Author Topic: Hand Planes  (Read 321390 times)

0 Members and 7 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Jim C.

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1065
Re: Hand Planes
« Reply #615 on: November 28, 2016, 08:13:50 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.

Hi Bill,

Yes, I agree the Stanley #100, #100 1/2 and #101 planes are not bench planes.  I guess I got caught up referring to them as "block planes" mostly because Stanley does so.  I attached a photo from the Stanley catalogue No. 26, published in August, 1900.  As for mounting the irons bevel side up, you're absolutely correct.  It's a little hard to see in the photos above, but if you look closely, both the Craftsman and later Stanley plane irons are stamped on the bevel side with "THIS SIDE UP."  (see second photo below)     

Jim C.
« Last Edit: November 28, 2016, 08:28:29 PM by Jim C. »
Our Go-To Type Study Member

Online Bill Houghton

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2808
Re: Hand Planes
« Reply #616 on: November 28, 2016, 10:32:01 PM »
Ah.  I didn't know that, Jim.  Here it is, the end of the day, and I learned my "something new for the day."

Offline Jim C.

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1065
Re: Hand Planes
« Reply #617 on: November 29, 2016, 07:14:18 AM »
Ah.  I didn't know that, Jim.  Here it is, the end of the day, and I learned my "something new for the day."

Hey Bill,

A good rule of thumb when mounting a cutting iron on a plane is logo side up.  On a few rare occasions, I've seen the logo stamped on the wrong side of the iron.  Honestly, prior to posting those last couple pictures, I had to check the cutting irons just to make sure I was providing accurate information and I also wanted to make sure Stanley did in fact advertise those little planes as block planes.  I think we got it right.  Thanks again for adding to the conversation. 

Jim C.
Our Go-To Type Study Member

Online Bill Houghton

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2808
Re: Hand Planes
« Reply #618 on: November 29, 2016, 04:52:02 PM »
Twice, now, if memory serves, I've found irons stamped on both sides.  Those would confuse a newcomer to woodworking who was following the "logo side up" rule.  Better, I suspect, to teach the logic for when it's up and when down.

And it's really odd that Stanley would have stamped "this side up" on the bevel side of those irons.  I just went out and looked at my remaining plane of that series, a No. 100 (notched logo, japanned - not sure what that says as far as age), and the logo is opposite the bevel, with no "this side up" stamp on either face; so it wasn't universal.

If we're talking about the 100/101 series planes, their irons are set somewhere around 45 degrees, so putting the bevel side up would present the edge at about 70 degrees - almost scraping territory.  Maybe that would make sense for planing some of the exotic woods, but Stanley never focused much on that market.

So I'm puzzled.

Offline lptools

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3065
Re: Hand Planes
« Reply #619 on: November 29, 2016, 08:27:54 PM »
Hello, Jim, Bill. Stanley planes can be confusing/mis-leading. Bench planes with a cap iron, are usually bevel down. I see a lot of these at a table assembled the wrong way. Label up? A very good rule of thumb. I am looking at a No. 65 Knuckle Joint Block Plane, label up, bevel up, notches on back, impossible to install incorrectly. I am looking at a No. 75 Rabbet Plane, label up bevel down, but this blade will fit the plane either way. I grabbed a No. 92 , notched back, bevel up, no markings on the blade!!!! I have included pics of a stamped steel block plane, I am guessing it is a Handyman, H102 on the blade. Unusual design, 2 piece iron, both pieces marked "This Side Up" , and is bevel up .Regards, Lou
Member of PHARTS-  Perfect Handle Admiration, Restoration and Torturing Society

Offline Jim C.

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1065
Re: Hand Planes
« Reply #620 on: November 30, 2016, 05:21:23 PM »
Twice, now, if memory serves, I've found irons stamped on both sides.  Those would confuse a newcomer to woodworking who was following the "logo side up" rule.  Better, I suspect, to teach the logic for when it's up and when down.

