Hand Planes

[Jim C.]

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.

[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.             

[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.

[p_toad]

Thanks...and good grief!

[Jim C.]

Thanks...and good grief!

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.

[p_toad]

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.   

[Jim C.]

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.

[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.     

[Jim C.]

The finished product.....

[turnnut]

   Jim, great project, your labor is going to save the dog from struggling to get into the house.

[Jim C.]

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.

[johnsironsanctuary]

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.

[Jim C.]

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.

[Bill Houghton]

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/ and 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/.

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).

[Jim C.]

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.