Author Topic: Hand Planes  (Read 321518 times)

0 Members and 5 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Jim C.

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1065
Re: Hand Planes
« Reply #600 on: November 05, 2016, 05:43:23 PM »
Back in the Millers Falls #14 post above, I mentioned the hinged lever cap and surmised a couple reasons why the hinge was added to the cap in the first place.  You might recall that I thought the hinge could have provided greater surface contact with the cutting iron assembly thus reducing chatter when using the plane, or perhaps the hinge was strategically located to relieve stress and prevent cracking should the lever cap be over tightened.  Well, having done a little more research, I was correct on the former account.  The hinged lever cap was designed by Millers Falls employee, Charles H. Fox, and was created for purposes of providing three contact points between the cap itself and the cutting iron versus the traditional two contact points provided by more conventional bench plane lever caps.  Although I couldn’t find anything in writing, the hinge may have had an unintended benefit too, being that its positioning on the cap may have prevented accidental cracking from over aggressive tightening.  Okay, so we cleared that up.

About a dozen years ago, I received a cardboard box containing old hand planes and other tools from a co-worker who was retiring.  On her last day at work, she said she had some old tools out in her car that belonged to her dad.  She had been meaning to bring them to work but always kept putting it off.  Since it was her last day, I guess she figured it was now or never.  Anyway, I accompanied her to her car and unloaded the box from the trunk into my car’s trunk.  I thanked her, we hugged, and that was that.  She moved out of state a year later and I never saw her again.  When I got home, I took the box out of my trunk and carried it into my shop.  Upon opening it, I saw five or six planes, a collection of old rusty wrenches and some other miscellaneous stuff.  Of course I went for the planes first.  All the planes (and other tools) were in well used (and abused) condition, and upon closer inspection, each and every one was broken in some way, shape, or form.  Still, I had hope for one plane in particular.  I could tell it was a #8 size jointer.  When I got it into the light, I was surprised to see that it was an early Stanley Bedrock #608.  The front knob was missing and the rear tote was cracked in two places.  One of the cracks was actually at the top of the tote, and the piece was missing.  More inspection revealed that the main body sidewall casting had been chipped off near the toe, and the lever cap had been cracked in half but subsequently repaired.  Had I not gotten this plane for free, I would have passed on it, and to be honest, when compared to the other planes in the box, it was in the best condition of the lot.  At some point, I’ll do a full feature on this particular plane.  I will say that I did chase and buy some parts (which I don’t particularly like doing), and got the plane back into good working order.  Without giving too much away, the future post will deal with the #608 itself and how “free” planes aren’t necessarily free.

Since we were discussing the potential benefits of that Millers Falls hinged lever cap, I just wanted to demonstrate what happens when one over tightens the lever cap on a traditional bench plane.  The cap depicted below is the lever cap, as found, on that Bedrock #608 I mentioned above.  It was clearly over tightened and it cracked.  I only wonder what words were spoken by the plane’s user when that happened.  I can just imagine.  At some point, someone took the time to repair the cap, and did a good job of making it serviceable again.  Purely from a user’s standpoint, the cracked and repaired lever cap works fine.  But from a slightly more critical perspective, and from someone who recently admitted that visual aesthetics do matter, that lever cap wasn’t going to work....for me that is.

The #608 discussed above is a Type 4 (1908 – 1910) Stanley Bedrock.  The cap was only produced between approximately 1908 and 1912, so it could be difficult to find a 100+ year old replacement.  Large jointers, particularly #8 sizes are a little less common.  Since the cap was on a less common (sort of scarce), larger jointer, that made the search for a replacement cap even more difficult.  To date, I haven’t found another correct cap for a Type 4 #608 Bedrock, and instead settled for one that was used on earlier Bedrock Types 1, 2 and 3 between 1898 and 1908 (It's the cap on the left in the second two photos).  I'm mostly okay with the earlier cap because Stanley frequently used parts until they were gone.  So, finding an earlier produced part on a later Type isn't unusual.  Still, I KNOW what was originally on my #608....... See why I don’t like chasing parts?  Anyway, I’ll have more to say about parts chasing when I feature the #608.

Jim C.                       
« Last Edit: December 12, 2016, 04:52:50 PM by Jim C. »
Our Go-To Type Study Member

Offline Bill Houghton

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2808
Re: Hand Planes
« Reply #601 on: November 05, 2016, 07:44:33 PM »
Jim,

Thanks for the invitation to post pics of my herd of planes; but I'm running so hard right now to get somewhat behind (rather than hopelessly behind) that I doubt I'll have time any time soon.

Bill

Offline Jim C.

