Show us your handplanes

[crguy]

I just got plane lucky this weekend. Picked up these two at different places. The bench plane is a Standard Rule #4 size, Standard Rule made planes using Solon Rusts 1883 patent until bought by Stanley about 1891. The compass plane is a Stanley 113, very late, probably WWII vintage.

Does the Standard Rule have the lateral adjuster? Not many had that.

 

[Joe Huld]

Does the Standard Rule have the lateral adjuster? Not many had that.

Yes it has one with a patent date of 9/10/1889 which probably makes it a rather late example made just before Stanley bought them and discontinued production.

 

[Joe Huld]

I don’t have any idea. I only picked them up due to the Wards connection, plus they were extremely inexpensive. Planes really aren’t my thing although I have several.
-Don

I think those were both made by Stanley, the Power Kraft is probably a Stanley Handyman H1204 with a "Power Kraft lever cap (pretty easy pattern change" and the Wards Master looks like a Stanley Bailey #3 with a twisted lateral in place of the insert type used on their own branded planes. Stanley even used a twisted lateral on the Bedrock planes they made for Keen Kutter and Winchester.

 

[bmwrd0]

I found this old girl today:

A No.4C 9th type.


I gave it a quick cleaning and once over, and it still has most of the japaning, blade is actually sharp, but I do need to stone the left side, as it is a bit freckled and a former owner, Dr. Stephens, felt the need to let everyone know who's plane it was. But it is going to be a user, so I don't mind that too much.

 

[crguy]

I gave it a quick cleaning and once over, and it still has most of the japaning, blade is actually sharp, but I do need to stone the left side, as it is a bit freckled

Stone it? That's a new one on me. Not how Stanley finished the sides.

 

[txlonghorn1989]

I have a question regarding the knob for a Stanley Bailey bench plane (specifically a No 4) type 13. This was the introduction of the high knob by Stanley but the type 13 doesn't have the raised rib for the knob. Are the type 13 high knobs the same as the high knobs for the raised base? This type 13 has the base of the knob cracked and broken with pieces missing. I have to replace it. Pretty sure a low No 4 knob would be good although might not be type correct. Wondering about high No 4 knobs as replacements? Thanks!

 

[Jim C.]

I could be absolutely 100% dead wrong, but my guess is that there is compatibility between older and newer types. Remember, when Stanley was making these planes by the millions, they weren’t thinking about type studies. What I’ve found is that Stanley was more concerned about using up inventory. They didn’t waste parts. I’ve seen many planes that are a mix of parts that are from two consecutive types yet appear to be original to each other from the factory. The parts were generally designed to be interchangeable across decades and consequently different “types.” While I’d really need to dig into it, my initial thinking is that knobs and totes are interchangeable across most types, particularly when dealing with common bench planes. Those were probably some of the first things to break.

I VERY recently bought a #604 1/2. When I received the plane, the tote was cracked in half. I contacted the seller (an extremely reputable guy) and he sent me a replacement with no questions asked. My only request was that he try to keep the replacement tote vintage correct. Well, when compared side by side, the two totes are clearly from two types and have slightly different contours. Still the replacement tote fits perfectly on the plane, it looks good, and works as designed. Still, I do understand where you’re coming from. If you’re a collector, then vintage correctness and type studies do factor into your thinking. For the most part, I’m right there with you.

Jim C.

 

[Joe Huld]

I have a question regarding the knob for a Stanley Bailey bench plane (specifically a No 4) type 13. This was the introduction of the high knob by Stanley but the type 13 doesn't have the raised rib for the knob. Are the type 13 high knobs the same as the high knobs for the raised base? This type 13 has the base of the knob cracked and broken with pieces missing. I have to replace it. Pretty sure a low No 4 knob would be good although might not be type correct. Wondering about high No 4 knobs as replacements? Thanks!

I think the raised rib was introduced in response to the problem of chipping at the base on the new high knobs and at that time the knob was revised slightly by beveling the base to fit the raised ring. The beveled knob will work but the bevel will be visible.

 

[crguy]

The parts were generally designed to be interchangeable across decades and consequently different “types.” While I’d really need to dig into it, my initial thinking is that knobs and totes are interchangeable across most types, particularly when dealing with common bench planes

Jim C.

Stanley handle and knob shapes changed many times over the years. While it's possible to put the wrong vintage handle or knob on some planes, collectors want the correct shape per type.

