Hand Planes

[Papaw]

No problem, Jim! I think most of us are enjoying the thread.

[Jim C.]

No problem, Jim! I think most of us are enjoying the thread.

Thanks Papaw.  I hope so. 

[Branson]

Well I am really enjoying this thread on planes.  I've learned a lot from you, Jim.  I'd never heard of the autoset.  I still think I would have to have one in my hands to really understand it, but that's probably just me.  I'm almost as much tactile as visual. 

I'm going to have my hands full here.  I've gotten into most of the tools in storage, and there are pictures to take.  I found my #55, which was more intact than I remembered.  Found my #3 and #13, and both are type 8.  It turned out I didn't have a #66 with both fences, but two #66, one with  the straight fence, and a very early Japanned with the curved fence.   Two tool chests are filled with wooden planes, one of which holds my 18th Century carriage makers rabbet plane. 

[Jim C.]

Well I am really enjoying this thread on planes.  I've learned a lot from you, Jim.  I'd never heard of the autoset.  I still think I would have to have one in my hands to really understand it, but that's probably just me.  I'm almost as much tactile as visual. 

I'm going to have my hands full here.  I've gotten into most of the tools in storage, and there are pictures to take.  I found my #55, which was more intact than I remembered.  Found my #3 and #13, and both are type 8.  It turned out I didn't have a #66 with both fences, but two #66, one with  the straight fence, and a very early Japanned with the curved fence.   Two tool chests are filled with wooden planes, one of which holds my 18th Century carriage makers rabbet plane.

Hi Branson,

I'm really glad that I was able to introduce you to a series of hand planes that you weren't familiar with.  Also, I'd like to thank you for your honest feedback regarding the Autoset writeup.  I do think that you'd better understand the Autoset's unique features if it were in your hands where you could physically examine it.  I know the writeup was sort of complicated and probably confusing too.  After reading it SEVERAL times myself, and trying to clarify it, I still came away thinking that others who were unfamiliar with the Autoset planes were probably wondering what the heck I was talking about.  I view the post as a total failure in terms of clarity.  Rather than going back and trying to "fix" it, I think I'll leave bad enough alone and try to do better on the next one.  I apologize, and again, thank you for your constructive feedback.  If you like something, that's great!  If you don't, for whatever reason, I'd like to hear about that too!  Actually, the critical comments will help me know what works and what doesn't.     

On another note, I'm very happy to hear that you're breaking into your tool collection, and I look forward to seeing all of your hand planes featured here on the Hand Plane thread.

Jim C.     

[Branson]

I wouldn't call it a failure, Jim.  Some things just defy description in words, things we think are even simple.  One of my college professors had a standing offer to give any student an A for the semester if he or she could describe, in writing, how to tie a bow knot.  Nobody had ever succeeded.

Among my discoveries in my old planes is that the 113 is missing the lateral adjuster.  I've got a parts-only frog that can provide a replacement as soon as I figure out how to attach it to the 113 without breaking the casting when I rivet it together.  Another is that the cap iron screw on my better #4 is missing.  How could that have happened?!  Grumble grrr.  I don't want to cannibalize another usable plane for a screw.

[Jim C.]

I wouldn't call it a failure, Jim.  Some things just defy description in words, things we think are even simple.  One of my college professors had a standing offer to give any student an A for the semester if he or she could describe, in writing, how to tie a bow knot.  Nobody had ever succeeded.

Among my discoveries in my old planes is that the 113 is missing the lateral adjuster.  I've got a parts-only frog that can provide a replacement as soon as I figure out how to attach it to the 113 without breaking the casting when I rivet it together.  Another is that the cap iron screw on my better #4 is missing.  How could that have happened?!  Grumble grrr.  I don't want to cannibalize another usable plane for a screw.

Hey Branson,

Let us know how your 113 repair goes.  I never tried riveting to cast iron.  Go easy on that.  As for your #4, which screw are you talking about.  The little short one with knurling that holds the cutting iron and the chip breaker together?  Or the screw that goes in the frog and holds the lever cap and double iron assembly in place? 

Jim C.

