Show us your handplanes

[Boatman62]

Is that a no 40 in the middle? Nice clamps too.

Yup #40 scrub.

I love those old clamps. Have 8 of them now.

 

[Boatman62]

The silver No.81 … what brand is that?

Stanley 81. Nickle plated.

 

[alinc100]

Tripped across this Record 04 Stay Set a couple weeks ago.

 

[RTM]

Tripped across this Record 04 Stay Set a couple weeks ago.

Nuked a negative comment over there for you!

 

[Fred Knox]

Here is my Siegley No. 2 Combination Plane. Based on the type study by David Heckel and descriptions from PTMPA Vol. 1, this would be the Type 3 (1884) one. It has the brass block cutter adjuster with teeth that engage the cutter, advanced/retracted by a capstan “head” with wing nut to clamp. It has some Type 2 (1883-1884) qualities too, so it may have been a transitional or hybrid one. Independently, I also have a Type 4 (1885-1886) model.

The fence is a beautiful bird's eye maple with an adjustable rosewood filletster strip. There is no evidence of a wooden handle ever being positioned on this tool, as there are no screw hole recessions on the upper handle, or side screw holes (type 1), either of which would inevitably have been marked on the cast handle. All of previous ones I owned, and photos from the Siegley study, PTMPA, other on-line sources, show the screw attachment method. I attached a photo of the normal screw attachment (different plane). In any case, I am keeping this one as-is!

 

[Old tool guy]

The back of the handle looks awkward to push.

 

[Fred Knox]

Not sure what you mean. The plane was designed for a wood handle to be laminated around it and screwed down. It has no screw-down marks, nor evidence that a wood handle was ever applied. I’m keeping it that way.

 

[crguy]

Here is my Siegley No. 2 Combination Plane. Based on the type study by David Heckel and descriptions from PTMPA Vol. 1, this would be the Type 3 (1884) one. It has the brass block cutter adjuster with teeth that engage the cutter, advanced/retracted by a capstan “head” with wing nut to clamp. It has some Type 2 (1883-1884) qualities too, so it may have been a transitional or hybrid one. Independently, I also have a Type 4 (1885-1886) model.

The fence is a beautiful bird's eye maple with an adjustable rosewood filletster strip. There is no evidence of a wooden handle ever being positioned on this tool, as there are no screw hole recessions on the upper handle, or side screw holes (type 1), either of which would inevitably have been marked on the cast handle. All of previous ones I owned, and photos from the Siegley study, PTMPA, other on-line sources, show the screw attachment method. I attached a photo of the normal screw attachment (different plane). In any case, I am keeping this one as-is!

You should know good and well that plane had a wood handle. If there were some that didn't, Heckel would have mentioned them in his book. You should also realize your plane had the earlier style handle, and shown in PTAMPIA that didn't have that screw down thru the casting to hold it on.

 

[Old tool guy]

That’s what i was talking about. Why wouldn’t they add wood cheeks at the factory?

 

[bmwrd0]

Some Stanley I have picked up recently:

Number 2, I believe type 7, and a pair of Sweet Harts.

and an 8C I picked up yesterday, which is not as bad as it looks. I think it is a type 9, wearing the wrong cap.

 

[milkovich]

Check this guy out! It looked nice enough online, but when I went to pick it up, it's seriously the nicest Stanley 46 I've ever seen. The nickel is a genuine 99% and the handle looks like it's never bounced around in a toolbox. The only nickel loss I can find is where your right thumb would rest. I'm going to guess this was one of the last ones made, so either WW2 or just before (I think they ended the 46 in 1942). The irons even look like they have the factory grind and are all full length. It makes the "user" 46 I have look like garbage. Way too nice for my meager collection.

 

[Old tool guy]

Way too nice for my meager collection.

I’ll send you my address.

 

[demiandvm]

My early 1960's model #4 Craftsman hand plane.

 

[RTM]

My early 1960's model #4 Craftsman hand plane.

The one with the racing stripes. I don’t recall if I still have one. I donated my first one to a woodworking program for kids.

 

[Old tool guy]

The one with the racing stripes. I don’t recall if I still have one. I donated my first one to a woodworking program for kids.

Was there a practical reason for the stripes? And you knew this … the 619 in the part number is for Sargent tools.

 

[RTM]

Was there a practical reason for the stripes? And you knew this … the 619 in the part number is for Sargent tools.

Not that I know of. Hard to imagine corrugated sides for shooting board use.

I don't think I ever looked up the part number, not sure if mine had one.

Many years ago I did a study on early Craftsman planes, because all the big name Fanboys were saying they were lightweight, poorly made etc etc. so this study compares early Craftsman to Sergeant and Millers Falls made planes. Don't think I had any that were Stanley made. You can see it here.

