I’ve recently acquired an “old” Stanley plane. It’s old in that it was in the possession of a friend since the early 70s. He tells me that he thinks his father gave it to him some years before that, and might have been in his father’s possession for 20 years before. He decided to clean out a “lot of old junk” and came across the plane.
It had never been used, and except for some rust looked “new”. I decided to clean it and tune it up and try it. It’s a typical 9-1/2 inch Stanley shop plane. The sole was rusty and had a large dip behind the throat. I lapped that out and the sole is now flat. The sides are not quite square to the sole. I’m not going to pay too much more attention to them – for now.
I knew when I took the iron assembly off the frog to hone the iron that I would have some trouble. The surfaces of the frog on which the iron should firmly rest were not well-machined and there was maroon japaning over what should have been shiny, machined-metal.
I honed the iron and tried to use it. But I could not get a decent cut at all. It chattered terribly. If the iron extended more than a tiny distance beyond the sole, I couldn’t control the plane at all.
I didn’t think that the problem I saw with the frog could make the plane that terrible. So I took the frog off the base and was suprised to find an aluminum plate under the frog, between it and the machined flats on the base on which the frog should sit. It was the aluminum spacer that was causing all the problems.
The underside of the frog was almost totally covered with japaning. There had been a brief effort at properly milling the undersurface, but it was a joke.
I ground the underside of the frog to sit properly on its mating flats on the base, and ground the upper surface of the frog to properly support the iron. Now the plane works decently. I almost can’t get the iron up high enough so that it doesn’t protrude beyond the sole at its most withdrawn position. Apparently, the purpose of the spacer was to lift the frog (and iron) so the the iron fully retracted.
Has anyone seen Stanley planes so made, with an aluminum plate under the frog and the frog essentially unfinished on its underside?
Thanks,
Rich
Replies
Rich,
I have two such Stanley planes; one I bought new more than 25 years ago and the other I bought at an "antique" store for $12. As you discovered, the performance of the plane improves considerably after removing the spacer. I bought the second one only because of its resemblance to my other plane. I hope some of the experts chime in to tell us about these tools.
Ron
I'm no expert, but sounds like cheap homeowner models. If it don't say Bailey, I don't buy it.John O'Connell - JKO Handcrafted Woodworking
Life is tough. It's tougher if you're stupid - John Wayne
I don't know the dates anymore but Stanley made both maroon and blue colored planes. If I remember right, it was shortly before they moved production to Great Britain. These were, I guess, an effort to see how cheaply they could make planes. I never broke down a maroon bench plane but the maroon block planes leave a lot to be desired. The blue colored bench planes I've had apart, all two of 'em, had aluminum frogs and I think were later and cheaper than the maroon models. I favor wooden planes but, even when I thought Stanley was the bee's knees, I avoided any Stanley plane that wasn't black--including the "Handyman" and "Four Square" and the later "Defiance" planes. There was a time that I had some dating information on the later Stanley planes but I don't know what I did with it.
There are numbers cast into the base and frog, if they mean anything.
It's really hard to understand how they released the planes with those spacers under the frog. The plane was just unuseable like that. I assume that the frog was rocking and flexing with every stroke.
Rich
I encourage you to try making a plane out of wood with a Hock blade. It is no more work than you put in on that Stanley plane and I have better luck with the wood planes I have made.
I posses several transition planes with wood base smostly from Stanley, one metal Stanley 18" jack plane which with some effort getting it tuned up, cuts clean and well. I will keep and use it as it came as a gift from my brother-in-law who now is a quadra plegic. It helps when your plane has a story.
The wood planes that I like best are the more recent designs using only a hock blade without the chip breaker, mount it upside down in a low angle block and with a finely sharpened blade leaves a glassy burnished cut in almost any wood.
Something about how the hand is located closer to the work on most home made planes that gives a little better control and feel as you work your edges especially.
Nothing like making fine wood shavings with a finely tuned hand tool.
Ted
Ted,
Thanks. Actually I have made quite a few wooden planes and use 1 of them all the time. I don't have a Hock blade in them, though.
I was just curious about this anomaly. Which is performing very well now that I have essentially remanufactured it!
Rich
Do any of you know of a good resource (book,web,magazine article,etc.) that covers making a wooden plane?
Thanks,
Sumter Tisdale
Maryville, TN
Sumter,
There are several in print now and there have been articles in FWW. I believe that there is a chapter in one of Krenov's books.
I have one which is good:
"How to Make Wooden Planes" by David G. Perch and Leonard G. Lee, Published by Lee valley Tools, Ltd, 1994
Rich
Check out: http://www.crfinefurniture.com/1pages/sitelinks/howplane.html
Seems to me there are also some good links at "Patrick's Blood & Gore" as well as the "Electrictronic Neanderthal". Good luck!
Jeff
Sumpter,
John Whelan's Making Traditional Wooden Planes is okay but shy on basics and he stresses some rather absurd machine procedures that are easier, safer and faster by hand.
The best information on making wooden planes, of the traditional non-laminated variety, was printed in the magazine WORK, The Illustrated Journal for Mechanics in 1898. It's about the only written record of techniques written by an actual plane maker, W.J. Armour. Ken Roberts, in Wooden Planes in 19th Century America Vol II, reprinted the series of articles and includes other good information from some notable contemporary plane makers. It's out of print and spendy if you find it, the book is mostly a history of the Chapin/Union Factory plane making firm. I think, though, Roberts has the best information I've seen on making wooden planes.
I'm not a fan of laminated planes and a lot of the hocus-pocus nonsense so many laminated plane makers are into but I hear David Finck's book on laminated plane making is pretty good--I haven't read it and my lack of interest on the subject will probably keep it that way.
Edited 9/15/2002 12:18:42 AM ET by Larry Williams
Larry,
"I'm not a fan of laminated planes and a lot of the hocus-pocus nonsense so many laminated plane makers are into"
What hocus-pocus nonsense?
Rich
Thank you, gentlemen. That will certainly get me started.
Sumter
Rich,
Things like laminating different species with different dimensional properties, A2 plane irons and cryogenic treatment of steel.
This forum post is now archived. Commenting has been disabled