Back on the plane topic, i think block planes are very under appreciated. Seems like alot of them have had hard lives. Almost every sale has broken, rusty, missing parts block planes. Tuned up- they're extremely useful, can be slipped in a sweatshirt pocket & for the most part easy to replace if they get damaged or borrowed. The good ones always stay at home.
I'm really not a plane collector but for some reason, I've bought lots of them & spend time rehabbing them. I probably have a least one in every working toolbox & tote that has ever been to a jobsite.
-
Hi geneg,
Thanks for stopping by the thread. I didn’t expect anyone to actually print the chart, but I guess it’s more readily accessible as a hard copy versus an internet posting. That being said, I honestly forgot I made it. I guess that tells you how much I referred to it over the years. I tried to put a date on its creation, and believe it was the late 1990s. I just remember it was a slow morning at work and I somehow ended up charting Stanley block planes. Like I said earlier, I’m not even sure it’s 100% correct. If anyone wants to fact check anything, have at it.
I’m in total agreement with you. Block planes are the workhorses in my shop, and when you have one that cuts nicely I can see where one might take it for granted. Like you, I’ve seen MANY block planes at yard sales and flea markets and they’re usually beat up pretty badly. Those are most definitely under appreciated and abused/neglected. I hate to see that because they probably were good tools at one time. Anyway, I’m happy to hear that the chart might be a handy reference for you. Thanks again for checking out the thread.
Jim C.
-
Hello hand plane enthusiasts! I hope everyone made it through another winter. For those of you who may still be experiencing winter, hang in there, it’s almost over. I spent a good part of the cold months making sawdust. Of course every project included using at least a couple hand planes. I sort of went on a block plane kick and decided that I would attempt to use a different one for each project, if possible. Occasionally, depending on the task, I might deviate from plan and use a second plane that I felt would do a better job. Anyway, two planes that saw a lot of use this winter were the Stanley #140 and the Stanley #65. If you want to look back, we discussed the #65 on page 16, reply #238, and the #140 on page 24, reply 349. What I always liked about those two planes were their pressure caps. Those big shiny caps are very inviting and a pleasure to hold. I’ve found myself gravitating to them for years. The knuckle cap was one of Stanley’s best designs and over the years it was featured on several different block plane models.
Stanley #18, #18 1/4, #19 :
So you’re probably wondering why I’m going to feature three different planes in this installment. Well, you’re right to ask that question, because I’ve typically not covered more that one plane per discussion. In this particular instance, however, the three planes listed above are essentially the same plane. Well, sort of, and I’ll get into that as we move along.
Speaking strictly as a collector, the only way to add any one of these to your top shelf is to find them in NOS to mint condition. Be patient. If the pressure cap isn’t absolutely perfect or close to it, keep looking. When I was on the hunt for these particular models, I was extremely picky about their condition. With their nickel plated trimmings and jet black japanning they’re some of the most attractive block planes Stanley ever made. Don’t pay collector prices for user quality planes. If the finish on the knuckle cap is scratched up, flaking off, missing in spots, or worn/dull, that’s a user grade plane.
When discussing the #18 and the #19, the only feature that distinguishes them from each other is their length. The #18 is about six inches long and the #19 is about seven inches long. Other than that, they’re the same plane. Both have adjustable throats, which I find to be a very desirable feature on any block plane, both have the same threaded rod and nickel plated nut mechanism for advancing and retracting the cutting iron, and both have the same style lateral adjustment lever. Of course, both share the same pressure cap. Both were in production beginning in 1888 and were terminated in 1949 (#19) and 1950 (#18). That being said, between the two, I believe the larger #19 is a little less common. The #18 depicted below is a Type 12 and was manufactured between 1913 and 1919. The #19 is a Type 14 and was manufactured between 1930 and 1935. Once again, Stanley continued to try and fill every conceivable niche by carrying two planes that were essentially same, except for one inch in length, for sixty years.
The #18 and #19 were dropped from Stanley’s offerings at a time when the company was eliminating, or had already discontinued many of their specialty planes and less popular models. Someone at Stanley probably concluded that the #18 and #19 block planes were competing with other, cheaper to produce, planes already in their lineup, specifically the #9 1/2. While the #9 1/2 had the same features as the #18 and #19, it did not include nickel trimmings and the knuckle style pressure cap.
So maybe you’re wondering about the #18 1/4 that I mentioned above. How does it fit into this discussion? Well, someone at Stanley must have really like the looks of the #18 and #19 as much as I do, and perhaps had enough pull to do something about it. So in 1952, Stanley introduced the #18 1/4. At six inches long and with the great looking nickel trimmings to include that shiny knuckle cap, it looked very much like the #18. Except for one thing, it had a fixed throat, which likely reduced its manufacturing cost. While it was a very nice looking tool, the #18 1/4 was only in production from 1952 to 1958. After a few years, the accountants at Stanley must have figured out that the more expensive to produce #18 1/4 was competing with the less expensive, #9 1/4 which went into production in 1947. So after just six years, the 18 1/4 was gone. Today, it’s considered to be a relatively tough plane to find. Not impossible but you’ll have to do some searching to find one.