 

[didit]

Two "hand me downs" that I've had forever but never used. A made in Canada Stanley Bailey No. 4 and a made in England Rapier No. 400

 

[txlonghorn1989]

Thanks for the feedback guys! It'll be a user but if they're type/era correct that's great. If not I won't lose any sleep over it. Actually like the low knob myself but there's a part of me that enjoys know the plane parts are right. But like Jim C stated Stanley used up what parts they had and had no intent or notion of this "type" business collectors have come up with.

 

[Jim C.]

Stanley handle and knob shapes changed many times over the years. While it's possible to put the wrong vintage handle or knob on some planes, collectors want the correct shape per type.

Yeah, I think I sort of said that in a roundabout way in the second paragraph of my response above.

Jim C.

 

[Jim C.]

.........Actually like the low knob myself but there's a part of me that enjoys know the plane parts are right......

Pretty much my thinking when it comes to a user quality plane. On a collector quality plane, the parts have to be vintage/type correct.

Jim C.

 

[RTM]

Actually like the low knob myself but there's a part of me that enjoys know the plane parts are right.

The good news, if you have the right screw, you can whip out a hybrid knob which makes you happy. Low fat knob, with the shape to clear the ring would be your go to. You have a lathe, right?

I'm not a low knob fan, they don't feel comfortable to my hands. So I leave those all behind, rather than change them to something I like, for people who care about collector value.

 

[txlonghorn1989]

The good news, if you have the right screw, you can whip out a hybrid knob which makes you happy. Low fat knob, with the shape to clear the ring would be your go to. You have a lathe, right?

I'm not a low knob fan, they don't feel comfortable to my hands. So I leave those all behind, rather than change them to something I like, for people who care about collector value.

I don't have a lathe. Wish I did have both a lathe and the necessary extra floorium. :0)

 

[CRSINMICH]

SOLID ROSEWOOD SCRUB PLANE​

I found this at an estate sale yesterday. I don't need another scrub plane so I didn't pay much attention to it. Eventually I picked it up and the heft made me realized that it was not a regular scrub plane. Rosewood is very dense. The price was minimal so, "What the heck"? When I got home and looked it over carefully I found some interesting things. There are no maker's marks on the plane body but the iron was stamped BUCK BROTHERS. It also had a cap iron. I don't know if I've ever seen a scrub plane with a cap iron. The plane body has some simple decoration that I haven't seen on any other plane. There is a scribed line on both sides that has the effect of pin striping. Pretty cool looking.

Now I'm wondering about the plane as a whole. Who would make a utilitarian tool like a scrub plane out of solid rosewood? That's like making a VW Beetle out of platinum.

 

[txlonghorn1989]

Nice find CRS! I'm real interested to learn what you found there. What are the dimensions on the rosewood body?

 

[RTM]

Sure it’s rosewood and not ebony? The only way I know is the smell of the wood, short of dunking it and measuring density.

I have a similar find, seen far right here. Picked it up at a hoarders estate sale, and just happened to pick it up, and noticed the density. Mine is a round converted to a Vee shape. Figured it was worth it just as wood value, even if I could no use it.

 

[bmwrd0]

For 50 cents I couldn't pass on this... what is a base a 9-1/2 but I am not sure about the cap. Any guesses?

 

[CRSINMICH]

tx: The body measures. 8 1/2" long, 2 3/8" high, and 1 1/2" wide. It weighs 1 lb. 8 1/4 oz. For purposes of comparison, a similar sized round cutting plane weighed 12 1/8 oz.

RTM: No, I'm not sure it's rosewood. There is no noticeable odor. I have a small section of ebony that I held next to the plane and they looked different. The color of the plane did not photograph well. I tried various angles and different lighting. In person, the grain is visible. My father brought back a rosewood wine carafe and tobacco humidor from the middle east during WWII. Both of them have the same general patina as the plane. (His story was that they were hand turned on a lathe that was powered by an apprentice.)

It looks like you got some nice saws and chisels at the same sale. Did you post those vises on the vise thread?

 

[RTM]

Nah, I didn’t have them long, bought for a friend, he picked up the next day, and passed them on to newbie smiths he knew.

 

[CRSINMICH]

SPOKESHAVE?​

I found this at the same estate sale where I bought the rosewood scrub plane. It measures 10 1/4" from handle tip to handle tip. The central section is 1 3/4" square. At first I thought it was a chair devil but those work as a scraper with the iron being almost perpendicular to the workpiece. I'm fairly certain that the iron on this one is not original. Irons with a slot were meant to go around a screw or bolt. Whatever kind of shave it is, this one has been well used.