Craftsman Connection - KirkHMB

Some Craftsman tools, and their ties and similarities to other tools by Millers Falls and Sargent

kirkhmb.smugmug.com

 

[Old tool guy]

Was there a practical reason for the stripes?

I don't think I ever looked up the part number, not sure if mine had one.

The part num is visible on the blade, i assume that’s the num for the whole tool.

 

[crguy]

Not that I know of. Hard to imagine corrugated sides for shooting board use.

I don't think I ever looked up the part number, not sure if mine had one.

Many years ago I did a study on early Craftsman planes, because all the big name Fanboys were saying they were lightweight, poorly made etc etc. so this study compares early Craftsman to Sergeant and Millers Falls made planes. Don't think I had any that were Stanley made. You can see it here.

Craftsman Connection - KirkHMB

Some Craftsman tools, and their ties and similarities to other tools by Millers Falls and Sargent

kirkhmb.smugmug.com

Craftsman planes were definitely lower quality than Stanley planes.

 

[ararat]

J. Y. Simons spokeshave patent date Nov 17, 1868. Gull wing style. Apparently it was marketed for leather and wood working. The blade is held by a wedge. Not sure what the hole is for, but it's supposed to be there. Maybe to hold it while plating?

Probably from 1880's. It hard to believe they were nickel plating tools that long ago. According to the spokeshave book it is a type 5. Maybe made in Boston, but it's not clear.

I used steel wool to remove some surface rust from the bottom and discovered that it is magnetic when all the steel wool pieces we sticking to it.

Edit: The original patent was for a "shoe shave "

 

[RTM]

Not sure what the hole is for, but it's supposed to be there. Maybe to hold it while plating?

DATAMP says combo of lugs, screw and cap holds the blade.

Is it threaded?

US Patent: 84,140 - Improvement in Shoemaker's Shaves

US patent 84,140 Improvement in Shoemaker's Shaves was issued to James Y. Simons of Troy, NY. It was granted on 11/17/1868. Blade is secured by combination of a cap, screw, and lugs from the handles. The design of the handles is also claimed as for them giving space for th

datamp.org

 

[ararat]

DATAMP says combo of lugs, screw and cap holds the blade.

Is it threaded?

US Patent: 84,140 - Improvement in Shoemaker's Shaves

US patent 84,140 Improvement in Shoemaker's Shaves was issued to James Y. Simons of Troy, NY. It was granted on 11/17/1868. Blade is secured by combination of a cap, screw, and lugs from the handles. The design of the handles is also claimed as for them giving space for th

datamp.org

It's not threaded. I believe the later models had a screw, but not the early models.

The spokeshave book claims they were bevel down, but this one was found bevel up. With the low angle, it seems like it would be better as bevel up.

 

[RTM]

The spokeshave book claims they were bevel down, but this one was found bevel up. With the low angle, it seems like it would be better as bevel up.

That was possibly how Tom found his example. Try it both ways, and pick your favorite.

 

[four.cycle]

It's not threaded. I believe the later models had a screw, but not the early models.

From patent 84140:

"G is the cap which rests upon the knife, near its lower end, and which, in combination with the screw H, is used to secure the knife and hold it in place..."

The original patent document describes a screw securing the blade, so it would be reasonable to assume the hole would have been threaded.

"Shoe Shave" = aka "Heel Shave" - primarily a cobbler's tool used for trimming the heels after resole/reheel.

 

[milkovich]

My buddy snagged this 60 for me. I don’t have a before picture but it really cleaned up with some wd40 and steel wool, and autosol on the shiny bits. I love the “V” logo era tools so this is going to be a shelf queen. The fit and finish on this era is really fine. The ramp to the rear mouth is almost sharp enough to cut. Run it over one finishing nail and it’s toast. It’s also so pretty it makes my other block planes look like junk.

 

[ararat]

My buddy snagged this 60 for me. I don’t have a before picture but it really cleaned up with some wd40 and steel wool, and autosol on the shiny bits. I love the “V” logo era tools so this is going to be a shelf queen. The fit and finish on this era is really fine. The ramp to the rear mouth is almost sharp enough to cut. Run it over one finishing nail and it’s toast. It’s also so pretty it makes my other block planes look like junk.

It really looks good. It's great when all tool cleans up that well.

 

[bmwrd0]

Who made me?

 

[WisJim]

Who made me?

I would say it is an Ohio Tool Co. plane. O8 on the toe is probably letter"o" not numeral "0", and the markings on the iron are Ohio. Is the iron tapered (thinner at the top, thicker towards the cutting edge)? I like the few Ohio iron planes that I have. I think that any No 8 size jointer plane in decent condition is a great find.

 

[bmwrd0]

That is where I was leaning, but I wanted a bit of confirmation.

Thanks!

 

[RTM]

The blade saying Thistle, & the o vs 0 makes me agree w WisJim.