Here’s a few things to think about if you ever come across an #18 1/4. By the time it went into production, Stanley was routinely stamping their block planes with their respective model numbers on the left side just below the concave thumb grip. EVERY #18 1/4 will be stamped with is model number. I suppose that an older #9 1/4 could be outfitted with nickel trimmings and the knuckle pressure cap and passed off as a much rarer and more expensive #18 1/4. If the plane isn’t stamped with its model number, it’s not a #18 1/4. Be extremely careful about that. Take a close look at the knuckle pressure cap. While Stanley logos and patent information were stamped on the #18 an #19 caps reflecting the time/era from which they were made, the cap that was used on the #18 1/4 is simply stamped with “STANLEY.”
Over the years, the knuckle style pressure caps went through some changes. Early caps had a two piece hinged mechanism that looked good but was prone to cracking. The second generation knuckle caps were not hinged and held up much better. As I mentioned when I wrote about the #65 block plane, there’s a lot of engineering that went into the knuckle cap. It’s “contraptionism” at its very best! One final word about the knuckle pressure caps. Like any other plane made from cast iron, if the screw holding the cap in place is over tightened and the cap is then pressed down over the cutting iron, the excessive force could crack the body of the plane.
Jim C.
-
Hi Jim, Here is a spot to attach your block plane spreadsheet. You did all the work- I just typed it into a modern spreadsheet. The problem is that it won't let me attach a .xls file. I copied everything to a word document.
-
Back a few weeks ago, I posted a hand written spreadsheet that attempted to sort out Stanley block planes. (See page 83, reply 1240) Well, geneg got a hold of it and created a very user friendly, 21st century, computerized product that is much more legible and applicable to providing worthwhile content. Anyway, he’s trying not to take any credit for his work. So, here’s the spreadsheet in a much more pertinent and readable version…….ALL THANKS TO GENEG!
Jim C.
-
This is the Friday estate sale buy from last week. This is No. 4 Stanley Bailey plane with a ribbed sole. I believe it is a Model 11. If the ID is correct, this plane was manufactured between 1910 and 1918, making it over 100 years old. I'm hoping to clean it up and maybe replace the chipped lever cap to make it a solid user. The handles are tight, and most of the japanning is present.
-
Hey Yadda,
Good to hear from you! Let me start by saying that you hit a home run with that plane. Your identification is correct. The plane is a Type 11 and is also a solid 100+ years old. It’s somewhat collectible as well particularly by those who like to use them. Your newly acquired plane appears to be in great user condition. With just a careful cleaning, that plane will be ready to go. Try to avoid using a wire wheel on it. Let it look its age. The patina will give the plane an inviting look. Please post a few more pictures when you get her cleaned up and back in service. Nice find!
Jim C.
-
A few months ago I started a project that began as an experiment to twist a piece of wood into a feature that would possibly become a leg on a chair or table. I never got the twist I was looking for, but ended up with a unique sculptural feature that eventually became the legs for a small console table. The table itself is actually a cabinet of sorts with a couple drawers. Like any good cabinet, there’s a back panel that fits into a groove cut into the inner walls of the top, bottom and sides. No matter how much I try to get a perfect fit between the back panel and those grooves, there’s always some adjustment that’s necessary for things to go together precisely. A pair of side rabbet planes takes care of the problem in just a few minutes.
Stanley #98 and #99:
When you’re talking about planes that were specifically designed to adjust joints between pieces of wood, it’s impossible to leave side rabbet planes out of the conversation. Made to widen grooves and dados, side rabbet planes are capable of taking the very finest cuts on the side shoulders of such joints. While Stanley had a few plane options for doing this, to include the #79, the #98 and #99, were likely the best choices. The only difference between the two is the direction in which the plane is pushed. The #98 is the pushed from left to right, while the #99 is pushed from right to left.
As a woodworker, it’s my opinion that you really can’t have one without the other. If the grain is running one way it’s good to follow it with the correct plane in order to avoid tear out. By flipping the front skate one hundred and eighty degrees, the plane can be converted into a bull nose, allowing the user to get closer into the corners of stopped grooves and dados going in either direction. When I brought the planes depicted below, I bought them as a pair. Stanley offered the #98 between 1896 and 1942, and the #99 from 1897 and 1942. Initially the planes were offered without depth stops. Right around 1930, Stanley added depth stops to both planes, which I personally favor. Several parts are also interchangeable with the #79, to include the front skate and screw, the cutting irons and the cutting iron clamping mechanism. The knobs are also interchangeable with the front knob on a #1 bench plane. Based on the significant value of the #1, I would strongly recommend against taking a knob off a #1 for purposes of fixing up a much less expensive #98 or #99.
