Show us your handplanes

[b.well]

B,

Regardless of how well they clean up, they’re USER quality planes. Forty bucks for both would be the max. Again, being old doesn’t necessarily make them rare of overly valuable. If that tote is cracked, it’ll cost you at least $15-$20 to replace it. Factor that into your offer to the seller.

Jim C.

The 6 in the back looks to be missing the lateral adjust lever. A broken tote can be remade from a piece of your favorite hardwood unless you're a collector. The 5 looks like a Stanley based on the big "5" on the back of the base and the shape of the lateral adjust lever. (looks like a "T"). I wouldn't go a dime over $30 for the pair if I really wanted them. As far as overall condition, those could be cleaned up to look brand new. I've rehabbed far worse.

carl

Hey Carl,

Honestly I’d pass on both. Once a plane crosses from the collector quality category into the user quality arena, that’s where it stays for the rest of its life. It really can’t go back. If left as is, it’s clearly a user, if gently cleaned and tuned up, it still retains its cosmetic flaws and is still a user. If stripped down/refinished/repainted/touched up/wire wheeled/etc. then the factory originality is destroyed, again relegating it to the user category. They’re only factory original once. Granted, there are different levels of user quality planes and those at the top of the category, just below the collector quality range, can be tough to distinguish between. Making that determination is a matter of experience and discipline. More than once I’ve paid a collector quality price for a nice user quality plane. If you get caught up with a plane’s rarity, the fact that you’re actually holding it in your hands, etc...... Suddenly all good sense goes right out the window. Still, it’s nice to have a top quality user. With a light cleaning, lubrication of the moving parts, regrind/hone the iron and its ready to go.

Take a look at the #4 1/2 below. It’s in nice condition for a plane that’s about 90 years old. From a distance, it looks like a collector quality plane, but look a little closer. See how the japanning is worn off the edges? There’s just enough missing to take the plane into the user category. It’s a top notch user, but still a user. This is one of those planes I was referring to above. It’s really close to collector quality. It fooled me early on when I started getting interested in old Stanleys. I paid a little too much for it because I overestimated its condition. Live and learn I guess.

Jim C.

Thanks for all the experienced advice.

I don't think I am as strict/critical on plane condition right now as you are Jim. I think the difference is I am thinking as a user not a collector. I do like the strict/knowledgeable critique to get a good user quality price fair. The last one I bought I thought was old, worse condition than the ones we are talking about here, rusty, but when I got into it realized not so old. I just like to get back to the copper years.

I've partially restored a few no4 size or smaller now. WD40 and WireWheel do great on the shiny areas and screws. I put a couple in a E-tank and then wire wheeled again and that really got the dark areas out that the original wire wheel did not. Paint was not affected on the first one. Paint peeled off on the second one. I know it depends the type of paint whether it will come off or not.

The seller was very quiet. Never could get much out of him. He said for $40 he would rather keep them. Then later he marked them as Sold. I asked if he sold them. Unsure if that was just his way to end the sale. No reply. Surprise, surprise.

 

[CRSINMICH]

A USE FOR MY NUMBER3​

I'm making a small version of Chris Schwarz's plywood tool chest. It's going to be a present for my grand-nephew. Today I started making the reduced scale molding which required making a wide bevel in 1/2" stock. I could have done it with a No.4 or even a No.5 but it seemed like the No.3 would be proportional. It was. The task was easy and fun and it's the first time I've used it for a project.

By the way, I bought it as a user. I wanted a No.3 and this one had all the features I had in mind. I don't remember what I paid but it wouldn't have been much. I was happy then and I'm happier now.

 

[Jim C.]

Thanks for all the experienced advice.

I don't think I am as strict/critical on plane condition right now as you are Jim. I think the difference is I am thinking as a user not a collector. I do like the strict/knowledgeable critique to get a good user quality price fair. The last one I bought I thought was old, worse condition than the ones we are talking about here, rusty, but when I got into it realized not so old. I just like to get back to the copper years.