And it's really odd that Stanley would have stamped "this side up" on the bevel side of those irons.  I just went out and looked at my remaining plane of that series, a No. 100 (notched logo, japanned - not sure what that says as far as age), and the logo is opposite the bevel, with no "this side up" stamp on either face; so it wasn't universal.

If we're talking about the 100/101 series planes, their irons are set somewhere around 45 degrees, so putting the bevel side up would present the edge at about 70 degrees - almost scraping territory.  Maybe that would make sense for planing some of the exotic woods, but Stanley never focused much on that market.

Hi Bill,

Sorry I didn't get back to you a little sooner.  It didn't really dawn on me until you said in part, ".....about 70 degrees - almost scraping territory....." That rung a bell with me and I got to thinking about it.  Throughout this discussion, you've made some great points.  Although Stanley advertised the #100, #100 1/2, and #101 as block planes, they really are unusual.  Their irons are bedded at a high angle to begin with.  By installing the iron bevel side up, you're right, the planes really do start to approach scraper status.  As a result, the bevels need to be facing down, like one would see on a traditional bench plane.  I agree with you that hand plane users should know which way (bevel up or bevel down) to mount a cutting iron as it relates to the type of plane being used.  But I'll stick to my general "rule of thumb" and say, "logo faces up" when installing the iron onto a plane body.  I went out into my shop and studied a Stanley #100, #100 1/2, and #101.  All three planes have the Stanley logo stamped on the non-bevel side of the iron, exactly like you observed on your planes.  That's no accident.  The 100 series "block planes"  as Stanley calls them, were designed to cut bevel down.  I really should have caught that sooner.  I do use the #100 1/2 occasionally to add a scalloped finish to the inside and bottom of drawers, and upon checking the iron in that plane, I have it mounted bevel side down.  So, great points Bill.  I'll post a few photos so others can see what we're talking about.

Jim C.
Our Go-To Type Study Member

Offline Jim C.

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1065
Re: Hand Planes
« Reply #621 on: November 30, 2016, 06:57:13 PM »
I've attached a few photos hopefully showing what we've been talking about.  Notice the first photo.  In the background you'll see the Stanley #101.  In the fore ground, you'll see the 1990s version of the #101.  See how steep the iron is bedded on the original #101 and how low the angle is on the later version in the fore ground.  That later version of the plane, with its bevel up iron is what one would expect to see on a traditional block plane.  Mounting the bevel down on a block plane is not typical, so it's interesting that Stanley advertised its #100, #100 1/2 and #101 (second photo) as block planes.  They were certainly unusual in terms of the way their cutting irons were mounted (being bevel down).  I still believe the "logo up" rule of thumb generally holds true.  At least it does in this instance.  I'm convinced that Stanley intended the respective irons in the #100, #100 1/2 and #101 "block planes" to be mounted bevel side down.

Jim C. (who likes learning new stuff about Stanley planes)   
« Last Edit: November 30, 2016, 06:59:06 PM by Jim C. »
Our Go-To Type Study Member

Offline Jim C.

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1065
Re: Hand Planes
« Reply #622 on: November 30, 2016, 07:07:02 PM »
Hello, Jim, Bill. Stanley planes can be confusing/mis-leading. Bench planes with a cap iron, are usually bevel down. I see a lot of these at a table assembled the wrong way. Label up? A very good rule of thumb. I am looking at a No. 65 Knuckle Joint Block Plane, label up, bevel up, notches on back, impossible to install incorrectly. I am looking at a No. 75 Rabbet Plane, label up bevel down, but this blade will fit the plane either way. I grabbed a No. 92 , notched back, bevel up, no markings on the blade!!!! I have included pics of a stamped steel block plane, I am guessing it is a Handyman, H102 on the blade. Unusual design, 2 piece iron, both pieces marked "This Side Up" , and is bevel up .Regards, Lou

Hi Lou,

Thanks for joining in the conversation and thanks for posting a couple photos too!  Your plane is definitely a low angle block plane with a traditional bevel up mounted cutting iron, but the double iron assembly isn't so common.  Most block planes employ a single iron and pressure cap of some sort.  It's also interesting that plane manufacturers felt the need to stamp "THIS SIDE UP" on their plane irons.  There must have been some confusion among users, otherwise, why would Stanley and others take the time and effort to do that?  Thanks again for jumping in with some great content!