[Branson]

It's the screw that holds the blade and the cap iron/chip breader together.

[Jim C.]

It's the screw that holds the blade and the cap iron/chip breader together.

Hey Branson,

I'm away right now, but I'll take a look in my parts box when I get back to my shop.  If I have an extra, I'll send it your way.

Jim C.

[Branson]

Hey Branson,
I'm away right now, but I'll take a look in my parts box when I get back to my shop.  If I have an extra, I'll send it your way.
Jim C.

That would be deeply appreciated!

[Branson]

Well, back at the storage unit I found my Sears #45, in its leatherette case with both sets of arms and full box of blades.  Unlike the Wards 45, the 45 is nowhere to be found on the casting.  Strangely enough, it was in a box marked "planes."  There was another 5 C in the box and a 5 1/4 (no knob on this one and the retaining bolt is snapped off level with the casting).

A while back there was some discussion on the 4 1/2, and I had read Leach's write up on that, wistfully thinking I'd like to try one out.  Even tossed a couple of futile bids on ones that showed up on eBay.   Well, at the bottom of the plane box I found a Stanley 4 1/2 C.  Yay!  (Good thing those bids were futile).  So I got home and tried to get a fix on the date.  No ring cast into the bed for the knob.  Check.  No "Stanley" stamped into the lateral adjust.  Check.  Later threading on the depth adjuster.  Check.  No "Bailey cast into the toe.  Check.  Blade is stamped with the triangular Stanley, New Britain, Conn, USA"  mark.  But the number isn't cast into the toe either.  The tote (cracked, of course) and knob are beech.  Hunh?  The depth adjustment knob is 1 1/4 inch in diameter.  No patent dates.  "M 4 1/2 " is cast into the bed behind the frog,   I'm confused now.

So Jim, what have I got?  (other than a good 4 1/2 C that will work just fine with cleaning and de-rustification -- the blade even looks to be sharp)

Yeah, I know, photos.  Not yet. storage hasn't been kind to these planes and they aren't ready for a public appearance.

[Jim C.]

In my last installment, I tried to explain the unique features of my favorite series of bench planes, the Sargent Autosets.  Well, if you read that epic post, you may be wary of reading this one, as it also deals Sargent Autoset bench planes.  I promise to keep this one short and to the point.  So, let’s get into it.

As I stated in the last post, Sargent made several sizes of Autoset bench planes.  The largest of the series were the #718 fore plane and the #722 jointer.  Those two planes included one extra feature that their smaller siblings did not have, an adjustable front knob.  By simply loosening the barrel nut on the top of knob, the knob could be moved from side-to-side, or backward and forward, depending on one’s preferences.   The side-to-side adjustment allegedly provided knuckle clearance when the plane was used up against a barrier.  That makes some sense.  The backward and forward adjustment was provided to add comfort to craftspeople with longer or shorter arms.  Yes, that’s absolutely true!  Sargent actually touted the backward and forward adjustment as a selling feature for people with longer or shorter arms.   The #718 and #722 are the only planes I’m aware of that tried to fill the short arm/long arm niche.

Looking at the photos below, it’s easy to see how Sargent accomplished the knob adjustments in a relatively simple manner.  A cast iron domed base was mounted onto raised screw bosses on the main body casting.  The domed casting has four slots that allow the knob to be shifted into a position and tightened in place with the barrel nut on top of the knob.   If the photos don’t tell the story, just let me know and I’ll elaborate more on the adjustment mechanism.  Does anyone really want that?

I like the adjustable knob concept for its “contraptionism” but don’t entirely buy the practicality of the mechanism, and have seen MANY of these planes with cracked, broken or missing front knobs.  Original knobs are relatively fragile.  Often, the knobs have been replaced with non-originals.  An original knob’s base is manufactured to match the curvature/shape of the domed base.  If you come upon one of these larger Autosets with the adjustable front knob feature, be VERY sure that you’ve done your homework, and you know what to look for.

The first few pictures below compare a #718’s adjustable front knob (on the left) to the fixed knob of a #714 (on the right).   

Jim C.         

[Jim C.]

