Hand Planes

[lptools]

Hello, Bill. Nice job on the Hinge Mortise Plane, and on the article that you wrote. Regards, Lou

[Bill Houghton]

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.

[Bill Houghton]

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.



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).



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:



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.

[Bill Houghton]

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.

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.

[Bill Houghton]

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.



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.



The sole is fairly short: this is a finishing tool, designed for flat surfaces.



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:



but the blade is retained by a lever cap pivoting on pins and tightened by a thumbscrew:



and the sole is rosewood, screwed to the metal body:



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.



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.

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:



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.

[lptools]

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

[p_toad]

"my gathering of tools (NOT a collection!  I'm NOT a collector!  No, I'm NOT!)"

yeah, riiiiiiight   

Like the scrapers.   Thank you.   

[lptools]

Hello, Bill Here are a few pics of the E C Stearns No. 8 Cabinet Scraper. Regards, Lou

[Bill Houghton]

Thanks, Lou.  I like those thumbscrews.  That's back when details like thumbscrews got some attention, instead of being off the shelf items.

[bird]

hi guys, can someone help me out with the actual name of this profile and what it was used for? Thanks

[bird]

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??

[kwoswalt99]

Looks like a right and left handed moulding plane.

[Jim C.]

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.   

[Jim C.]

Additional photos of the Stanley #171.

[Yadda]

That must be the Edsel of Stanley Handplanes. Very neat. Thanks for sharing!  Definitely worth the wait.