That takes me to my next point. Both the #98 and #99 have several small parts as shown below in the exploded view photo. Be sure to know what you’re looking at before buying either plane. If you see a plane with empty threaded holes, start asking yourself why. Replacement parts are not cheap. Do your homework!
Like I said earlier, if you’re a serious woodworker, side rabbet planes are a necessity in your hand plane arsenal. There are other options besides the vintage Stanley #98, #99 and the #79 for that matter. Several years ago Lie Nielsen made faithful copies of the #98 and #99. Well, LN stopped making them and as a result, they command inordinate prices that are significantly higher than collector quality Stanley originals. Lee Valley also offers a side rabbet plane that is based on the Sargent #81 (see page 60, reply #886) and is much more affordable than the vintage Stanleys or the out of production LN models.
Jim C.
-
Fantastic table!
-
Thanks Yadda! It was a project that seemed to take on a life of its own. Start to finish, the table took about 150 hours to complete. It’s the longest start to finish time of any project I’ve ever made. They’re hard to see, but there are 52 hand cut dovetails on the corners. Those took me some time. Needless to say, there was a ton of hand plane work throughout the process. Widening the back panel grooves with the side rabbet planes were just one of many ways planes were used. Fitting the two drawers would have been very difficult without planes. Thanks again for stopping by the thread!
Jim C.
-
Absolutely gorgeous table.
-
Many thanks Redneck!! :grin:
Jim C.
-
A while back I had a cherry tree removed from my yard that was precariously leaning towards my neighbor’s house. The tree had to come down. As the tree was being cut into smaller firewood sized logs, I pulled a couple aside with the intention of using them in future woodworking projects.
One of the logs was forked with one side extending straight up from the larger branch below it and the other side extended up and forward about thirty degrees. My thought was to cut out a cross section of the forked log and use it as the door to a free form cabinet that followed the shape and contours of the the log’s cross section. As I progressed through the project, I found it to be more complicated than I originally expected. Needless to say, hand planes were absolutely essential in completing the piece. Small smoothers, scrapers and various block planes as well as #151 style spoke shave were the workhorses from start to finish……
Jim C.
-
Hello, Jim C. Very nice work , you have a great eye , and great skills!! Thanks for sharing!
-
Thanks Lou! I was going through photos of the build and came across the last photo with several hand planes in the frame. All block planes by chance. I took the photo not really thinking about the tools on my bench. Occasionally I’ll get messages from people asking if I use all the planes featured in the thread. Well, some I use and some I don’t. But as the photo shows, I do use them on every project, usually out of necessity because they typically are the best tools for the job. Thanks for stopping by the thread.
Jim C.
-
I hope you all enjoy a very Happy Thanksgiving with your family and friends!
Jim C.
-
Thanks Jim, same to you and your family and friends.
-
Looking back in the thread, actually going back to the first post, I noticed that we’ve been talking about hand planes for just a little over ten years. A decade. I never thought the thread would last this long. A lot has changed in that time. We lost a few friends along the way. I know I don’t add as much content as I used to, and I apologize for that, particularly to those who have faithfully followed along from the beginning. When I started the thread ten years ago, I didn’t give much thought to “time.” Now, ten years later, retired, slowing down a bit, I think of time as my most valued commodity and my enemy for various reasons. Maybe some of you can relate to this. Anyway, I’ll still post in the thread when the mood hits me. When I think I have a moment or two. So, check in once in a while and don’t be shy about posting some content……… A few years ago I remember thinking to myself that if the thread survived to see its tenth anniversary, I’d do a special post to commemorate it. Well, here we are a decade later.
Stanley #164:
If you’re a Stanley hand plane user, collector, enthusiast, etc., then you probably know of this plane. Like any other collectible, in this case hand planes, there’s always one that stands above the rest as the rarity or the cornerstone in one’s collection. It’s the one plane you hope to have someday because no collection is ever going to be truly complete without it. I’ve actually owned two. If you go back in the thread to page 78, reply 1169, I wrote a brief post that talked about the first one that I had for about an hour. I still shake my head when I think about it. The second one (depicted below) has jumped from collection to collection for most of its existence. It ended up in my collection as a gift from my wife. When the time comes, I suspect that another collector will have the opportunity to own it. So let’s get into it.