Jim C.   
« Last Edit: November 30, 2016, 07:10:15 PM by Jim C. »
Our Go-To Type Study Member

Offline Jim C.

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1065
Re: Hand Planes
« Reply #623 on: December 10, 2016, 07:34:43 PM »
Just a little way back in the thread, I mentioned getting a Stanley Bedrock #608 jointer from a former co-worker who said the plane, and a few other tools she had given me, belonged to father.  Remember?  If you’d like to refresh your memory, turn back to page 41, reply #600.  The reason that particular plane came up in the discussion had to do with my intention to not only feature the #608, but to also revisit Bedrock frog construction (which is unique) and “parts chasing.”  The #608 depicted below is to date, the most expensive “free” plane I’ve ever received.  We’ll definitely get into that story.  Also, immediately proceeding this post, I “reserved” the next two posts so that I can discuss the similarities and differences of Bedrock frog design between early models and later models, and the joy of chasing parts.  I wanted to keep the topics close together within the thread since they will generally relate to the #608.  I’ll probably go off on a few tangents too.  Like I’ve said many times before, I really appreciate your comments, etc.  So even though I set aside the next two posts, please feel free to join in the conversation at ANY TIME!!  You don’t need to wait until I’ve finished all three posts.  Join in! 

The earliest Bedrock bench planes were offered by Stanley beginning in approximately 1898 and various models stayed in production until about 1943.  For a little more detail on this, refer back in the thread to page 11, reply #162.  There, we talked about the #604 and a little bit of Bedrock history.  Bedrocks were the “Cadillac standard” of bench planes in Stanley’s product line, and were touted as the best bench planes on the market.  Whether or not that’s true is really up to the individual craftsperson.  I still think that a super sharp cutting iron mounted in a properly tuned non-Bedrock bench plane and set for a light pass will produce the same results that can be achieved with a Bedrock outfitted and set in a similar fashion.  With the exception of how the frog mates to the main plane body (which is sort of a gimmick that a lot of people bought into and seem to like), every feature of a Bedrock plane mimics its non-Bedrock cousin.  So, the only difference between a standard #4 and a #604 is the frog design.  Like I was saying, go back and take a look at the featured #604 on page 11.  All that being said, I, like so many others, am totally drawn into the Bedrock hype.  If given a choice, I’d go for the Bedrock every time.  There’s something about the theory that went into their design that I like.  I’m fascinated by the multiple precision machining processes that went into manufacturing them, and as a result, I’ll pay the extra price for a vintage Bedrock whenever I see a good one for sale. 

Stanley #608:

The #608, like the standard #8 is the longest cast iron jointer plane (24”) that Stanley made.  It was manufactured between 1898 and 1935 and weighed in at about nine pounds.  It’s heavy and was basically designed to leave large surfaces dead flat by initially working down the high spots while the sole’s length allowed the tool to ride over the low spots.  Pushing the plane in a calculated pattern over the large work piece, the high spots would eventually be reduced down to the level of the low spots resulting in the entire surface being brought into a coplanar dimension across its length and width.   When working with really large slabs for instance, a #8 sized jointer is invaluable and does an amazing job of making things flat.   Pushing the plane along the uneven edge of a board or plank, knocking down the high spots and riding over the low ones, will also produce a dead flat edge that can be edge joined to another board or plank dressed with a similarly planed dead flat edge.  (If one needs a little help making sure the plane is producing an edge that’s 90 degrees to the board’s face, a jointer gauge might help.  I use one mounted on a Stanley #7.  Remember we talked about those?  (Refer back in the thread to page 16, reply #225 and #226.)