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1065
Re: Hand Planes
« Reply #602 on: November 05, 2016, 09:24:28 PM »
That's okay Bill.  I hope you'll keep checking in.  If you see something you like, or not, add your two cents either way.  It's always appreciated.

Jim C.
« Last Edit: November 08, 2016, 10:55:40 PM by Jim C. »
Our Go-To Type Study Member

Offline Jim C.

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1065
Re: Hand Planes
« Reply #603 on: November 11, 2016, 08:08:21 PM »
I’m not entirely sure anyone will really understand what was going on at Stanley when new planes were being designed, or considerations being made in terms of what models to add to the product lineup, delete from the product lineup, improve, etc.  When talking about hand planes, you’ve heard me say more than once that Stanley had a habit of attempting to fill every plane niche that existed, real or perceived.  That trend seemed particularly true of block planes.  I was thinking that I’d feature a block plane this time and started looking for the right one.  Nothing jumped out at me, but while in the process of carefully sorting through some planes (which are stored in VERY close, but not touching proximity to each other), I pulled out a few weather stripping planes.  I got to thinking that I had a few different models in my collection, and kind of muttered, “Man, Stanley made a lot of weather stripping planes over the years.”  At that moment I happened to have a #238 in my left hand and a #248 in my right hand.   I held them up a little, side-by-side, then suddenly realized, “Hey, these two planes are practically the same.”

From a quick glance, the #238 and #248 look almost entirely different.  I guess that’s why I never really connected the dots.  Although their respective main body castings look almost nothing alike, particularly around the handles, the actual working aspects of the plane are 100% identical in every way!  All the hardware, removable parts, cutters, etc. are interchangeable with each other.  The screw bosses, threaded holes, cutter attachment/securing mechanisms, depth stops, fence configurations, etc. all line up and function in exactly the same way.  If you go back in the thread to page 34, reply 506, you might recall that I featured the #238.  In terms of function, I think the plane does a nice job of doing precisely what it was designed to do.  Without going into another demonstration, and because the #248 is identical to the #238 from a mechanical perspective, I’d say the #248 will also produce the same nice results.  So what was the point of making another plane (the #248) that incorporates the exact same mechanical features as its predecessor (the #238)?

Here’s my theory.  When comparing these two seemingly identical functioning planes, I believe the engineers/designers at Stanley were possibly aiming for improved ergonomics and comfort.  When looking at the #238, notice the index finger hole forward of the handle.  When I grasp the plane, that hole is slightly too far away from the handle for me to hold the plane comfortably.  If I avoid trying to put my index finger through that hole and attempt to wrap all four fingers around the handle, that’s also uncomfortable because the handle opening really isn’t big enough to accommodate my average sized hand.  The handle is also a little thin.  A more rounded, fatter handle would be more comfortable to hold and use.  Perhaps someone at Stanley realized that.  When looking at the #248, one will notice that it incorporates a more traditional, comfortable, handle.  The #248 is also two inches longer than the #238 (9.5” versus 7.5” respectively), and was supplied with two cutters (1/8” and 5/32” wide) as compared to seven that were included with the #238.  I suppose that providing five less cutters was a cost savings measure taken by Stanley.  Maybe the accountants asked, "Why are we giving away a set of cutters with our weather stripping planes, when we can provide one or two and then sell the rest individually for more money?"  Okay, maybe I'm overthinking that.  (Eventually Stanley came up with a better idea.  See "Edit" paragraph below.)

Besides the obvious changes to ergonomics and styling, the only functional parts of the two planes that varied slightly between both of them were the pre-set rods connected to the fence, which allow the user to make repeatable cuts.  By setting those rods in a desired position on the fence itself, a secondary, repeatable fence location could be achieved quickly even if the fence had been removed from the plane and then later reattached.  The feature to notice is how the rods were manufactured so they would not accidentally slide out of the fence.  The #238 rods incorporated a thin wire recessed into a shallow groove to keep them from sliding, while the correct rods for the #248 incorporated two burrs set at 180 degrees from each other to keep the rods from sliding.  Again, those little rods, like ALL the other parts on both planes are interchangeable.  I suspect that adding little burrs was easier (and cheaper) to do than wrapping wire into those little milled grooves.  Only collectors care about that stuff, but I thought I had better at least mention it.       

Stanley #248:

This plane was manufactured by Stanley between 1936 and 1943.  Recall that the #238 was manufactured between 1928 and 1938.  Except for the two year over lap between 1936 and 1938, the #248 appears to have been manufactured specifically for purposes of replacing the #238 in the Stanley product line.  The #248, like #238, has several little parts that can get lost.  Before buying either one of these guys, make sure all the parts are present and accounted for.  Do your homework.