But before we go any further, let me dispel a couple of myths that I’ve seen written about the #164 over the years. First off, it’s not a “low angle smoothing plane.” It’s a block plane. It has an adjustable throat, the iron is bedded at twelve degrees and cuts bevel side up. All common characteristics of a low angle block plane. Stanley even advertised it as a block plane in their catalogs. So why some choose to call it a smoother makes no sense to me. The second myth, which I cannot figure out, says that there was likely just one production run of the #164, thus contributing to its scarcity. Who jumped to that conclusion without proof? And why has the myth wrongly persisted for years, again with no evidence? That’s absolutely one hundred percent false. Stanley offered the #164 from 1925 to 1943. During that eighteen year time span, I know that Stanley produced the #164 in at least three iterations, or “types.” I have personally observed, and owned, two of those three types. A Type 1 (which I owned for an hour and referenced above) and currently the Type 3, shown below. Okay, so maybe you’re asking yourself, “What’s Jim’s proof? How does he know for sure that there was more than one production run of the #164?” Well, I’m glad you asked.
Back in 2006, Charles Wirtenson and John Wells actually published a comprehensive Type Study specifically describing and detailing the #164. Amazingly, they had several examples in their respective collections to compare and contrast. In their paper, Wirtenson and Wells were able to clearly and confidently show two very distinct differences between Type 1 and Type 2 / 3 main body castings. They also identified two different front knobs, and three different logos on the the cutting irons. Unfortunately I don’t have several examples of the #164 to show you, so the first five photos below come directly from the Wirtenson/Wells type study. They’re pretty much self explanatory, showing the differences in the castings, knobs, etc. More importantly, debunking any further discussion that the #164 was a single production run item. It simply is not the case. The significant difference between the Type 2 and Type 3 is the very unique lever cap screw and the more common screw found on many other Stanley models. The large knurled screw found on the Type 1 and Type 2 was specifically made for the #164 only. It was probably expensive to make and was eventually dropped in favor of the “cheaper to make” more common, standard lever cap screw. Since we’re talking about parts, I should mention that the #164 is loaded with parts that are only found on the #164. Those include the lever cap and screw, the overhead iron adjustment mechanism, the cutting iron, and the rear tote. So, spare parts are extremely rare and consequently very expensive.
The example depicted below is a Type 3, likely manufactured between 1935 and 1943. As mentioned above, the Type 3 was produced with a relatively common lever cap screw. I personally like the big head screw with the knurling for no other reason than it looks cool, and with the overhead cutting iron adjustment mechanism, adds a bit of “contraptionism” to the overall design and possibly its desirability. The #164 is definitely one of a kind. It’s the only plane Stanley ever made with the overhead cutting iron adjustment. With the iron bedded at twelve degrees, and the main casting measuring about nine inches long, there just wasn’t enough room to fit in some kind of adjustment mechanism below the iron, as was incorporated into so many other models to include the #62. With its longer main casting, the #62 could accommodate the more traditional adjustment mechanism below the cutting iron. Much like the #62, the #164 shared the same trait that made the #62 vulnerable to damage….. its fragile throat that tapered down to practically nothing beneath the iron, thus making it prone to cracking should a thick shaving ever get jammed between the main casting and the iron. I grit my teeth and cringe just thinking about it!😬 If the opportunity ever presents itself resist the temptation and don’t ever use it…..not even once!
If you really want the experience of using a #164, a much better alternative would be to track down a Lie-Nielsen #164 for literally about one tenth the cost of an original Stanley. For several years starting back in the 2000s L-N made a relatively faithful copy of the #164. Like all L-N hand planes, it was expensive. A few years ago, the L-N #164 went out of production. Now it’s hit or miss. Sometimes L-N has them for sale and sometimes they don’t. I will say that I did get one about a year ago and it has become one of the most used planes in my shop.
I’ve read that Stanley marketed the #164 in England more so than in the United States. I don’t know if that’s true or not. That might contribute to its scarcity. Maybe its unique design and higher price wasn’t appealing to potential customers. When it made its debut, the #164 cost five dollars. That was a lot of money in 1926. About $83 dollars in today’s (2023) dollars. The plane was advertised in the 1926 Stanley Tool Catalog as being “Especially adapted for use in cutting across the grain on heavy work, where more power is required than can be obtained by the use of the ordinary block plane.” In actuality it was fragile and many didn’t survive the rough work they were expected to endure. With a relatively dull cutting iron and a tradesman pushing a little harder to make up for the less than sharp iron, a shaving getting jammed between the back of the throat and the iron was a recipe for disaster. The same goes for its larger sibling, the #62.
If you’re a collector, this is definitely not the plane to make a mistake with! Know exactly what you’re looking at and REALLY INSPECT IT CAREFULLY for cracks around the throat. Don’t be in hurry. Really look the plane over before you buy it. Don’t get romanced by the plane. If you want the experience of using a #164, I’d highly recommended the Lie- Nielsen version. It’s expensive, but it definitely delivers and is one of my favorites to use. Happy hunting and thanks for hanging in there for ten years!
