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.