Edit:  The day after adding this post to the thread, I started thinking that Stanley made another weather stripping plane that was a variation of the #238 and/or the #248.  I checked, and sure enough, Stanley did offer a #248A.  The #248A was produced between 1939 and 1958.  The #248A and its associated parts are IDENTICAL to the #248.  The ONLY difference is the re-inclusion of the five cutters that were dropped from the #248 but were initially offered with the #238.  Basically, the #248A combined the best features of the #238 (7 cutters) and the #248 (better ergonomics).  The main body casting of the #248A is marked "248" not "248A".  Again, the cutters included with the #248 were 1/8" and 5/32" wide.  The cutters included with the #238 and #248A were 1/8", 5/32", 3/16", 7/32", 1/4", 5/16" and 3/8" wide.   

Jim C.   
« Last Edit: November 13, 2016, 09:12:55 AM by Jim C. »
Our Go-To Type Study Member

Offline Jim C.

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1065
Re: Hand Planes
« Reply #604 on: November 11, 2016, 08:09:17 PM »
A few more comparison photos of the Stanley #248 and #238 weather strip planes.

Jim C.
« Last Edit: November 11, 2016, 08:11:34 PM by Jim C. »
Our Go-To Type Study Member

Offline Jim C.

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1065
Re: Hand Planes
« Reply #605 on: November 12, 2016, 08:15:36 AM »
Last week the current issue of Fine Woodworking arrived in the mail.  I hadn't gotten around to paging through it, so this morning I sat down with a cup of coffee and decided to give it a look.  Usually when I read Fine Woodworking, I like to check out the back cover first.  There's always a photo of an amazing project that someone made, and then an accompanying article inside the magazine about the project, the craftsperson who created it, techniques employed, tools used, etc.  Anyway, this month the back cover depicted an advertisement...... I found a little humor in it, particularly after my recent comments about Lee Valley/Veritas hand planes.  Maybe the hand plane Gods are exacting revenge for my blasphemous remarks.  Instead of a great project and article, I got this....... :rolleyes:
 
Jim C.
Our Go-To Type Study Member

Offline Jim C.

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1065
Re: Hand Planes
« Reply #606 on: November 13, 2016, 09:04:07 PM »
Occasionally I'll come across a New Old Stock (NOS) plane that's too good to be true.  The plane is in its original box and in mint condition, showing little or no sign of use.  To a collector, that's the ultimate find.  What really makes those discoveries special isn't just the plane itself, but also the box its in, as well as the inclusion of small paper envelopes containing the parts they were supposed to hold, cardboard/paper packaging and instruction manual/advertising materials.  Although a plane may be NOS and its original box is present and in good condition, the internal packaging and manuals/advertising my not have survived.  Every now and then, it's all there.  Those moments are priceless.

The reason I'm bring this up now ties in with my recent weather stripping plane post above.  Several years ago I had the good fortune to find a NOS Stanley #289 rabbet plane, un-used in its original box, and complete with its original packaging and a four page single fold advertisement for weather stripping planes and associated weather stripping tools.  Besides being an uncommon rarity, the advertisement brochure gives us a glimpse into Stanley's constant attempts to market its products. It also provides clues as to when the #289 was produced by generally comparing the #289 to the other tools shown in the advertisement brochure.  I don't know.....Maybe that kind of stuff doesn't matter too much, but to me, it's one of the reasons I enjoy collecting.  I love knowing as much as I can about a tool and its history, etc. whenever possible.   

Anyway, I thought I'd end the weather stripping plane discussion (for now) with the advertisement brochure depicted below.  As for the #289 briefly discussed above, well, stay tuned.  I'll get to it.

Jim C.           
« Last Edit: November 25, 2016, 08:38:03 AM by Jim C. »
Our Go-To Type Study Member

Offline Jim C.

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1065
Re: Hand Planes
« Reply #607 on: November 21, 2016, 10:33:56 PM »
I hope everyone has a Happy Thanksgiving with family and friends.

Jim C.
Our Go-To Type Study Member

Offline Jim C.

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1065
Re: Hand Planes
« Reply #608 on: November 26, 2016, 04:25:13 PM »
Hi Hand Plane fans,

The last time I was thinking about adding some new content to the thread, I thought I’d feature a block plane.  Somehow I got side tracked and started talking about a couple different weather strip planes.  Judging by the responses, I’m not sure that was a wise choice on my part.  Anyway, today I’m going with one of the simplest block planes Stanley ever made.  What I believe started out as a tool marketed as toy for children, this plane eventually ended up being a long term offering in Stanley’s product line.