Jim C.
-
Having mentioned the Lie-Nielsen #164 several times in my last post, I figured I should at least show it to you. Here it is next to the original Stanley.
Jim C.
-
I've very much enjoyed picking through this thread over time, I'm going to attempt to read it all... 👍. I have a quite a few planes that I use, nothing particularly interesting though.
But here's a recent find & a first post in this thread to make you all cringe 😄
(https://i.imgur.com/0SmJ7PQ.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/MtI0TGS.jpg)
Well I knew I couldn't make it pristine but thought I'd have a go at making it a user.
(https://i.imgur.com/H4nJ5P0.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/qF9OxaI.jpg)
Still some pitting as they were very deep, I hogged the worst off with 24 grit down to 240 but didn't get too concerned about the finish for obvious reasons, it's never going to be a collectors piece!
Luckily the frog area & lower portion of the iron were rust free, a tiny bit on the edge stoned off so I'm looking forward to putting it to work now.
.
-
Nice job! What make is it and how old is it?
Al
-
Nice job! What make is it and how old is it?
Al
Thanks.
It's a Lie Nielsen 9 1/2 that's no longer made, I don't know when it was discontinued & don't know how old this one is. I found it at a sale with little info.
-
Good job recovering that one!
-
Great job. Amazing that the knurls, threads, & screw slots came out so well. The rusty stuff I find has usually been abused with vise grips & ill fitting screwdrivers. Your's must have laid on a basement floor or in the bottom of a wet tool box & been forgotten. Rub some Johnson's paste wax across the bottom to fill in the speed holes. You turned a piece of trash into a user.
-
Great job. Amazing that the knurls, threads, & screw slots came out so well. The rusty stuff I find has usually been abused with vise grips & ill fitting screwdrivers. Your's must have laid on a basement floor or in the bottom of a wet tool box & been forgotten. Rub some Johnson's paste wax across the bottom to fill in the speed holes. You turned a piece of trash into a user.
The knurled adjustment wheel is stainless steel so didn't corrode as badly as the iron body, it cleaned up pretty well with a wire wheel. The thread & screw is brass so that suffered only from verdigris that cleaned off same as the other brass parts.
It must have been somewhere damp for quite some time, the pitting on the body was very deep to the extent I did wonder whether I could save it or not. It does still have pits but nothing that should interfere too much in use, & yes regarding the wax, thanks.
-
You know how Stanley developed the corrugated sole for bench planes, arguing that it reduced friction? You've got field-applied corrugations there.
-
Hello Navaja and welcome to the thread. Thanks for stopping by! I’m glad you’ve been enjoying the thread and intend to read through the whole thing. Hopefully it won’t bore you to the point that you don’t want to return. Many thanks for posting some interesting content and congratulations on finding and reviving that L-N block plane. I think that even in its current state, it will be a good worker. I’m personally a very big fan of L-N tools so way to go. As you progress through the thread, I sincerely hope you’ll continue to add more hand plane content and conversation. Once again, thanks for stopping by the hand plane thread.
Jim C.
-
Hello, Navaja. Nice rescue on the plane!!
-
Hello, Navaja. Nice rescue on the plane!!
+1
-
You know how Stanley developed the corrugated sole for bench planes, arguing that it reduced friction? You've got field-applied corrugations there.
Yes. 👍. And don't forget Sargent.
-
Hello Navaja and welcome to the thread. Thanks for stopping by! I’m glad you’ve been enjoying the thread and intend to read through the whole thing. Hopefully it won’t bore you to the point that you don’t want to return. Many thanks for posting some interesting content and congratulations on finding and reviving that L-N block plane. I think that even in its current state, it will be a good worker. I’m personally a very big fan of L-N tools so way to go. As you progress through the thread, I sincerely hope you’ll continue to add more hand plane content and conversation. Once again, thanks for stopping by the hand plane thread.
Jim C.
And thank you for starting the thread & adding plenty of good reading, it'll take me a while to get through it but I'm in no rush.
The L-N is a bit scared up but it doesn't seem to affect things, the area around the mouth is pit free & that's probably the most important.
I have a very eclectic collection of good, bad & ugly planes so will upload a few images.
Thank you all for the nice comments. 👍
-
I’ve been reading through the thread & am at page 17..... So I’m about 10 years late to make relevant comments!
Firstly I’ve been living in Andalucía since moving to Spain in 95, my work has always been with my hands & for many years oriented towards metalwork but over the last 10 years or so have become interested in woodwork & carving.
