Author Topic: Hand Planes  (Read 321444 times)

0 Members and 5 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Lewill2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1975
  • Bucks County PA
Re: Hand Planes
« Reply #315 on: May 07, 2014, 11:37:51 AM »
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.   

Offline Lewill2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1975
  • Bucks County PA
Re: Hand Planes
« Reply #316 on: May 07, 2014, 11:53:06 AM »
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.

Offline rusty

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4345
Re: Hand Planes
« Reply #317 on: May 07, 2014, 06:47:12 PM »
>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 :)
Just a weathered light rust/WD40 mix patina.

Offline Jim C.

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1065
Re: Hand Planes
« Reply #318 on: May 18, 2014, 04:41:08 PM »
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.           
« Last Edit: May 21, 2014, 04:11:23 PM by Jim C. »
Our Go-To Type Study Member

Offline Jim C.

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1065
Re: Hand Planes
« Reply #319 on: May 24, 2014, 10:03:10 AM »
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.)         
« Last Edit: May 26, 2014, 08:04:25 PM by Jim C. »
Our Go-To Type Study Member

Offline mikeswrenches

  • Contributor
  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2002
Re: Hand Planes
« Reply #320 on: May 24, 2014, 10:34:52 AM »
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
Check out my ETSY store at: OldeTymeTools

Offline Jim C.

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1065
Re: Hand Planes
« Reply #321 on: May 24, 2014, 11:36:16 AM »
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.   
« Last Edit: May 24, 2014, 11:41:15 AM by Jim C. »
Our Go-To Type Study Member

Offline mikeswrenches

  • Contributor
  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2002
Re: Hand Planes
« Reply #322 on: May 24, 2014, 03:27:10 PM »
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
Check out my ETSY store at: OldeTymeTools

Offline Jim C.

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1065
Re: Hand Planes
« Reply #323 on: May 24, 2014, 03:55:43 PM »
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.     
« Last Edit: May 24, 2014, 03:57:18 PM by Jim C. »
Our Go-To Type Study Member

Offline strik9

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 228
Re: Hand Planes
« Reply #324 on: May 25, 2014, 12:43:10 AM »
   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.
The only bad tool is the one that couldn't finish the job.  Ironicly it may be the best tool for the next job.

Offline Bill Houghton

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2808
Re: Hand Planes
« Reply #325 on: May 25, 2014, 03:18:44 AM »
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).

Offline Jim C.

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1065
Re: Hand Planes
« Reply #326 on: May 26, 2014, 08:59:18 AM »
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.
« Last Edit: May 26, 2014, 09:03:30 AM by Jim C. »
Our Go-To Type Study Member

Offline Jim C.

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1065
Re: Hand Planes
« Reply #327 on: May 26, 2014, 10:03:45 AM »
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.)         
« Last Edit: May 26, 2014, 10:31:33 AM by Jim C. »
Our Go-To Type Study Member

Offline mikeswrenches

  • Contributor
  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2002
Re: Hand Planes
« Reply #328 on: May 26, 2014, 06:49:35 PM »
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
Check out my ETSY store at: OldeTymeTools

Offline Jim C.

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1065
Re: Hand Planes
« Reply #329 on: May 26, 2014, 07:52:38 PM »
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.
« Last Edit: May 26, 2014, 07:55:45 PM by Jim C. »
Our Go-To Type Study Member