There is a site which will give you the tells. Try here, see if it agrees.

Quickly Identify Your Bailey Style Hand Plane

A Short guide to identifying the most common Vintage Hand Planes found. This is by no means an exhaustive list, but it should guide you in a general direction to find out who made your vintage hand…

www.timetestedtools.net

 

[milkovich]

This looks like the stamping.

 

[RTM]

Here is a plane I picked up last weekend. It’s an unmarked pattern maker’s plane, with 6 interchangeable wooden soles and blades. The blades are two different generations of Buck Bros logos, but the rest of the plane’s parts are unmarked, except for user supplied marks on the soles. The plane blades are 1.5” wide, and roughly 6” long, no keyhole , no lever cap, more like a Stanley #40 scrub, with a pressure / friction fit for the blade. Each of the blades’ cutting edge is arched to match the radius of the sole it goes with.


I’m pretty sure the plane body was made for this purpose, as the metal surface mating to the wooden sole is made much differently than a standard bench plane, with a raised rim around the underside, and cross bracing where the sole attaches. This may have been an early model, as the wooden soles attach with small round head wood screws, and two of the three are a bear to get to, and the one by the handle needs to come completely out to change soles. (More modern ones have a pin in the sole, and a keyhole shape in the sole.)



Pattern makers used these planes to cut large radii in the cores they made. For smaller radii, a set of Hollow & Rounds might be used, often getting to 2” radius. My Sandusky set isn’t complete, so I’m a little short. Rather than having a plane for each size, the used the interchangeable blade and sole to be more complete.

The set came with 6 soles, in radii of 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, & 12”. The were mostly marked, in Roman Numerals on the toe, but without knowing that, I used height & arc length of a chord to see where they were, and my rough measurements were very close.


The size of the plane is closer to a #3, but longer than a Stanley at 8.5”. The side cheek is set further forward than the Staley family as well.


Interestingly, I started doing a Google books search for pattern makers plane, and I found lots of books from the late 1890s, 1910ish, and 1925ish, aimed at teaching the trade, and none mention my plane, just a plethora of other planes. And there does not seem to be many educational books outside of those three eras, yet.

If anyone has clues as to who made this, I'd love to know more.

 

[four.cycle]

just an FYI: Seattle CL peddler unloading a lot of 6 vintage planes

 

[crguy]

Here is a plane I picked up last weekend. It’s an unmarked pattern maker’s plane, with 6 interchangeable wooden soles and blades. The blades are two different generations of Buck Bros logos, but the rest of the plane’s parts are unmarked, except for user supplied marks on the soles. The plane blades are 1.5” wide, and roughly 6” long, no keyhole , no lever cap, more like a Stanley #40 scrub, with a pressure / friction fit for the blade. Each of the blades’ cutting edge is arched to match the radius of the sole it goes with.


I’m pretty sure the plane body was made for this purpose, as the metal surface mating to the wooden sole is made much differently than a standard bench plane, with a raised rim around the underside, and cross bracing where the sole attaches. This may have been an early model, as the wooden soles attach with small round head wood screws, and two of the three are a bear to get to, and the one by the handle needs to come completely out to change soles. (More modern ones have a pin in the sole, and a keyhole shape in the sole.)



Pattern makers used these planes to cut large radii in the cores they made. For smaller radii, a set of Hollow & Rounds might be used, often getting to 2” radius. My Sandusky set isn’t complete, so I’m a little short. Rather than having a plane for each size, the used the interchangeable blade and sole to be more complete.

The set came with 6 soles, in radii of 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, & 12”. The were mostly marked, in Roman Numerals on the toe, but without knowing that, I used height & arc length of a chord to see where they were, and my rough measurements were very close.


The size of the plane is closer to a #3, but longer than a Stanley at 8.5”. The side cheek is set further forward than the Staley family as well.


Interestingly, I started doing a Google books search for pattern makers plane, and I found lots of books from the late 1890s, 1910ish, and 1925ish, aimed at teaching the trade, and none mention my plane, just a plethora of other planes. And there does not seem to be many educational books outside of those three eras, yet.

If anyone has clues as to who made this, I'd love to know more.

A lot of that type of plane were made by the pattern maker himself. I've owned a few, all of which were different, and some used Stanley plane parts for some of them. You're probably aware of the Phelps pattern makers planes also.

 

[crguy]

just an FYI: Seattle CL peddler unloading a lot of 6 vintage planes

Optimistic pricing.

 

[RTM]

Here is another recent find, grabbed at the Alameda antique flea market. My buddies saw it, passed on it. Being a sucker for unique planes, I looked at it, came back two hours later, and negotiated a lower price.