I (like many on here I presume) was collecting tools years before I realised I was collecting! One of my interests that stemmed from rummaging around fairs & Flea markets here in southern Spain was very old tools & implements, the older the better & especially wrought iron, but my collecting is very varied & planes are a part of it.
Back to the thread, page 10, reply #143, johnsironsanctuary shows a sad old plane missing it's horn reminded me to drag out my wooden planes (I'm moving property & in limbo so lots of my things have been stacked up in storage way too long) which is no bad thing as they need cleaning & the irons need oiling before they deteriorate any further!
I'll maybe find out what happens to johnsifonsanctuary's old plane (no spoilers please!), but I would consider it very old, the iron not necessarily being a repair but having originally had a forge welded steel bit on the iron when carbon steel was precious & in short supply, I imagine the rest of the iron is wrought. I'll not comment on my feelings about restoring it till I read the outcome.. or not.
The images show an oak plane missing it's iron & wedge also in a bad state, I've put it here simply because it's hard to believe such a piece of wood would ever have been selected to use, the grain runs in line with the throat, the pictures speak for themselves including the epoxy!!
Given to me to use to make "a wooden wood plane plane made from a plane that won't plane"... But decided it was too rough!
-
And the talk of horns.... These pictures are just random images of what might be of interest, I'll take some detailed shots as I clean them up if anyone is interested, I have about 15 wooden planes most older than pictured. I don't have as many metal planes & nothing interesting, the oldest being a Stanley & Sargent both No 7's from 1910~18, the rest are down hill from there.
-
Thanks, Navaja! Some good stuff here.
-
Navaja,
Once again, thanks for stopping by the thread all the way from Spain, and for posting some interesting content. I sincerely hope that you do make it through the entire thread, and keep posting along the way. ANYTHING hand plane related is welcome here. I’m not too well versed in older wood planes, however, I have made a few wooden planes and find that when properly tuned and set for a fine pass, they can produce remarkably good results. I made a small scraper that seems to be one I use regularly. I’d enjoy seeing more planes from your collection and would strongly encourage you to post more content if you are able to. I’d also like to see what you use your planes to make. The rest of the gang here would probably appreciate it too!
Jim C.
-
Navaja,
You mentioned above having a few old Stanley and Sargent planes. I’m a little more familiar with them than I am with wooden planes. Anyway, you added a comment and photo reminding us of Sargent’s willingness to also provide consumers with planes manufactured with corrugated soles. If you keep reading through the thread, eventually you’ll come across my posts talking specifically about Sargent Autoset planes. This series of planes was marketed as Sargent’s premium bench style plane. They’re very unique looking and they provide very nice results when set properly and outfitted with a sharp cutting iron. Not too long ago I came across one of the true rarities within the Sargent Autoset lineup. The plane I’m talking about is the #711C. This is the Jack plane size. Sargent also offered a #711 (non corrugated sole) that was in production between 1922 and 1941. What makes the #711C collectible is the fact that it was only manufactured for a few years, 1922 to 1925. If you collect and appreciate old Sargent planes, keep an eye out for the Autosets, and if you see a #711C, grab it!
Jim C.
-
That's a nice scraper plane you made Jim 👍
I'm maybe more of a hoarder than a collector! I don't look for anything in particular but it's simply a case of whatever comes along that I like, generally it needs to be cheap unless it's something special & I usually need to believe (or have the illusion!) that I'll I use it one day.... There is very little choice here in Southern Spain, most of anything quality that I've found has often got here along with a foreigner & all their possessions moving to sunnier climes, the chances of finding something like the Sargent autoset are nil to zero.. I did read your earlier post, I'm at page 36 & you've certainly posted some interesting reading as well as the other contributors, I've learned so much.
My woodworking has been very varied from green wood, draw knives & a shave horse, carving, handle making for chisels, forged & pocket folding knives that I've made, pretty much anything except fine woodwork therefore I haven't used planes as much as I'd like to.
I did get to do quite a bit of hand planing as pictured below though, a table I made during COVID lockdown, I wasn't working & there was a lot of used timber being thrown out on an apartment block being built nearby, door surrounds & pallets, etc....
The Sargent 422c was in poor shape when I found it but cleaned up pretty well & it was that and a newer Stanley no4 that I'd made into a scrub that did all the flatting from rough stacked boards, no power tools were used, that really was a workout.
(https://i.imgur.com/oqNYagw.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/XAIi1ek.jpg)
-
The metal planes I have consist of the Sergeant & a Stanley #7 from the same era with a flat sole that I bought from an ex Pattern maker from the UK, I'd bought one or two small woodworking items from him when we got chatting & he told me about the pattern making he used to do, when pattern making all but disappeared he fitted kitchens til he retired, he mentioned he still had his No7 & would I like it...... So I bought that from him & he explained more about the "art" of pattern making, very interesting & from then on I've thought of many questions I'd like to ask but sadly never saw him again.
