Replies

1. 
   SCFrankland | Apr 17, 2002 12:12am | #1

   The short answer to your question is, yes, no, maybe. I have two number 45 and both are used when I am making molding the requires different cutters. Pine and other softer woods are easy to work as long as they are knot free, harder woods tend to tear out real easy. Starting out on some scrap to test the setup is always a good idea. Also setting the blade is a little harder than a normal bench plane it just takes a little getting used to. Also the blades can be a real job to sharpen and you can easily screw them up if you are not careful.

   Scott C. Frankland

   Newfoundland Wood Worker

2. 
   Alan | Apr 17, 2002 02:39am | #2

   Ed,

   I have the Stanley 12-250--the one you can still buy new--and it might be the most used plane I own.  I couldn't be happier with it.  True, the irons can be a little tough to sharpen properly, but with a little practice it goes more easily.  I use it for just about everything:  from moulding edges to plowing grooves to making moulding.  I like my multi so much that if I was a person of infinite wealth I would probably buy the Clico just for the additional irons made for it.

   Alan

1. 
   Azeddie | Apr 17, 2002 04:46am | #4

   Alan, where on the web can I see one of these that stanley still makes?

   Have never heard of that model

   thanks

1. 
   Alan | Apr 17, 2002 09:29pm | #5

   Ed,

   I just looked through two catalogs (I got my plane at a garage sale) and Garrett Wade (garrettwade.com) and Highland Hardware (highlandhardware.com) both carry them.  Without checking, I will guess that nearly every retailer with a large selection of hand planes will carry it:  Woodcraft, for example, I seem to remember has it as well.

   Alan

3. 
   Danford_C_ | Apr 17, 2002 03:41am | #3

   Ed,

   I used to have a #55, sold it and got a #45.  The #55, IMO, is much more complicated to set up and most of the cutter's aren't really all that usefull.  Now, the #45 is a "snap" to set up, mine (a type 1) came with all 17 original cutters and a sash cutter.  I find it very useful, especially when I need a profile that is not available in a router bit.  It's pretty easy to make a custom cutter.

   I wouldn't say the it is the most "efficient" tool; you have to take much lighter cuts on hardwood but, I wouldn't give up my #45 for any amount of money....FWIW.

   Dano

   "Form and Function are One" - Frank L. Wright

   
   

   ---

   Edited 4/16/2002 10:23:54 PM ET by Danford C. Jennings

1. 
   Denis364 | Apr 17, 2002 09:44pm | #6

   I own a 55 and use it to reproduce short runs of moldings, banisters, etc. 

   The plane requires a lot of practice to learn.   The break through for me was when I discovered that the blade has a tendency to creep forward, so it's important to tighten the adjustment screws after each pass.  This keeps the plane from digging in.

   I wouldn't call the 55 a pleasure to use, but If you need 10 feet of a 1020's molding, its the only economical game in town.

1. 
   lwilliams | Apr 18, 2002 05:30pm | #9

   Denis,

   I had a couple Stanley 55 combination planes. They're not here anymore; I sold them. They're far from the "only game in town." Molding planes are not only superior; they come in different pitches to match the wood being used, they're comfortable to use and a lot more versatile. As Michael Dunbar pointed out in a FWW article a couple years ago, there's a reason so many old combination planes are found in basically un-used condition.

   Edited 4/18/2002 1:33:01 PM ET by Larry Williams

1. 
   Denis364 | Apr 19, 2002 02:58am | #11

   Hi Larry:

   I do not disagree with you about the superiority of wooden molding planes over the Stanley 55.  The problem is that they can make only one pattern and if it dosen't match what you want , its of no use. 

   I use the 55 to match existing moldings.  When you only need 10 or 20 feet of a molding the 55 is the only economical game in town.  Your other choices are to buy matching wooden molding plane,  or have a blade made for a molder really arn't pracitcal. 

   There is a stiff learning curve to using the 55.  Anything but straight grain is a nightmare and even at its best the finished product is not as crisp and clean as a molding plane.  Howver, once you learn, you can match just about any molding.

   Dennis

4. 
   Azeddie | Apr 18, 2002 01:03am | #7

   OH BROTHER...I went and did it, Thought I would check out what E-bay has to offer for a Stanley "45" and I found one in fine condition with 16 blades..(is it missing some?) looks like everything is there. Got cheap IMO, but I need a manual i think HAve seem reprints for 6 bucks online. Thanks for the feedback Guys..willl see If I like it

1. 
   Danford_C_ | Apr 18, 2002 03:06am | #8

   Ed,

   Congratulations.  As to your question about number of cutters; it varied a tad and depends on the type.  For example the type 1 came with 17, around 1887 they also offered a sash cutter as an "option", through the years they dropped some cutters and added others.  As I recall the most that the #45 came with was 21.....try out this link:  http://www.supertool.com/StanleyBG/stan0.htm, enjoy.

   Dano"Form and Function are One" - Frank L. Wright

2. 
   Cornishmaid | Apr 18, 2002 07:26pm | #10

   Ed,

   http://www.tooltrip.com/tooltrip8/stanley/comb-planes/stan-com.htm has some info on the #45 but the link to the instruction manual doesn't seem to be working. Alternatively try here: http://www.marquis-kyle.com.au/record405.htm for the manual for the Record #405; it will also apply to the Stanley.

   Have fun, Alf.

1. 
   sawdustertoo | Apr 19, 2002 09:39pm | #12

   Yeah, I went over there and tried it also.  I downloaded the manual for mine from there sometime back.  That was after I spent the $6.00 for one someone was peddling on the net.  I'll check when I get home and see if I still have the electronic version on the PC at home if anyone wants one. 

   Jerry

1. 
   Azeddie | Apr 19, 2002 11:36pm | #13

   I would appreciate a copy of the manual for the 45 if you have one

   Thanks

1. 
   sawdustertoo | Apr 22, 2002 03:56pm | #14

   I checked the hard drive at home, and apparently had not saved the adobe file or wiped it out later on.  Sorry about that.

   Jerry