The #608 depicted below is a Type 4 Bedrock and was manufactured between 1908 and 1910.  The early Bedrock planes had rounded side walls, while later version Bedrocks (post 1910) had squared off side walls, making them distinctive and easily identified.  Interestingly, right about the time the sidewalls were changed, Stanley also changed the way Bedrock frogs were joined to the main body of the plane.  We’ll discuss that topic in a little more detail during the next post.

While I like my #608 and have it ready to go in my “user” arsenal of planes, it doesn’t see too much action.  Like I said before, it’s heavy, and there hasn’t been many projects where I’ve felt like I needed it.  For purposes of edge joining, I almost exclusively rely on my #7 equipped with a #386 jointer gauge.  Over the years I’ve had opportunities to buy a few nice #7 and #8 sized jointers, but I haven’t.  They take up a lot of space.  The #608 shown below is the only #8 sized plane in my entire collection, and the #7 mentioned earlier is my only #7 sized bench plane.  In terms of rarity, the larger Bedrocks, like the #608, are sort of scare and certainly not as common as their smaller siblings like the #603, #604 and #605.  To be honest, at approximately 18” long, I much prefer a #6 sized bench plane (called a “fore plane”) for medium to large surface area flat joining.  To me, it just seems to be the right size and weight for those types of jobs.  I have a few of those and I’m always looking for more.  My all time favorite larger plane to use, however, is a Stanley Bedrock #605 ½ jack plane.  I seem to pick up that plane more than any other bench plane.  I’ll definitely feature it at some point in the future.  Take a look at the last picture.  From top to bottom there’s the #608, the #7, a #6 and my favorite, the #605 ½.  They're 24", 22", 18" and 15" long respectively.  Those are Stanley’s longest cast iron, jointer bench planes.

Stay tuned for more on Bedrock frog design and chasing parts.

Jim C.                   
« Last Edit: June 10, 2018, 09:42:18 PM by Jim C. »
Our Go-To Type Study Member

Offline Jim C.

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1065
Re: Hand Planes
« Reply #624 on: December 10, 2016, 07:35:34 PM »
Thanks for your patience..... When I was finishing the discussion about the Stanley Bedrock #608 jointer, I remembered that I had presented some Bedrock related material earlier in the thread.  If you go back to page 11, reply 162, you’ll see that we did discuss the #604 Bedrock smoothing plane.  What I failed to mention then was the difference in frog configurations between early Bedrocks (Types 1 through 4) and later versions.  Looking back at the #604 discussion, you might recall that I wrote this:

   “What makes the Bedrock bench plane different from its standard counter part is the unique way in which the frog and bed are designed, milled, and mated together within extremely close tolerances.  The frog and bed on most standard bench planes contact each other on the front and back of both parts.  The area in between does not touch, leaving significant air space between the parts, which are connected together via two slotted head screws passing through the frog into the bed.  The bearing surfaces are very small in comparison to the full contact surfaces of the Bedrock models.  The Bedrock frog and bed are in full contact with each other across their entire length and width as a result of carefully milling both parts.  To accomplish the union, the two parts are connected via two pins that pass through the frog into the bed.  Then screws with tapered ends, running at a perpendicular angle through the back of the bed, go into tapered dimples in the pins.  The pins are drawn downward by the tapered ends of the screws going into the pin dimples, pulling the frog and the bed together to form a solid union, hence their name, Bedrock.”

Okay, that’s still true, but prior to 1911, early Bedrock bench plane frogs were mated to their beds via basic slotted screws, just like on standard non-Bedrock bench planes.  There were no pins with dimples and tapered set screws creating the union. The bearing surfaces between the frog and bed were still milled to close tolerances and were in full contact across their entire lengths and widths.  The only difference was the method of attachment.  I think the three photos below will show the differences.  (In all three photos, the early frog is depicted on the left, while the later frog is on the right.)  Interestingly, the method of attaching the frog to the bed of the plane changed along with the visual styling of the plane’s main body.  Older version (pre-Type 5) Bedrocks had rounded sidewalls and used slotted screws to attach the frog to the bed.  Later versions, beginning in 1911 (Type 5 and up) had flat top sidewalls and employed the pin and tapered set screw method of joining the frog to the bed.  Again, I think the photos will be beneficial in clarifying my explanation.