I've partially restored a few no4 size or smaller now. WD40 and WireWheel do great on the shiny areas and screws. I put a couple in a E-tank and then wire wheeled again and that really got the dark areas out that the original wire wheel did not. Paint was not affected on the first one. Paint peeled off on the second one. I know it depends the type of paint whether it will come off or not.

The seller was very quiet. Never could get much out of him. He said for $40 he would rather keep them. Then later he marked them as Sold. I asked if he sold them. Unsure if that was just his way to end the sale. No reply. Surprise, surprise.

B,

I think it’s great that you’re getting interested in old hand planes. There’s nothing wrong with thinking about them from a user’s perspective. Just make sure that when you’re paying for the plane, you’re paying a user price. Truthfully, the seller of those two planes you were looking at was nuts not to take $40 for them. He’s typical of a lot of people who equate old as automatically being rare and valuable. Unfortunately, he’s missing the condition part of the equation. Condition is everything, even when it comes to user quality planes. When it comes to buying user quality planes, buy the best ones you can find. Be picky about them. When you come across junk, be educated enough to recognize them as such and just keep walking. Be patient, and wait for the right ones to come along. When you see them you’ll know it and be prepared to pay more for them.

As for restoration, well, that’s an individual thing. Just remember that any time you alter the original factory finish in any way, you’ve devalued the plane. More often than not, just leaving that dark patina on the bare metal is probably the way to go. Let an old plane look its age. Believe it or not, that dark patina is usually more desirable to serious users, as well as collectors. That patina is one indication that a plane has not been messed with. As a user, I like to see that. As a collector, it’s imperative. In terms of restoration, sometimes the less you do, the better off you are.

Jim C.

 

[Jim C.]

A USE FOR MY NUMBER3​

I'm making a small version of Chris Schwarz's plywood tool chest. It's going to be a present for my grand-nephew. Today I started making the reduced scale molding which required making a wide bevel in 1/2" stock. I could have done it with a No.4 or even a No.5 but it seemed like the No.3 would be proportional. It was. The task was easy and fun and it's the first time I've used it for a project.

By the way, I bought it as a user. I wanted a No.3 and this one had all the features I had in mind. I don't remember what I paid but it wouldn't have been much. I was happy then and I'm happier now.

When you think about it, most of the old planes out there in the wild are user quality planes. Some are just a cut above the majority of the others. Those are the ones I look for. True collector quality planes are few and far between and they command a significantly higher price.....if you can find them. That #3 looks like a good one.

Jim C.

 

[CRSINMICH]

A few weeks ago I thought about making a post about a plane rebuild video I watched. It was a wooden plane but the issues are the same. The video host made sure to call it a 'rebuild' not a rehab. By the time he was done the plane had changed size in every dimension and it had features that were not on the original and so on. When finished, it was beautiful and functioned better than the original. Was it the same plane? Does it matter? I'm not sure but I felt like he had treated the original as a supplier for the plane he was building. I also have to admit that I had a sinking feeling because the original was a 140 year old Matheison. Mathieson made planes to be used but was that still a Mathieson? You know, they ain't making any more of them.

 

[Jim C.]

A few weeks ago I thought about making a post about a plane rebuild video I watched. It was a wooden plane but the issues are the same. The video host made sure to call it a 'rebuild' not a rehab. By the time he was done the plane had changed size in every dimension and it had features that were not on the original and so on. When finished, it was beautiful and functioned better than the original. Was it the same plane? Does it matter? I'm not sure but I felt like he had treated the original as a supplier for the plane he was building. I also have to admit that I had a sinking feeling because the original was a 140 year old Matheison. Mathieson made planes to be used but was that still a Mathieson? You know, they ain't making any more of them.

