Author Topic: Hand Planes  (Read 321646 times)

0 Members and 9 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Jim C.

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1065
Re: Hand Planes
« Reply #750 on: July 08, 2018, 03:34:44 PM »
Hi Peter,

I’m glad you’re staying up to date with the thread!  Don’t be afraid to jump in at any time.  As for over paying, I’m not sure I made it clear in the initial post.  Probably out of embarrassment more than anything, I left it a little vague.  Well, now that we’re here, when I say I over paid, I mean I paid like the plane was gem mint NOS still in its original gem mint box.  That’s what I’m talking about!  I don’t want to give too much away, but stick with me to the end of the #289 posts.  There is some irony in the story and a twist of good luck.  Hang in there.

Jim C.
« Last Edit: July 08, 2018, 04:04:43 PM by Jim C. »
Our Go-To Type Study Member

Offline Yadda

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1845
Re: Hand Planes
« Reply #751 on: July 08, 2018, 04:58:28 PM »
Nice work Jim. I allways enjoy reading your posts.

+1
You might say I have a tool collecting problem....

Offline coolford

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 865
  • Old as dirt
Re: Hand Planes
« Reply #752 on: July 08, 2018, 06:13:02 PM »
Jim C----I'm learning a lot from your thread, being wordy is no problem for me.  Takes many words to explain many of the non-obvious differences.  Now for some of your and others knowledge.  Went to an estate auction yesterday and there were over 100 planes as just part of it along with every other type of old tool.  I bought 16 planes for just over $100.00.  Some good some not so good and will show them over the next few weeks.  The one I am showing is a Stanley No. 129.  It came along with another semi junk plane, a Stanley No. 605 1/2 round top.  Look closely at the first picture---location of the screws and then the second picture with the side missing.  Someone has taken it apart and planed off the side down to the opening (they used a stationary electric planer as the job is perfect).  One can tell what was used as there are some very fine lines from nicks in the planer blade.  Whoever did it had a special use for the plane and I wonder what it could have been.  Have you ever seen this done to a wooden plane before?  Note, because of the overlap of the metal it could not be used to get close to a wall etc..

Offline Jim C.

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1065
Re: Hand Planes
« Reply #753 on: July 08, 2018, 06:54:42 PM »
Thanks Yadda!  Glad you’re reading along.

Jim C.
Our Go-To Type Study Member

Offline Jim C.

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1065
Re: Hand Planes
« Reply #754 on: July 08, 2018, 06:57:31 PM »
coolford,

Looks to me like someone made their own rabbet plane.  I gotta say, after figuring out that #289, and later the #78, I’d never be without a rabbet plane.  They’re great tools to have and use.  Even if you’re making rabbets with some sort of a powered machine, giving the joint one last clean up pass with the plane removes all the machine marks and leaves a truly smooth flat surface.  Thanks for the pictures!  I really appreciate the additional content.  Good stuff!  I’m glad you came across a #605 1/2.  That’s one of my favorite planes to use. (See page 46, reply 682.)  I’ll be interested in hearing if you like that size or not.  I think it’s perfect for a lot of tasks.  Let us know how you like it.  Pictures are always welcome!

Jim C.
« Last Edit: July 08, 2018, 07:18:11 PM by Jim C. »
Our Go-To Type Study Member

Offline p_toad

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 946
Re: Hand Planes
« Reply #755 on: July 09, 2018, 12:03:55 PM »
Since you brought this up the other day i finally got a few pictures.   Not the best and not all "cleaned", but still seems to all be there and it works (well, when I do). 
« Last Edit: July 09, 2018, 12:05:28 PM by p_toad »

Offline Jim C.

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1065
Re: Hand Planes
« Reply #756 on: July 09, 2018, 12:41:02 PM »
Hey Peter,

Looks like you have a pretty nice earlier version of the Stanley #82 scraper. It’s a great design that really does deliver on performance.  The pivoting head and front knob allow the user to really bear down on a work piece if necessary.  It’s a great tool.  Where did you get?  You mentioned that it works well when you work.  Do you use it often?

Jim C.
« Last Edit: July 09, 2018, 12:52:32 PM by Jim C. »
Our Go-To Type Study Member

Offline coolford

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 865
  • Old as dirt
Re: Hand Planes
« Reply #757 on: July 09, 2018, 04:11:30 PM »
Here is another of the planes I picked up at the auction on Saturday.  Union Factory, Warrented, H. Chapin with an iron by W. Butcher, Sheffield.  It is large and heavy and I'm not sure how to use it.  Wood is very good and the iron is almost mint.  Looked on e-bay and didn't see anything by H. Chapin that looked like it.

Offline Jim C.

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1065
Re: Hand Planes
« Reply #758 on: July 09, 2018, 04:48:14 PM »
Hi coolford,

That’s an interesting plane for sure. Thanks for posting a couple photos!   I think it might be some sort of rabbet plane.  If the bottom most piece can be adjusted with screws on the side of the plane to expose or cover the iron protruding though the bottom of the plane, then I’d say that part is a fence used to dictate the width of the rabbet.  In the second photo the other part that’s facing up looks to be a depth stop, adjusted by the screws seen at the front and back of the plane.  So, the depth of the rabbet joint was adjustable and so was its width.  That’s my guess as to the plane’s function.  I’m pretty sure it’s a “cool” old rabbet plane.  It would be easier to determine for sure if I could see how the parts move.  I’m sort of wondering how that depth stop might work.