Well, back at the storage unit I found my Sears #45, in its leatherette case with both sets of arms and full box of blades.  Unlike the Wards 45, the 45 is nowhere to be found on the casting.  Strangely enough, it was in a box marked "planes."  There was another 5 C in the box and a 5 1/4 (no knob on this one and the retaining bolt is snapped off level with the casting).

A while back there was some discussion on the 4 1/2, and I had read Leach's write up on that, wistfully thinking I'd like to try one out.  Even tossed a couple of futile bids on ones that showed up on eBay.   Well, at the bottom of the plane box I found a Stanley 4 1/2 C.  Yay!  (Good thing those bids were futile).  So I got home and tried to get a fix on the date.  No ring cast into the bed for the knob.  Check.  No "Stanley" stamped into the lateral adjust.  Check.  Later threading on the depth adjuster.  Check.  No "Bailey cast into the toe.  Check.  Blade is stamped with the triangular Stanley, New Britain, Conn, USA"  mark.  But the number isn't cast into the toe either.  The tote (cracked, of course) and knob are beech.  Hunh?  The depth adjustment knob is 1 1/4 inch in diameter.  No patent dates.  "M 4 1/2 " is cast into the bed behind the frog,   I'm confused now.

So Jim, what have I got?  (other than a good 4 1/2 C that will work just fine with cleaning and de-rustification -- the blade even looks to be sharp)

Yeah, I know, photos.  Not yet. storage hasn't been kind to these planes and they aren't ready for a public appearance.

Photos my friend, we need photos....  I'll have to check a few resources and get back to you on the type/era.   "M 4 1/2"??  That's an interesting detail that I'm not familiar with.

Jim C.

[oldtools]

Jim, never seen a plane with a stick shift...

[Jim C.]

Jim, never seen a plane with a stick shift...

Hi oldtools,

Thanks for stopping by the thread.  The Sargent Autoset adjustable front knob is definitely unique, and it does resemble a stick shift.  With the exception of the #718, #718C, #722 and #722C Autosets, I can't think of any other planes that incorporate a four position front knob mechanism.  There are a few Stanley models that have knobs and totes that adjust from side-to-side, but not backward and forward.  I'll feature a few of those models in future posts.

Jim C. 

[Branson]

Photos my friend, we need photos....  I'll have to check a few resources and get back to you on the type/era.   "M 4 1/2"??  That's an interesting detail that I'm not familiar with.

Jim C.

Pictures as soon as I can figure out if my camera gives any detail, and how to size them.  Since I don't have my own, you can see the style of the frog here:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/STANLEY-WOOD-PLANE-FROG-STANLEY-4-1-2-WOOD-PLANE-2-3-8-WIDE-/291266518504?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item43d0d65de8

Mine's prettier, pretty much light surface rust and no pitting, but this is the right casting.  It has a plain key hole lever cap. 
I got more enthusiastic about it because I cleaned it up a bit, slightly honed the blade and put it to work two days ago.  I'm impressed.  You run across purported improvements in use in tools, but often as not, you'd have to put in a 12 hour day to notice the advantage.  Not with the 4 !/2.  That extra weight really makes the work easier.  You notice in a couple of strokes.  The weight holds it to the work, and the momentum just carries it along.  Very pleasing performance.

Yesterday at work, I needed a plane pronto.  I remembered there was another older plane in the back of the van (still gotta make more space in the shop!).  It'll never make a collection because there's a one inch long chunk out of the right hand side near the knob.  Right now it's still not ready for a public appearance -- pretty much covered with light rust.  It's a Siegley corrugated No. 5.  Feels a little lighter than the Stanley.  Probably best to describe it when I have photos, but Siegley took an interesting round about for the lateral adjuster.   The lever has a pin in the lower end that engages a long slot in the blade.  It doesn't have a cap iron, not exactly.  What would be the lever cap on a Stanley is a casting that serves to hold the blade firmly.  It has two screws in the top that will let it be adjusted farther or closer to the edge of the blade.  Yeah, this will be easier with photos. but I found that it was an easy plane to use, especially since it was the only one I had to hand.