I don’t know......like I said to B, restoration/rebuild/rehab, whatever you want to call it, that’s an individual thing. If a guy wants to alter a 140 year old classic, it’s his plane. What can you do? It’s not something I would do, or buy, but like I said, it’s an individual thing. I’m sure some might think it’s really great and others would say it was practically a criminal act. I guess the point I was trying to make earlier was once a user (plane) always a user. And taking it one step further, it’s only factory original once. For the most part, collectors aim for complete, unaltered NOS examples.

Jim C.

 

[txlonghorn1989]

I picked up some handplanes off Craigslist this morning. The Stanley No 95 "edge trimming block plane" is pretty cool and I can see it being useful. Same with the Stanley No 271 router plane. I'm not sure what model the spokeshave is. The seller thought it might be a No 51. There are no markings on the spokeshave except for the "B" on the underside of the handle. The iron is getting short.

Anyone know a site that has info on dating the No 95?

I'd also appreciate any thoughts on which model of spokeshave you guys think this might be.

 

[txlonghorn1989]

I reached back out to the guy who I bought the Stanley planes from this morning. Then went back over and picked up this Stanley No 70 box scraper and a scorp (made in Japan) for $5. I'll never need a box scraper I suspect but for $5 and including a scorp I couldn't pass it up. The scorp may come in handy.

 

[RTM]

Here is the only brief description of 95 types: "The earliest model of the plane has the Stanley logo in script to the lower left of the cutter. On the back of the main casting can be found the patent date, "U.S.PAT.5.14.12", embossed above the sole."


http://www.supertool.com/StanleyBG/stan11.htm#num95

51 has curved handles, 52 are straight.

53 & 54 have the mouth adjustment, and are my favorites.

https://archive.org/details/StanleyCatalogueNo341934/page/n135/mode/2up

And a real blade in the 271. Mine has a ground hex key.

 

[txlonghorn1989]

Thanks RTM. With that catalogue it appears this is a completely unmarked No 51. My other 51 is marked No 51 the back. The handle also has some "texture" on top of the handles. Are you aware of any site where you can possibly date Stanley spokeshaves? I think the other marked No 51 is older than the one I just picked up. Curious is all though. As I've got a No 51 already I'll pass this new one on down the road.

 

[RTM]

I had to look for the source a friend referenced, The SpokeShave Book by Tom Lamond. A great reference for IDing shaves not made by Stanley. 450 pages devoted to a fantastic tool.

https://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/spokeshave-book-thomas-lamond-1891666298

I have a copy and can do some digging later in the week if you want to upload a few more pix, of god knows what from this distance. Once I get the book out, will ping you with the important questions.

 

[CRSINMICH]

tx: Very nice haul. The scorp would be handy for dishing out wooden spoon bowls. (See what I did there? dish spoon bowl) I can't imagine how it would be sharpened. I have a no-name, no-number spokeshave too. I don't remember offhand if it has a B cast into it. Mine is definitely a 51. I have several numbered 51's for comparison. I also have a STANLEY RULE AND LEVEL spokeshave iron that is at least as worn as yours. I'm retiring the iron and the shave.

RTM: Thanks for the catalog reference. It was fun to look through.

 

[RTM]

ok, quick notes on the 51 shave.

The blade logo looks like a 1898 - 1902 vintage, but those are easily swapped. The type study focuses on 53 & 54, so not sure about the blade opening. In the study, they are open on top.
There is a hang hole in the one arm, if smaller at the top, same vintage.
There is no checkering, which was added in 1911.
Looking at the back of the cutter cap, is there a letter or numbers stamped?

 

[txlonghorn1989]

The back of the cap is also stamped with a "B".

 

[RTM]

The back of the cap is also stamped with a "B".

The book puts that as a 1899-1902 trait.

Says Stanley began making the Bailey shaves in 1869, after the buyout.

 

[txlonghorn1989]

The book puts that as a 1899-1902 trait.

Says Stanley began making the Bailey shaves in 1869, after the buyout.

Do all the features on this spokeshave -"B" stamped on the backside of the cap, "B" stamped on the underside of the handle, Stanley Rule & Level stamped iron and otherwise unmarked - point to it being from this period?