Jim C.
« Last Edit: July 09, 2018, 05:05:46 PM by Jim C. »
Our Go-To Type Study Member

Offline coolford

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 865
  • Old as dirt
Re: Hand Planes
« Reply #759 on: July 09, 2018, 06:22:59 PM »
Jim C----Fooled around with that big old wooden plane today but it tired me out, it weights 9 pounds.  It is probably as you said, as the depth can be adjusted up to 1/2 inch and the width up to 3 inches.  The iron is 3 1/2 inches wide so it will cut a three inch wide section. Overall the plane is 14 1/2 inches long, 5 1/4 inches wide and 3 3/4 inches top to bottom.  The adjusting screws are steel but the tracks they move in are brass.  I haven't cleaned it yet, but the wood is in great condition so it will clean up easily.  Could not resist it at the auction, but even so didn't pay much for it.

Offline Jim C.

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1065
Re: Hand Planes
« Reply #760 on: July 09, 2018, 08:31:10 PM »
coolford,

That plane is definitely a monster!  Being that size and weight makes me think it might have been used in the shipbuilding and/or construction trades way back when.  I can’t imagine a craftsman having to haul that thing around from job to job and then cutting rabbets with it all day.  That must have been a real workout!

Jim C.
Our Go-To Type Study Member

Offline coolford

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 865
  • Old as dirt
Re: Hand Planes
« Reply #761 on: July 10, 2018, 02:55:04 PM »
Jim-C-----Same auction, here is a Sandusky Tool Co. plane that I picked up.  It is in fairly good condition.

Back to the 605 1/2, I already had one but it had a broken frog.  This one has a good frog and I had not intended to buy it because I didn't realize I needed the frog at the time.  As luck would have it the 605 1/2 was included with another plane I wanted and I got it anyway.  This one is therefore a parts plane and I will sell the body because it is in good condition.  It didn't come with irons, a clamp or a tote.

Offline Jim C.

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1065
Re: Hand Planes
« Reply #762 on: July 10, 2018, 03:27:29 PM »
Hi coolford,

Nice looking plow plane.  I don’t know when you joined in the thread, but one of the regulars, Lewill2, added some great content and photos associated with several plow planes fron his collection.  I’m hoping he joins in now and can perhaps tell you a little more about your Sandusky.  If you go back and check the Hand Plane Index sticky post at the top of the woodworking forum, you’ll find the Lewill2 plow plane posts.  Anyway, thanks for jumping in!  I’m hoping Lewill2 will stop by too.

Jim C.
« Last Edit: July 10, 2018, 03:30:47 PM by Jim C. »
Our Go-To Type Study Member

Offline Lewill2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1975
  • Bucks County PA
Re: Hand Planes
« Reply #763 on: July 10, 2018, 06:53:46 PM »
Nice looking plow plane, looks like it might have the right hand style handle on it. It also looks like the bottom of the fence might be boxed with boxwood for better wear surface. I still have about 36 plow planes, at one time I had about 120. Too deep into wrenches now, with over 300 mostly odd ball adjustable and of course my Hilary Klein miniature collection.

Offline Jim C.

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1065
Re: Hand Planes
« Reply #764 on: July 10, 2018, 08:11:10 PM »
Welcome to part 2 of the Stanley #289 trilogy.  I hope part 1 didn't wear any of you out or completely bore you.  In my first post regarding the #289, I wanted to provide a little background on how I obtained the plane and the totally self-induced buyer's remorse that came along with it based on my lack of absentee bidding and/or auction knowledge, and my total disregard for accurately evaluating the plane's true condition and monetary value.  Just thinking about it now is still painful and somewhat embarrassing.  On the upside, I did end up with a great tool that over the years has become one of my favorite go to planes.  In this post, my goal is to tell you about the plane itself.

Stanley #289:

As everyone knows, Stanley made many, many different plane patterns.  Some seemed good on paper, but when translated from the drawing board to cast iron, well, they were failures for one reason or another.  Most of Stanley's planes went from what appeared to be good ideas on paper to millions of mass-produced good quality planes out in the world, that functioned as intended, providing utility for decades.  Then there were a few designs that were winners from the start.  The #289 is one of those planes.  Manufactured between 1911 and 1948, it's one of the best planes Stanley ever made.  It's a heavy duty plane that was designed to be used either right or left handed, and with its skewed cutting iron, is capable of taking a clean slicing cut across the grain when scored by spurs that are inset on each side of the main casting just ahead of the iron.  Those spurs are worthy of your attention and I'll address them as we get into the post.  The fence assembly and depth stop can be mounted on either side of the plane adding to its versatility. 