Does anyone know more about this type of shave? I'd like to have a picture of one from an old catalog.

 

[RTM]

With the near vertical blade, it's often classified as a scraper. I have one that was called a gunstock scraper.

I would agree with the blade being wrong, but wondering if the whole thing is home made. The visible layout lines make me thing that.

 

[RTM]

Hey gang, here's one which is nothing exciting, but the cleanup process led to some fun, so thought I'd share the process. This 9-1/2, circa 1947-55, was found a bit rusty, as are most tools in the neighborhood. I think it was bought at another sale, and then allowed to rust, as the price tag protected parts of it from rust. I don't really need another block plane, but it was cheap, and can be a loaner to the neighbors.

Anyway, here are some as found pix.


Took it apart as far as it would go, and tossed it into the Evaporust bath. When I first took it out, I took a razor blade, scraped off the excess rust, and the polyurethane coating that was there. Gave the brass front knob the Simichrome treatment, and scrubbed and polished all the other pieces. The nickeled bits didn't turn out well, but it will be a user. In other threads, people have commented about the 2 tone finish on the blade after chemical treatment. You can see here where the good hardened steel ends, and the softer body steel starts.



The one thing that did not come apart was the forward-back adjustment lever. At first I thought the threads were boogered, a normal problem. A few minutes of working the knob back and forth made me realize that the lever was frozen. Normal thinking made me think the pivot point was frozen, but I was wrong, it was actually the yoke that keeps the lever aligned with the knob. Drove the pivot out with a drill bit in the arbor press, tossed the piece into the Evaporust, polished it upon removal, and it still traveled rough. I took a file to the yoke to remove the rust accumulated in there (did not want to put it back into the soup).


While cleaning up the body, I was scraping the rust off the blade bedding surface, and noticed it was uneven. This picture was taken mid filing it flat, you can see the high spots. I eventually got it down to pretty good, but its still not perfect, but good enough for a rough user.



So finally, here it is, all back together, everything lubed up, front plate, screws & adjusters loose and working, and making shavings. The sole is definitely not in collector condition, and I didn't get a good shot of where all the rust went around the front & side, it's definitely got some freckling going. I may not have cleaned it up post bath quite enough, as my hands had a bit of black after playing with it for a while. It adjusts easily, taking light fluffy shavings, or fairly heavy ones (shown).

 

[Flying Mustang]

It's nice to see that I am not the only one with a hand plane collection

Oh no, you aren’t alone!!

 

[txlonghorn1989]

I'm hoping you guys can tell me who made this Sears block plane. If I had to guess I'd probably say Miller Falls but that's nothing but a guess. Based on the price tag I'm thinking this is from the 60s-70s but that is just me guessing. Thanks!

 

[RTM]

The Craftsman OEM list says 107 is Millers Falls, and I have no reason to doubt them. I don’t have any MF of that style ( like Stanley 61) to check features against.

New Info
Looking at this page, Stanley 61 = MF 66

MF Block Plane Chart

The chart below outlines the key specifications of all of Millers Falls line of block planes and specialty planes, along with their Stanley equivalents. All dimensions provided are in inches and a…

virginiatoolworks.com

And here is my favorite source for MF info.

Scroll down to 66, see if it matches.

Millers Falls Block and Specialty Planes Nos. 45 through 67

A study of the block and specialty planes nos. 45 through 67 manufactured and distributed by the Millers Falls Company

oldtoolheaven.com

Edit: corrected Stanley Equivalent, added info

 

[txlonghorn1989]

Thanks RTM! I wasn't aware Vintage Machinery had a Craftsman OEM list. Nice! I was confused at first reading the MF No. 66 was made until 1944. Then I read that it was re-introduced, ca. 1956, as the no. 1455. Any thoughts on age of the NOS block plane? The price tag has $2.29. Seems like it might be collectible to a Sears or MF collector with the box & price tag. Be nice to trade it for a good user. Got some other planes I need to post about. Again, thanks!