I don’t need another big jointer, having a #7 & #8 (9.75#) sized metal planes, Knight handled (6#) and unhandled jointers, and another 26” woodie (7.5#), just off the top of my head. But this one might be rosewood!! It’s heavy for a woodie, tipping in at a little over 8#. Looks like someone poly’d the poor thing at some point, probably after the other damage, like a poorly repaired handle, some gouges on top front, etc.



You can see the details of the repair to the tote, seems quite vintage and solid, and pre-poly. I imagine back in the day they may not have had access to a good epoxy to make that repair to rosewood, with it being an oily wood. The brass rod down the center seems stout, nothing wiggles. The plate on the front seems even more vintage, May be factory, may not. Have not determined what that orangish pink dot is on the left side of the handle.



The plane shows signs of a bit of shrinkage, with the Buck Brothers iron being stuck in place, and may have cracked the cheeks. The bed where the blade lies was inconsistently wide, binding about 3/4 way down. I took a float to widen it just a hair, then stoned the sides of the iron just a bit. You can see what the mouth opening should be, without the cap iron in place. The cap iron is a hair narrower, so maybe a 1-7/8” iron was correct?



There is a mark between the blade bed and the handle, maybe A. Pallu, anyone see anything different there?

 

[d42jeep]

I found another of these little guys recently. Now I have two.
-Don

 

[ararat]

Here is another recent find, grabbed at the Alameda antique flea market. My buddies saw it, passed on it. Being a sucker for unique planes, I looked at it, came back two hours later, and negotiated a lower price.


I don’t need another big jointer, having a #7 & #8 (9.75#) sized metal planes, Knight handled (6#) and unhandled jointers, and another 26” woodie (7.5#), just off the top of my head. But this one might be rosewood!! It’s heavy for a woodie, tipping in at a little over 8#. Looks like someone poly’d the poor thing at some point, probably after the other damage, like a poorly repaired handle, some gouges on top front, etc.



You can see the details of the repair to the tote, seems quite vintage and solid, and pre-poly. I imagine back in the day they may not have had access to a good epoxy to make that repair to rosewood, with it being an oily wood. The brass rod down the center seems stout, nothing wiggles. The plate on the front seems even more vintage, May be factory, may not. Have not determined what that orangish pink dot is on the left side of the handle.



The plane shows signs of a bit of shrinkage, with the Buck Brothers iron being stuck in place, and may have cracked the cheeks. The bed where the blade lies was inconsistently wide, binding about 3/4 way down. I took a float to widen it just a hair, then stoned the sides of the iron just a bit. You can see what the mouth opening should be, without the cap iron in place. The cap iron is a hair narrower, so maybe a 1-7/8” iron was correct?



There is a mark between the blade bed and the handle, maybe A. Pallu, anyone see anything different there?

Rosewood or maybe Lignum? Nice plane. Will you attempt to remove the poly?

 

[RTM]

Rosewood or maybe Lignum? Nice plane. Will you attempt to remove the poly?

Thinking rosewood, but but haven’t done a density calculation yet. Friends thought rosewood as well.


Probably won’t actively remove it, may let the wear of me using it see if it makes a difference . Is lacquer thinner the answer, or acetone? I know finger nail polish remover worked on a home made coffee table. Is either gentler to the system?

 

[crguy]

Here is another recent find, grabbed at the Alameda antique flea market. My buddies saw it, passed on it. Being a sucker for unique planes, I looked at it, came back two hours later, and negotiated a lower price.


I don’t need another big jointer, having a #7 & #8 (9.75#) sized metal planes, Knight handled (6#) and unhandled jointers, and another 26” woodie (7.5#), just off the top of my head. But this one might be rosewood!! It’s heavy for a woodie, tipping in at a little over 8#. Looks like someone poly’d the poor thing at some point, probably after the other damage, like a poorly repaired handle, some gouges on top front, etc.



You can see the details of the repair to the tote, seems quite vintage and solid, and pre-poly. I imagine back in the day they may not have had access to a good epoxy to make that repair to rosewood, with it being an oily wood. The brass rod down the center seems stout, nothing wiggles. The plate on the front seems even more vintage, May be factory, may not. Have not determined what that orangish pink dot is on the left side of the handle.



The plane shows signs of a bit of shrinkage, with the Buck Brothers iron being stuck in place, and may have cracked the cheeks. The bed where the blade lies was inconsistently wide, binding about 3/4 way down. I took a float to widen it just a hair, then stoned the sides of the iron just a bit. You can see what the mouth opening should be, without the cap iron in place. The cap iron is a hair narrower, so maybe a 1-7/8” iron was correct?



There is a mark between the blade bed and the handle, maybe A. Pallu, anyone see anything different there?

I would have been cool to find Stilley stamped in the end.

 

[four.cycle]

Polyurethane finishes are a ***** to remove, and the dust is nasty stuff.
Last time I had to remove any I went at it with sandpaper and a full respirator mask.