Hand Planes

[Jim C.]

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.

[johnsironsanctuary]

I don't know the history. I picked it up on the last day of an estate sale last summer.

[Art Rafael]

I hope that my message didn't get lost at the bottom of page 10.   Ralph

[johnsironsanctuary]

It didn't get lost Ralph.  I just dozed off while I was designing a shadow box in my head.

[scottg]

  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   

[Branson]

>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.

[Branson]

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.

[johnsironsanctuary]

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.

[Jim C.]

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?

[johnsironsanctuary]

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 C.]

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.

[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.           

[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.                 

[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.                 

[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.