During the last week or so, I featured a couple Stanley bench rabbet planes, the #10 1/2 and #10 1/2C. By chance, I'd say both were probably manufactured between 1907 and 1912. As I mentioned in prior posts pertaining to the planes, the #10 1/2 was in production for about eighty years, while the #10 1/2C was only in production for about fifteen years and went out of production over one hundred years ago. That being said, I would categorized the #10 1/2C as being relatively scarce. It's a tough plane to find in any condition. In the last twenty years of collecting, I've only seen a handful of them. While definitely not the most rare of all Stanley hand planes, if you're a serious collector, it's probably one to consider acquiring when you see it. The odds are you might not see it again any time soon. That "buy it now" strategy does present quandary of sorts. As a collector, a plane's condition and completeness are paramount to almost everything. We collect for the love of collecting, but like it or not, at some point we, or our heirs, will liquidate some or all of our collections. I said it before and I'll say it again; I believe that the best condition tools will mostly hold their value over the long haul. So what happens when you find a rare tool in less than top collector quality condition? There's some conflict between scarcity and top shelf quality.
Under most situations, particularly when considering a common plane to collect (not necessarily to use), I'd say, "Get the best one you can find, make sure it's undamaged, and check to see if it's complete and all of its parts are vintage correct." If the plane doesn't score high marks in all those criteria, pass on it. Basically, "do your homework." I've spouted that line throughout the thread. So now you've come across that rare plane, but its condition is more like "user" quality, and perhaps some of its parts aren't vintage correct, or maybe there's some damage. How far will you lower your "collector standards?" Well, I've found that I will be less critical of a scarce plane to a certain point. I will not forgive serious damage. Examples would include heavy rust and deep pitting, casting cracks, chips and associated repairs. I'll typically reject a plane that's missing parts which are specialized and/or unique to the plane itself. Some of those parts are difficult to find and expensive when you do find them. In some cases, like both #10 1/2 bench rabbet planes for instance, finding the correct cutting iron with the vintage appropriate Stanley logo could be tricky at best and a possible deal killer. Where I seem to soften a little is when a rare plane may have suffered minor damage to castings (scratches, nicks, etc.) and similar minor damage to associated vintage correct parts. The Stanley #10 1/2C I recently featured is a very good example of a relatively scarce plane that I had to be less critical of only because of its rarity.
Below, I've included a few photos of parts found on the #10 1/2 and #10 1/2C. In all instances, the #10 1/2 parts are on the left and the #10 1/2C parts are on the right. The first two photos depict the lever caps from both planes. Notice how the leading edge corners on the #10 1/2C cap are clearly chipped! The cap was dropped, possibly more than once, and the corners cracked off. Hardly "collector quality." The next photo shows the rear totes from both planes. Look really close. See the crack in the in the #10 1/2C tote? While both parts are replaceable, I still have to find (and pay for) vintage correct replacements. Now look at the main body castings. See the difference between the two. While the #10 1/2 has a nice even patina, the #10 1/2C has some obvious scratches and light pitting. Unfortunately, the corrugations on the sole of the main casting make the plane scarce. It really can't be replaced. The condition of #10 1/2C is far from collector quality, but its scarcity has overshadowed some of its apologies, all of which I was and still am willing to accept. Now it has occurred to me that since all the parts are interchangeable, I could swap the lever caps and totes, particularly since both were manufactured during the same time period. In terms of vintage correctness, they're a match. Still, I have some insane sense of obligation to both planes. They're both one hundred years old and from the looks of things, all of their parts appear to be original to the planes themselves. While that may just be wishful thinking on my part, based on the facts and circumstances surrounding my garage sale found #10 1/2, there's no doubt in my mind that the main casting and all of its associated parts have been together since it left the factory. After all these years, I'm not going to separate them.
Jim C.