In terms of function, I’m not sure one method of attaching the frog to the bed is better or worse than the other.  Honestly, I prefer the Type 3 and Type 4 versions with their simple to use slotted screws and rounded sidewalls.  I also like the classic look of the rounded sidewalls.  While I do like the “contraptionism factor” of the pins and tapered sets screws, and think it’s a clever design, I’m not so sure that method of joining the frog to the bed made any significant difference in the plane’s performance.  I’m also not so sure Stanley always added “improvements” for the sake of enhanced tool function.  In the case of pins and tapered set screws, I believed they created a unique design that might attract customers to spend a little more money on what was marketed as an upgrade from the standard bench plane.  Changing the sidewalls from round to flat made the plane easily identifiable, while the pin/tapered set screw method of frog/bed attachment certainly made them one of a kind, thus separating them from everything else on the market.  While I know a well tuned standard non-Bedrock bench plane will produce great results, I’m still drawn to the Bedrock hype.     

Jim C.

(This post was added on 12/23/16)       
« Last Edit: December 23, 2016, 06:36:35 PM by Jim C. »
Our Go-To Type Study Member

Offline Jim C.

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1065
Re: Hand Planes
« Reply #625 on: December 10, 2016, 07:36:13 PM »
Future post on chasing parts.....stay tuned.   :rolleyes:

Jim C.

EDIT on January 2, 2017:  Although it was my intent to add the "Chasing Parts" post here, I found it was easier to do so below.  Please go to page 43, replies 643 and 644.  Thanks and sorry for any confusion.

Jim C.
« Last Edit: May 23, 2018, 10:43:36 AM by Jim C. »
Our Go-To Type Study Member

Online Bill Houghton

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2808
Re: Hand Planes
« Reply #626 on: December 10, 2016, 08:26:18 PM »
Jim,

If you count the "transitional" wood/metal hybrid planes, Stanley's longest plane is actually the No. 34 jointer, 30" long, with the shorter 32 (26") and 33 (28") also being longer than the No. 8 or 608.

I owned, some years back, either a 32 or 33 - can't now remember the length, but it was long.  It also twisted in its length enough to be useless; I joke that it was optimized for planing airplane propellers.

Offline Jim C.

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1065
Re: Hand Planes
« Reply #627 on: December 10, 2016, 08:37:17 PM »
:
Jim,

If you count the "transitional" wood/metal hybrid planes, Stanley's longest plane is actually the No. 34 jointer, 30" long, with the shorter 32 (26") and 33 (28") also being longer than the No. 8 or 608.

I owned, some years back, either a 32 or 33 - can't now remember the length, but it was long.  It also twisted in its length enough to be useless; I joke that it was optimized for planing airplane propellers.

Thanks Bill!  Good thing I have someone fact checking me!  I better edit my write up to say longest "cast iron" plane.  You know, I never considered the transitional planes when I was writing about Stanley jointers.  Good catch!!!

It's funny that you mentioned the inaccuracy of your long transitional plane.  I have zero experience using them and always wondered how much care, if any, Stanley took in choosing the best wood with grain oriented (like quarter sawn perhaps) for the least amount of twist, warp, etc.  I'm no cast iron expert, but I'd think that when exposed to moisture or changing conditions, the worst that will happen is rust.  With wood, moisture means potential movement.

Jim C.
« Last Edit: December 10, 2016, 09:00:14 PM by Jim C. »
Our Go-To Type Study Member

Offline Yadda

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1842
Re: Hand Planes
« Reply #628 on: December 11, 2016, 05:54:06 PM »
Great info!  Keep it coming!
You might say I have a tool collecting problem....

Offline Jim C.

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1065
Re: Hand Planes
« Reply #629 on: December 11, 2016, 06:04:26 PM »
Thanks Yadda!  Good to know you're reading along.  Feel free to join in any time.

Jim C.
Our Go-To Type Study Member