 

[CRSINMICH]

I was able to locate 3 of my No.51 spokeshaves. They are all different from each other in some way.

First shave:
No51 cast into the shave at the rear of the bed
No country name cast into the underside of the handles
Handles are smooth - no knurling
"Stanley Rule and Level" stamped on iron
B is cast under the the cap

Second shave:
No51 cast into the shave
"Made in USA" cast under the handle
Handles are knurled
STANLEY Made in USA stamped on iron
No B cast into any part of the shave

Third shave:
No51cast into shave
"Made in Can" on underside of handle
Handles are knurled
STANLEY CANADA stamped on iron
649 stamped under the cap

 

[RTM]

Looking at the last two posts, CRS might be right on the tail end of the range I suggested to TX with his first shave. (1898-1902 Type 8) The number cast in to the body was added to the 53 series in 1902. They also say the handle is "solid" here

I can't find anything definitive on the B in the body yet.

Checkering was added to the handles in 1911, and it got a wider, almost spoon profile.

649 under the cap followed B, but in a few different forms. Large seems to go through a wider variety, can't find an age.

Stanley made in USA, does it have the Sweetheart logo? If not, post 1947

Stanley made in Canada ended sometime in the 70s, don't know when it started yet

 

[CRSINMICH]

FOOD FOR SPECULATION​

According to Hyperkitten's plane dating timelines, Stanley planes had an S casting prior to 1899 which was most likely the mark of Sessions Foundry. From 1899 to 1902 they had a B casting which was then discontinued. Hmmm.

RTM: "Checkering" that's the word I was trying to remember. It's not knurling but it's close. Sort of.

 

[RTM]

Sounds good, I trust Hyperkitten.

He's a great tool seller too if you need to close a gap in something. Mostly woodworking stuff, some Starrett etc. He's back there near the birthplace of Stanley.

 

[CRSINMICH]

Do any of you have experience with a Record Marples 60 1/2 block plane? It's low angle bevel up and has an adjustable mouth. I bought it new a few years ago. I've fiddled with it in as many ways as I could think of and I cannot get the damned thing to hold a setting. It will produce fine shavings for a stroke or two and then I'll have to advance the blade a little to take a shaving on the third stroke. If the knurled knob is torqued down really tight the plane will cut nicely for 3 or 4 strokes. I think the source of the problem lies in buying it "new". Record and Marples were both highly respected English edge tool makers but they are now owned by Irwin and no longer made in England.

If any of you have suggestions about how this plane could be made to hold a set that doesn't involve the use of Crazy Glue I'll be glad to read them but the issue is moot. I've put a Lie Nielsen on my Christmas wish list.

 

[RTM]

Hmm, that was my first block plane, bought about 2000. Still my favorite user.

My first question would be how good is the bedding surfaces? Blade to sole, and cap to blade both need to look good and smooth.

Then look at the relation between the screw and the knob and their relative affect on holding. The screw should be tight enough that the cap barely fits under it, use a bit if pressure to seat it. Then tightening the knob should push the front tight, and give you a pressure point in the rear. I can take mine apart if you want pix or measurements of anything.

 

[CRSINMICH]

Hmm, that was my first block plane, bought about 2000. Still my favorite user.

My first question would be how good is the bedding surfaces? Blade to sole, and cap to blade both need to look good and smooth.

Then look at the relation between the screw and the knob and their relative affect on holding. The screw should be tight enough that the cap barely fits under it, use a bit if pressure to seat it. Then tightening the knob should push the front tight, and give you a pressure point in the rear. I can take mine apart if you want pix or measurements of anything.[/QUOTE

Thanks for the offer but I've taken mine apart many many times. I'll take your suggestion and check the bedding again. The trouble seems to be with the blade advance screw mechanism. There seems to be an unusual amount of slop. I'll keep fooling with it but for now I want a reliable plane. Do you have another low angle bevel up block plane you'd recommend?