While I think the #289 is well designed and more than delivers on performance, it actually does have one significant drawback that plays right into a topic I've mentioned more than once throughout the thread.  Chasing parts!  The #289 incorporates several parts that are unique to the plane.  Those parts include the pressure cap, the fence assembly, the cutting iron, and the spurs (sort of).  As always, do your homework and know for sure what you're looking at before you shell out good money for a plane that's missing parts or has parts that are not intended to be on the plane.  When I grossly overpaid for my #289, part of what I relied on in deciding to buy the plane in the first place was the description provided by the auction house.  The plane was represented as "complete" and fortunately for my sake, it was.  That may not always be the case.  I was lucky in that regard.  Over the years, I cannot even begin to tell you how many times I've seen a Stanley #289 outfitted with a Stanley #78 fence and #78 rod.  (For more on the Stanley #78, see page 15, reply 220.)  That happens almost as much as I've seen #62 block planes with cracked throats.  The correct fence on the #289 is a beefy casting that mounts on the fence rod through its center.  The mounting hole on the #78 fence is slightly off center.  The #289 fence is also cast with strengthening arcs on either side of the mounting hole, giving it a somewhat elegant look.  The #78 fence does not have those arcs.  The #289 fence rod is longer than the #78 rod and it is greater in diameter too.  The problem is that both the #289 rod and the #78 rod share the exact same threaded section.  Consequently, the #78 fence rod will mount onto the #289 main casting and visa versa.  So, it’s not uncommon to see a #78 fence and rod on a #289 plane.  It’s a cheap way to add a fence to the #289 without having find and pay for the correct assembly.  Funny, but I’ve never seen a #289 fence and rod on a #78 plane. 

Another dead give-away is the #289's pressure cap.  On its top right side a pronounced "S" shaped ridge/protrusion is added to the casting, again for strength, while the standard #78 pressure cap has a much less distinct protrusion and is close to flat on top.  A #78 pressure cap and cutting iron won’t comfortably fit onto a #289 without some creative grinding or alteration.  The front edge of the #289's pressure cap is also angled to parallel the edge of the skewed iron, and is actually pulled back to engage the tensioning keyhole screw in the main casting.  Practically every other Stanley plane that uses a pressure cap or lever cap is fitted with a keyhole that is designed to be pushed forward toward the toe of the main casting and locked into place, thus holding the iron steady.  If the #289 pressure cap keyhole were similarly configured, it would not adequately engage the main casting tensioning screw properly. . . .  And now for those spurs.  If you look closely, just forward of the cutting iron on both sides of the plane, you'll see a one lobed spur that can be extended to protrude slightly past the main casting's sole when cutting across the grain, or retracted into a milled recess when cutting with the grain.  Those spurs, by their design, are specifically made for the left and right side of the plane.  They really can't be interchanged.  Early versions of the #289 incorporated those one lobed spurs.  Later versions of the plane utilized three lobed spurs that were relatively common on several other Stanley plane patterns and are interchangeable on each side of the plane.  While the early one lobed, left and right specific spurs were not unique to only the #289, they were only found on two other Stanley planes that come to mind; the #10 1/4 bench rabbet with the tilting knob and tote, and the infamous #444 dovetail plane.  Although I have not yet featured either plane, I can tell you that those are not planes one wants to pilfer parts from.  In the world of Stanley hand planes, they're both very collectible and very expensive.  (A few years ago I added a #444 to my collection and failed to notice it was missing one of two left side single lobed spurs.  It was my oversight.....again!  Anyway, as I discussed in the "Chasing Parts" post back on page 43, reply 643, I ended up taking the left side spur off my #289 and using it to complete my #444.  After several missed attempts to buy another left side spur to make my #289 whole again, I finally found one.  Needless to say, it was a costly part!)  Don't buy a #289 that's incomplete.  (Try to avoid any plane that’s missing parts.) Trust me, the spare parts add up fast, and that's if one can find them.  Finding parts for a #289 could be tricky.

The #289 depicted below is an early example, probably manufactured between 1911 and 1915.  It's definitely an old timer.  Besides looking at the early one lobed left and right spurs, this example also includes patent information on the left side of its main casting, immediately behind the cutting iron.  The patent information is another telltale indicating that the plane was manufactured early on.  Later versions of the #289 do not include the patent information on the main casting.  This particular plane taught me a lot about cutting rabbet joints by hand.  While I paid dearly for the opportunity, I now look forward to using it as often as possible and getting my money’s worth out of it.  That could take awhile!  It's still a great tool.  Based on my unscientific observations, even user quality versions of this plane are a little on the high side when it comes to cost.  A good user quality #78 will be far less expensive.  If you absolutely must have a #289 to use, I don't think you'll be disappointed in its performance.  If possible, try to find a later version with the three lobed spurs.  Those spurs are easier to replace and they're not left and right specific.  Again, do your homework.  Get one with the correct fence assembly, pressure cap and cutting iron. 

Thanks for hanging in there.  I know it was another log post.  I hope you'll stay tuned for the third and last installment of my Stanley #289 saga.

Jim C.             

« Last Edit: July 10, 2018, 11:35:36 PM by Jim C. »
Our Go-To Type Study Member