Stanley #101:

Manufactured by Stanley between 1877 and 1962, and at approximately 3.5 inches long, the #101 was likely a good size for a child’s hand, and might have made a nice little “toy” for the right child.  As a little kid I personally didn’t have access to anything like it, but looking back, I might have enjoyed one to fool around with nonetheless.  I have no clue what I would have done with it, however, I can imagine the armrests on a few chairs or some coffee table legs getting "re-styled.”  Probably a good thing I didn’t have one and possibly why my parents didn’t make one available to me.  They knew me and they knew better than to let me have that.  Well, at some point along the line, Stanley decided the #101 should be more than a trinket for kids and started advertising it as a legitimate tool in their catalogs.  Looking at a few old Stanley catalogs, the #101 appeared (as a real tool) in the August, 1900 printing, and in the 1915 catalog when it was described as,

". . . . a very handy little plane for household use and many mechanics carry one in their kits for odds and ends of light work. . . . “

It's not the block plane I would reach for in almost any circumstance, but with a sharp iron, it will produce a cut.  Set for a light pass, it might be okay on pine or other less dense woods.  All I can say is give it a try.  Even today, a user quality #101 will only cost a few dollars at most.  You have nothing to lose.  Back in 1915, the #101 was priced at twenty cents.  Other manufacturers produced versions of the #101 over the years and some are still being made today.  Stanley was still manufacturing a cheap version of the #101 well into the 1990s.  It was model #12-101.  Although I don't own one, Lie-Nielsen currently makes a small block plane that's "loosely based" on the #101.  It's advertised as a violin maker's plane and priced at $95.  Like most L-N tools, it's probably a great plane right out of the box and it incorporates a mechanical cutting iron adjustment adding some weight, which isn't a bad thing.  Still, I'd be more inclined to use something a little bigger, like a #60 for instance.  If you really have an itch to try a #101, or have a use for one, I'd try to find an original Stanley first.  It'll cost a lot less than the L-N version.

In terms of pin pointing an era of production, prior to about 1950, the main body on all Stanley #101 block planes was japanned black inside and out.  After 1950, they were grey.  The only bare surface on the main body of the plane is its sole.  Unlike most block planes whose exterior walls are machined/ground flat and remain unfinished, the #101’s exterior walls are japanned.  From the several examples that I’ve seen, not much attention was paid to the sidewalls of the plane’s body.  The castings were a little bumpy and the japanning was applied right over the imperfections.  This plane was not designed to be a precision tool, so laying the plane on its side and using it with a shooting board wasn’t really an issue.

Early versions of the plane (pre-1940) also included a japanned pressure cap, while those that were produced later came with a pressure cap that was painted red.  I have no idea why.  I personally like the plane in all black, and from a collector’s point of view, believe the earlier versions with the black japanned caps are somewhat more desirable.  Several years ago I had the opportunity to buy an early pristine example with a black pressure cap and a Sweethart (mid 1920’s) logo on its cutting iron.  I passed on it because I thought the price was too high and I figured I’d for sure find another one.  (Without jumping ahead, you’ll notice the example depicted below features the later red colored cap and has a post 1935 logo on its cutting iron.)  I was dead wrong, as I haven’t seen another one since.  Examples with red caps and later logos are fairly common, as one can see, but those with black caps and Sweethart logos are not.  What the heck was I thinking?  That was another one of many instances were I didn’t do enough homework and then over estimated my knowledge when I had the plane IN MY HAND!!!!  I’m still kicking myself for that one.  Ironically, most of my mistakes have come about from misjudging a plane’s condition, quality, rarity, etc., and then overspending on it.  In this instance, I tried to underpay and ended up missing out on a good one that I HAD IN MY HAND!!!  As I recall, I believe the seller and I were about $15 - $20 apart on the price.  I thought I knew what I was looking at, but I didn’t have a clue…….  A classic example of "live and learn."

Jim C.  (who’s still looking for an early #101)                 
« Last Edit: August 26, 2019, 11:49:34 AM by Jim C. »
Our Go-To Type Study Member

Offline Bill Houghton

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2808
Re: Hand Planes
« Reply #609 on: November 28, 2016, 12:21:33 PM »
I had a No. 101 in the late-model clown colors for a while - picked up for 87 cents (averaged price from a group of tools purchased at a yard sale).  I never did find a use for it, and the local ReStore eventually got it.  I did more recently pick up a No. 100, with the squirrel tail handle, which fits my hand better; but even that has yet to see any service.

Offline Jim C.