EDIT: I don't remember when I bought mine but it was after 2000 but not by many years. 2007 - 2012 or thereabout.

 

[ez-duzit]

c--my low angle is a bit different, but it is my habit to hold the plane vertically, throat up, with the tensioner backed off so much that the blade rattles loosely in the frame, while shaking it and taking up on the blade adjuster and tightening the tensioner. This takes all the slack out of the system while making the fine adjustment.

My low angle is shown in the foreground of this photo of my portable, general purpose, boat tool kit.

 

[RTM]

I took mine apart and snapped a pic of the adjuster. The only slop in mine is the little bit of space between where the L bends down, and the widening of the shoulder on the bolt, maybe <1/32".

And I need to retract my previous statements, the screw is not terribly tight on this on, takes several turns of the knob to tighten it down. There are no lumps and bumps under the front edge of the cap, but its not polished or even ground smooth.

 

[CRSINMICH]

RTM and EZ: I followed the suggestions that you gave and I added a few tweaks of my own.
I don't know why I didn't do some of this sooner. I've use this technique when rehabbing many bench planes.

First I checked how well the cutting iron was seated at the plane mouth and found out that it was barely seated at all. I do this by using a permanent marker to ink the area of the mouth that the iron should be in contact with. Then I reassembled the plane and ran the iron in and out a few times. When I disassembled it I could see that the iron was only contacting the mouth a little bit at each edge (see photo 1). Using a very small fine file and a carbide scraper, I lowered the high points, reassembled the plane, and again advanced and retracted the blade. After disassembling the plane (again ) I could tell that there was more contact. I repeated the steps (again) until the iron contacted the mouth for about half the width.

After the mouth, I turned my attention to the other area of the bed with which the iron makes contact (Photo 2). It's the post at the rear and has two parallel contact points. The photo of that area shows that the iron was only touching one. Scrape and dye, scrape and dye got the iron into contact with both parts of the post. CAUTION: The blade advance mechanism sits between the two areas and if the sides are scraped too much it will affect that.

Upon trying the newly tuned block plane on a scrap of cherry that had a small area of wild grain the plane handled beautifully. It took more than a dozen strokes to get down to the bottom of the tear out. The cutting iron held its setting the entire time. I got the same results when I dialed in a heavy shaving.

One problem solved, however, now I can't justify acquiring an expensive new tool. Thanks guys.
Now that I think of it, I don't have a rabbet block plane.

 

[ez-duzit]

c--glad you got it worked out.

 

[RTM]

yeah, glad its better. The LN rabbet is sweet, as is the LV skew rabbet.

Love them both, but I love a tune up of a more inexpensive one even more.

 

[Modern Garage]

Nice work CRS. There's not much more satisfying than solving a mechanical riddle. The labor rate is usually paid with some nugget of education.
Joe

 

[CRSINMICH]

I've had this Stanley 4 1/2 for some time after an even longer hunt trying to find one. I cleaned it, sharpened it, and tuned it. After a quick test on some scrap stock it went onto the shelf where it sat until today. I had some quarter sawn beech that I was prepping for a project and decided to give it a try. Despite the fact that a well-known wood tool catalog declared that, in their opinion it was too big for a smoother, it produced a glassy surface with no plane marks. I think it will join my 5 1/2 as a favorite go-to plane.

Anyone else have an opinion on the usefulness of 4 1/2's?

The beech shown was used for photographic purposes only. The actual stock was much larger.

 

[RTM]

I love my 4-1/2 for final finishing. Definitely not too big. Mine is England made Stanley, soalways looking for an upgrade, lots of slop in the adjuster.

I have a Record, dark blue era, but didn’t see the mouth crack until I got the surface rust off. Still watching for a reasonable body only to show up.

 

[Jim C.]