My metal bodied planes are common users such as a couple of Stanley type 15 #4s (England & USA) a #4 1/2, my #5 at the moment is a Whitmore til either a Stanley or Record comes along & a 1950's #6 Record which I like (all of them English). To be honest even the Whitmore is alright it just needs more attention to get it to a usable state.
My wooden planes haven't seen any serious use other than me just playing with them, they have been collected over many years & used to (til I moved) be displayed like ornaments along with other old tools in my home, I'd much rather look at a lovely old tool than some of the things folks have as "ornaments"!
The irons often have some lovely markings, Peugeot of France having enough marks to fill a small book!
French, Spanish, British, German.
(https://i.imgur.com/0omWw0k.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/SlTtlx7.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/wylmIEG.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/9rl711O.jpg)
-
Navaja,
That table is really cool! It looks like functional artwork. I like that a lot. When I’m making a piece, I try to think a little bit outside of the box. The object is to make something one is not expecting to see. I recently completed the first of two small bed side tables. I guess you’d call them nightstands. My intent was to make them look “open and airy.” So, I made a floating top and left the back and sides of the case without panels. I’m sure it will fill up with dust over time, as my wife pointed out. But, it looks cool! Needless to say, a variety of planes were used during the build.
Jim C.
-
I like it!! Especially the floating top. Nice job Jim!
Mike
-
Hey Mike,
Good to hear from you! Thanks for stopping by the thread. I’m glad you like the nightstand. That floating top wasn’t too hard to make. The trick is to hide as much of the supporting framework below it as possible. I tried to make it so the observer would really have to bend over to see what’s going on underneath the top. I included a closeup photo of the supporting framework. :grin:
Jim C.
-
Hello, Jim C . Thanks for the closeup of the floating top. Great idea, and great result!!
-
Thanks Lou! I appreciate the kind words. :smiley:
Jim C.
-
Lovely tables Jim 👍
I’ve read the whole thread... Some very interesting stuff, as well as all the Plane history I also like the wooden planes you’ve made, very nice. A nice mortíce plane from Bill Houghton & the amazing miniature work of Art Rafael, wow, a shame he doesn’t look in anymore. Anyone else’s work I’ve missed I apologise.
I’m sorting & cleaning my planes after storage hasn’t been too kind, no real harm done just some light rust. I packed them with the intention of unpacking again after a short while so took no precautions other than the little oil or wax they already had on them that wasn’t much, well life decided they would still be stored 18 months later so it’s a good job this thread motivated me. I forgot a couple of little block planes one being a Record 220 that I’ll photograph as it differs from the Stanley in that it appears to have a smaller mouth.
One wooden plane might have some worm damage, it’s something that’s a real killer of wood in this part of the world, especially antiques & requires a little vigilance so they are taking turns having a couple of days in the freezer! Better safe than sorry.
Pictured are two German planes, one old & past it’s best due to a worn out iron & the other a smoother made by Ulmia Ott, this is an old one without a chip breaker, white Beach & Hornbeam I believe. The factory closed down some years ago but is now again producing probably Germany’s finest wooden planes along with E.C.E
Images just to show the right handed horns which were mentioned a few days ago for me, a few years ago for everyone else. 😄
-
Navaja,
Thanks for sharing a couple of your planes with us. I hope you get them back in good working order and start using them again. Looking back in the thread, we covered a lot of ground and I can’t say enough about those who have stuck with the thread all these years, and contributed content along the way. I’m impressed that you read through the entire thread in such a short amount of time. I’ve gone back and read more than a few of the topics and have fallen asleep. I’ve always wondered who’s reading this thing, and more than once thought it might be those who need a sleep aid. :smiley: Anyway, welcome aboard, and many thanks for your interest in the Hand Plane thread. I hope you’ll keep checking in and keep posting hand plane related content.
Jim C.
-
I'm left-handed, and have held a few right-handed "horned" planes. The horn is just not comfortable at all in the wrong hand. It's interesting, because, on newer planes, the asymmetry is very subtle; but just enough that it won't work well in the wrong hand.
-
Navaja,
I’m impressed that you read through the entire thread in such a short amount of time. I’ve gone back and read more than a few of the topics and have fallen asleep. I’ve always wondered who’s reading this thing, and more than once thought it might be those who need a sleep aid.
Jim C.
Well I can't tell a lie, I didn't read e-v-e-r-y word... 😉 but I did read the majority of it, & yes it was sometimes very late night (or early morning) reading for me due to strange work commitments right now.