 

[d42jeep]

I found this rusty little block plane on Friday and gave It the evaporust treatment. I plan to put it into my new (to me) S-K carpenter’s box.
-Don

 

[d42jeep]

Although I don’t actively search out planes, sometimes they are so inexpensive that they are hard to leave behind. That was the case with this Craftsman Crown plane I found yesterday. I gave it a bit of light cleaning since it wasn’t in terrible condition after I blew off the sawdust and loose dirt.
-Don

 

[txlonghorn1989]

Both of those planes cleaned up very nicely Don! Nice scores! As usual.

 

[d42jeep]

Thanks. With my recent Monkey Wards planes, the plastic handle Corsair and these two, I’ve been on kind of a plane roll lately.
-Don

 

[txlonghorn1989]

Week before last I bought a 5-gal bucket of rusty planes. Probably worth the $20 but nothing to write home about. I was most excited about the little Sargent thumb plane made for Sears. The cutter is stamped Craftsman BL 619-3705. Here are the contents, starting top left: Stanley Handyman marked "Made in USA"; later day Stanley jack plane, no cutter, chipbreaker or lever cap; Stanley No 5 type 16, wartime Stanley type 17 (I believe) hard rubber depth adjustment, no frog adjustment screw, hardwood knob & tote; unknown block plane; Stanley No 220; Craftsman (Sargent) thumb plane; Shelton block plane body; unmarked cutter; Stanley rasp; Stanley No 78; Stanley No 3 missing cutter & chipbreaker, rosewood handles; no 3 sized no maker mark plane, marked "Made in USA", there is a loose cutter in the bucket marked "Dunlap" "BL" that fits the plane, the frog appears to have originally been painted red, considering the "BL" mark which I also found on the Sargent thumb plane made for Sears maybe this is also a Sargent (?).

The Stanley planes will probably clean up okay for resell. That is my first wartime Stanley plane.

I am also hoping you guys can shed some light on two of the block planes (or parts). The block plane body marked Shelton and an unmarked blade with fits the Shelton. That blade has three square holes on it. Anyone recognize that cutter as belonging with the Shelton? If you can help me identify the Shelton that would be appreciated.

The other block plane is unmarked it appears to be usable from either end. I'm assuming one as a block plane and the other as a bulllnose plane(?). Anyone recognize this and know who made it?

Thanks!

 

[RTM]

The double ender could be a Stanley #130, as well as many knock offs like Zenith (Marshall Wells). Millers Falls was a 68, Sargent a 227. Birmingham was an A130, Record was a 130.

Union is a 137, but wrong lever cap

The MillersFalls-Planes and Sargent-Planes site are both giving me security errors. Proceed at your own risk.

 

[RTM]

The blade with the three big squares usually goes with a plane with a blade advance lever. Looks like this is your critter. Good luck finding that cap.

Shelton Block

I thought this Shelton Block was the coolest thing. The iron adjuster is different. Its cleaned up and sharpened. I think it’s a keeper. Here are the as found pictures. Here are the as now pictures…

timetestedtools.wordpress.com

 

[Half-fast eddie]

My No 12. Except for the blade I think its original. Very good condition, nothing cracked. I Remember doing a little research, there is some detail that indicates it’s the newer shape, so I’m thinking about 1950.

 

[bmwrd0]

I picked this old girl up over the weekend:



Marked Stanley New Britain Conn USA in the triangle. I will be putting this back to use, as it is going to be an upgrade to my English 80

 

[txlonghorn1989]

Thanks RTM. I still can find no maker marks on the double end block plane. Certainly does look like a Stanley No 130 probably another brand's knockoff. I also spotted a hairline crack on one side of the plane.

 

[RTM]

The one I had did not have a rim in front of the Knob. And I wrote down that it was a Stanley, and the pic looks like it has writing in front of the toe. I'd start looking at features and comparing

Record 130 - small rim

Record No 130 Block Plane In Good condition - The Tool Exchange AU

Record No 0130 Block Plane, Hand Tools, Antique Tools, Vintage Tools, Woodworking tools, The Tool Exchange, two mouths, bull-nose plane

www.toolexchange.com.au

Union 130 possible

Union USA No 130 Double End Block Plane - The Tool Exchange AU

all tools - Stanley Block Planes - Union USA No 130 Double End Block Plane, antique woodworking Tools, Hand Tools, Antique Tools for sale,

www.toolexchange.com.au

MF 68 smaller rim

Disabled forum

Woden and Ohio also made double enders.

 

[txlonghorn1989]

Thanks RTM. I see a Stanley #130 on Jim Bode Tools. That has Stanley cast in front of the knob and the number cast behind the knob.