I think the #4 1/2 is absolutely essential if you’re doing any kind of moderate to serious furniture/cabinet making, and the heavier the better. With a slightly cambered iron that’s super sharp, it can produce more than acceptable results. It’s usually the first smoother I go for when I need one. I wrote a little about the #4 1/2 a few years ago. Check out the link if you have a minute.

Jim C.

http://www.papawswrench.com/vboard/index.php?topic=9443.msg84221#msg84221

 

[WisJim]

I agree about the 4 1/2. I have two, an old first lateral model and later one with the screw adjustment frog.

 

[CRSINMICH]

GOOD DAY FOR PLANES​

I went to a nearby estate sale and returned with three English planes. A Record No3, a Record No4, and a block plane. I'm not sure of the model number of the block. The last picture is a close-up of a number stamped into the side. There is another number hidden. More on that in a future post.

 

[Mintgrun]

I love that low angle block plane. I've had that model for thirty years and use it more than any other. I am down to the latch notch on the blade, but I think there might be room to add one more and squeeze a little more life out of it.

 

[RTM]

The last picture is a close-up of a number stamped into the side. There is another number hidden. More on that in a future post.

Usually with the English Stanley planes, you can drop anything before the dash, trim a leading zero, and have the vintage number. Thus, should be a 60, but I’d check blood & gore to verify angle and width.

 

[CRSINMICH]

I mentioned a number that was hidden on the English block plane which had G1-060 stamped on the side. It was on the underside of the adjustable throat plate. It says STANLEY 60 1/2. It also has the previous owner's name etched into it which led to momentary confusion. On the front of the block plane he had attached a tag that said P.S.W. I knew about a company named Peck Stowe, and Wilcox. When Wilcox left the firm the name was changed to PEXTO. I knew they made fine edge tools but I hadn't heard that they made planes. After finding PSW in a number of places, I wondered what is was about the plane that made Mr. Weyant think it might have been made by PEXTO. That mystery was cleared up when I found a place where he had etched his full name Phil Weyant. Now I wonder what his middle name was. It started with an S.

 

[RTM]

May have to ask his survivors


https://www.legacy.com/obituaries/l...px?n=phillip-s-weyant&pid=193842359&fhid=2446

Was the estate sale here?

https://clustrmaps.com/person/Weyant-390caq

And Wilcox was still around when they started using Pexto


https://archive.org/details/PeckStowAndWilcoxCatalogueNo20/page/n2/mode/1up

And no idea when they sold planes, cant find any today.

 

[CRSINMICH]

That's the guy! I forgot that everything is out there somewhere or I may have made up a name with the initials PSW. My point was that I jumped to conclusions when I saw those initials and I felt a bit foolish when I finally realized why the PSW was everywhere. I don't think PEXTO ever did make planes but sometimes companies sold plane irons separately. I use vintage chisels and PEXTO is one of my favorites. They take an edge well and hold it for a long time. There must be a vintage chisel thread on GJ.

I'll probably be posting more about the block plane. It seems exceptionally well machined and it has a feature that is not on all block planes.

 

[Joe Huld]

That's the guy! I forgot that everything is out there somewhere or I may have made up a name with the initials PSW. My point was that I jumped to conclusions when I saw those initials and I felt a bit foolish when I finally realized why the PSW was everywhere. I don't think PEXTO ever did make planes but sometimes companies sold plane irons separately. I use vintage chisels and PEXTO is one of my favorites. They take an edge well and hold it for a long time. There must be a vintage chisel thread on GJ.

I'll probably be posting more about the block plane. It seems exceptionally well machined and it has a feature that is not on all block planes.

Pexto made a lot of smoothing and jack planes. The castings were rather heavy and crude looking, they had hardwood handles, and featured stamped sheet metal frogs. Pexto apparently made them under contract for lots of retailers and those planes usually the retailers brand name cast into the lever cap; I've seen lever caps marked "FIRESTONE" , TRUSTWORTHY", and CAPEWELL" to name just a few. Haven't quite figured out what a company that made horseshoe nails was doing marketing planes but I've seen 2 CAPWELL planes.