I'm left-handed, and have held a few right-handed "horned" planes. The horn is just not comfortable at all in the wrong hand. It's interesting, because, on newer planes, the asymmetry is very subtle; but just enough that it won't work well in the wrong hand.
It's quite something that it's so noticeable to you & just goes to demonstrate how ergonomic these planes are, I'd like to try a left handed plane to experience it for myself as it's not the same pretending to be left handed, it just doesn't work.
Right back somewhere in the middle :smiley: Jim (P49 #734) you wrote of the lowly 220, and yes it's not exactly anything to get excited about but something I noticed that differs from my Record 220 is the size of the mouth.
I only have a Stanley 110 to compare to which isn't necessarily the same as the 220 but it's mouth is about 4.5mm (11/64"?) whereas the Record 220's mouth is about 2.5mm (3/32"?). I just thought it strange it's a big difference & the image of your Stanley 220 looks similar to my 110's mouth. Maybe goes some way to explaining it's low expectations?
As you can see in the images my 220's a worker!
My Record 220s mouth.
Jim's Stanley's 220 mouth (with some iron showing).
Record 220 & Stanley 110.
-
“Well I can't tell a lie, I didn't read e-v-e-r-y word... 😉 but I did read the majority of it, & yes it was sometimes very late night (or early morning) reading for me due to strange work commitments right now.”
Navaja,
I won’t hold it against you. There have been plenty of times when I’d write this stuff and wonder if anyone would be able to read it without dozing off. I’ll admit that I’ve gone back to read various posts and got sleepy doing so. Some of them are really long winded. I’ll have to pull out an old plane and write another tome if you’re up for it.
If you’re comparing the differences in the throat openings between a #220 and a #110, well, it could have something to do with the bedded angles of cutting irons. I think both planes will perform well if not asked to do things they weren’t designed to do. Both were basic utility planes made for basic work. Set them for a light pass and make sure the irons are SUPER SHARP! When used mostly on long grain versus end grain, they’ll do an acceptable job. If you’re making high end cabinetry or furniture, I’d probably opt for something with an iron bedded at a low angle and with an adjustable throat. Any model from the Stanley “60” series of block planes would likely be a better choice.
Jim C.
-
Hello Jim.
I have re-read my post (deleted some slightly irrelevant ramblings 😄) & realise it isn't that clear what I was saying...... or even why!
The second image down is my Record 220, the third your Stanley 220 (edited) from your post 734.
I was just surprised at the two different 220's having such a difference in mouth size. I understand the cheap basic utility of this model, but imagine those two don't perform the same, if it matters.....
The only decent block plane I have is the as yet not properly used Lie Nielson 9 1/2 I've (hopefully) salvaged. As I don't posses a truly low angle plane it's something that's on my list.
Any fine finishes in the past I've achieved with a Card Scraper, thought I wouldn't want to have to scrape a very large area it's something I actually enjoy the process of. The wooden scraper you made is also inspiration, I intend to make a scraper, it's just a case of organising a suitable blade before I can start......
-
Navaja,
I hear you. Writing about this stuff isn’t as easy as one may think. Trying to keep it sort of interesting, informative, accurate, to the point, and sensible can be tricky business. After posting a long write up, which typically took several hours to compose, I’d go back and read, and re-read, and re-read, and still re-read, for errors, clarity, etc. That took time as well. So, don’t worry too much about it. Take your best shot at it and it’s all good. If questions arise, then maybe make some edits to your post. I can say for sure that no one here will get out of hand. Luckily the gang here is full of vintage tool enthusiast who are very knowledgeable and willing to share their experience in a well mannered fashion. There was one guy that used to keep me on my toes, but that made it interesting.
I’m looking forward to seeing your shop made scraper. I used Hock blades for the cutting irons in the planes and scrapers I made. You can now find them at Lee Valley. They’re a bit expensive but you won’t be disappointed in them. I’d say they’re worth the investment.
Jim C.
-
Just a few posts above, we were briefly discussing a couple scraper planes that I made out in my shop. Making the planes is fun and sort of rewarding when there’s an opportunity to use them successfully on a project. Over the years, I’ve come to know that when working with cherry, there’s a very good chance that I’ll get a burn mark or two on the surface of the wood. It seems like cherry is really prone to getting burned no matter how careful one may be. It’s unsightly, and can ruin the aesthetic beauty of the grain immediately. While there are likely several ways to eliminate those burn marks, my favorite “burn buster” is a scraper plane. Outfitted with a thick, well sharpened iron, a scraper plane can remove those burns easily. When using, I like to pull the scraper towards me, versus pushing it, like is done with other planes. If the plane is set up correctly, the user should be peeling off less than paper thick shavings that are like fine lace and float to the floor. In just a few pulls, the burn marks are gone and the beauty of the grain is restored.
Jim C.