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1065
Re: Hand Planes
« Reply #610 on: November 28, 2016, 01:47:47 PM »
Hey Bill,

Thanks for stopping by!  I have the feeling a lot of #101s were sold over the years that were used a few times and then left to sit untouched for decades in favor of other models that were more versatile, accurate, user friendly, etc.  Like I said above, the #101 isn't the block plane I'd reach for in almost any circumstance, although I might have had fun with it as a kid.  It may not be a bad tool, but I think its capabilities are limited at best and other basic, fixed throat block planes would deliver better overall results.  Maybe I'm wrong...... If anyone reading along has some experience using a #101, please join the conversation and let us know what you think of it.

The traditional looking #101 depicted above was dropped by Stanley in the early 1960s, however, Stanley continued to offer a similar version of the plane well into the 1990s, and perhaps later.  The post 1960s versions of the #101 were cheaply made, eventually featuring stamped steel bodies and pressure caps, versus cast iron.  I know that Stanley also manufactured inexpensive stamped steel versions of the #101 for various retailers to include Sears/Craftsman.  I think I have a few such planes out in my shop.   I'll dig them out and post a few photos this evening so you can see what I'm talking about.  Stay tuned and thanks for joining in the conversation.

Jim C.
Our Go-To Type Study Member

Offline lptools

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3069
Re: Hand Planes
« Reply #611 on: November 28, 2016, 02:55:11 PM »
Hello, Jim. I believe that Stanley made a Handyman stamped steel version. I may have one around here somewhere. Regards, Lou
Member of PHARTS-  Perfect Handle Admiration, Restoration and Torturing Society

Offline Bill Houghton

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2808
Re: Hand Planes
« Reply #612 on: November 28, 2016, 03:35:43 PM »
It's interesting, Jim: when I think of "block plane," I think of planes on which the cutting iron is low enough that the bevel is placed upward; that's how I was taught, back when I was taught these things (dinosaurs could be seen out the living room window in those days).  Your use of the term seems to incorporate little planes like the 101 into the block plane group.  It's hard to think of the 100, 100-1/2, or 101 as bench planes.  Maybe we need a new general category.

Offline Jim C.

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1065
Re: Hand Planes
« Reply #613 on: November 28, 2016, 07:45:55 PM »
Okay, continuing our discussion from this afternoon, depicted below are two planes, both manufactured by Stanley and somewhat modeled after the #101.  Although the original #101s were out of production around 1962, Stanley must have thought there was still a market for a small 3.5” block plane.  Other retailers, like Sears for example, must have thought so too.

Take a look at the first photo.  The plane in the background, painted green with the red pressure cap is actually a Sears/Craftsman model that has a Craftsman “crown” logo on its cutting iron (model #187.37057).  I suspect the plane was manufactured by Stanley during the mid 1960s to early 1970s, shortly after the demise of the original #101.  Notice that the red pressure cap is still cast iron, just like of it’s immediate predecessor, the Stanley #101.  Long gone was the cast iron body however.  The body is now just stamped steel with a couple strategically located steel pins running perpendicular through the side walls of the plane, which take the place of a more traditional block plane frog.  The plane’s devolution didn’t end there.

The plane in the fore ground was also manufactured by Stanley at some point during the 1990s (Stanley model #12-101).  If it was even possible, one can see that it’s more cheaply made than the earlier Craftsman branded plane.  Now gone is the cast iron pressure cap, which was replaced by a stamped steel cap.  The steel pins are also gone, replaced by stamped inward pointing tabs that were part of the plane’s side walls.  Parallel slots were also cut into the side walls to accommodate the cutting iron and stamped steel pressure cap.  Where the Craftsman branded example was constructed of a stamped steel body and two steel pins, the later version of the plane was made from one stamped piece of steel.  All cost saving measures for sure.  There was no attempt to leave the sole bare either.  Notice that it’s painted black like the rest of the plane.

The last photo shows the #101 as compared to some of its successors.  Just to be clear, I’m not really recommending that any of these planes be used if you can avoid them.  Inexpensive, yet much better block planes were made by Stanley and others.  In an effort to create a comprehensive study of as many Stanley planes as I can, I only wanted to present the #101 and its stamped steel cousins for purposes of completeness.

Jim C.         
Our Go-To Type Study Member

Offline Jim C.

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1065
Re: Hand Planes
« Reply #614 on: November 28, 2016, 07:51:52 PM »
Hello, Jim. I believe that Stanley made a Handyman stamped steel version. I may have one around here somewhere. Regards, Lou

I'd love to see it Lou.  Maybe you could post a few pictures of it.  Thanks.

Jim C.
Our Go-To Type Study Member