Author Topic: Hand Planes  (Read 113349 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Jim C.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 650
Re: Hand Planes
« Reply #765 on: July 10, 2018, 06:11:37 PM »
Here's a few extra photos that compare Stanley #289 parts (left) to Stanley #78 parts (right), as well as one lobed spurs to three lobed spurs.  Again, if you're considering buying a #289, make absolutely sure you're more than familiar with its correct fence assembly and the easily substituted, incorrect #78 fence assembly.  It could be a costly mistake if you get it wrong.  Stay tuned for #289 part 3. . . . Redemption.

Jim C.
« Last Edit: July 10, 2018, 07:20:23 PM by Jim C. »

Offline Jim C.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 650
Re: Hand Planes
« Reply #766 on: July 10, 2018, 06:33:02 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.

Thanks for jumping in Les!  When it comes to old wooden plow planes, I'm happy to defer to your knowledge and expertise.

Jim C.

Offline coolford

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 269
  • Old as dirt
Re: Hand Planes
« Reply #767 on: July 10, 2018, 06:42:43 PM »
Went back and reviewed the information on wooden plow planes, great information.  This one was my first wood one and I don't really intend to buy more, but then again who knows what will happen at the next farm/estate auction.  I once said "I will never collect planes" and now when I cataloged this plane it was No. 296 in the collection and I haven't finished with the 16 I bought at last Saturdays auction.   And, I'm really a wrench collector!!!!!  Also, I bought many more wrenches at the auction than planes.

Offline Jim C.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 650
Re: Hand Planes
« Reply #768 on: July 11, 2018, 05:38:10 AM »
Hey coolford,

You seem to have unexpectedly amassed an impressive collection of hand planes while being a “wrench collector.”  I’m not exactly sure how it happens, but one collection just seems to evolve into another collection.  I’ve been a serious plane user/collector for a while now.  I still collect planes, but only a few years back, I got hooked on Sears/Craftsman =V= era tools.  I’ve been trying to collect various tool box sets that are depicted in the 1960 Craftsman hand tool catalog.  Somewhere in all of this, I started looking for Williams obstruction wrenches too.  Those are harder to find than I thought they’d be.  I guess the search is part of the fun.

Jim C.
« Last Edit: July 11, 2018, 06:37:33 PM by Jim C. »

Offline coolford

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 269
  • Old as dirt
Re: Hand Planes
« Reply #769 on: July 11, 2018, 02:05:31 PM »
Jim C-----Ah me, should I tell you that I collect socket sets and that I have over 500.  I also have a lot of =v= Craftsman stuff that I pick up in box lots so I may have something you need??  I bought my first Craftsman socket set in 1950 when I was rebuilding the engine in a 1936 Dodge.  Unfortunately all my tools were stolen about 30 years ago and that included my 1950 socket set. However, I acquired the same period socket set at an auction a couple of years ago.  My collecting of tools actually started about 25 years ago when I retired from my job of 34 years. I have had an affinity for tools all my life and still use them frequently on my cars, gators and tractors.----Coolford

If you wonder where coolford came from, for years I restored 1959 Ford retractables, (the steel top convertibles) I had 11 at one time, but sold them all.

Offline Jim C.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 650
Re: Hand Planes
« Reply #770 on: July 11, 2018, 06:59:27 PM »
coolford,

Sounds like you’re a tool collector to the core.  I’ll send you a PM so we can talk a little more about Craftsman =V= tools.  I am looking for a couple things.  Thanks.

Jim C.

Offline Yadda

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 971
Re: Hand Planes
« Reply #771 on: July 11, 2018, 08:04:27 PM »
Welcome to part 2 of the Stanley #289 trilogy....  I hope you'll stay tuned for the third and last installment of my Stanley #289 saga.

Jim C.           

Fascinating and informative.  Thanks for sharing!
You might say I have a tool collecting problem....

Offline Jim C.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 650
Re: Hand Planes
« Reply #772 on: July 11, 2018, 08:27:21 PM »
Hey Yadda,

Thanks for following the thread.  Stay tuned for one more post regarding the Stanley #289. 

Jim C.

Offline Jim C.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 650
Re: Hand Planes
« Reply #773 on: July 22, 2018, 09:09:27 AM »
Welcome to part three of the Stanley #289 rabbet plane saga.  Normally I wouldn't write so much about one plane, but if you've been reading along, then you know that my "experience" with this plane has been a somewhat uphill trek into the world of auctions, bidding, overpaying, and learning to do my homework.  The #289 also got me started on using a rabbet plane and thinking beyond the "power tools only" mentality to cut classic woodworking joints.  In short, there's been a lot of learning, some of which was costly, as I described in the two prior #289 posts.   Still, like so many aspects of living, things usually have a way of balancing themselves out in the end........

"Staley carpenters devise"

Pretty much every single day, I conduct at least one or two eBay searches specifically looking at various old tools to include ratchets, wrenches, and hand planes.  I like to keep up with items that I'm interested in, rarities, asking prices and selling prices in comparison to a tool's condition, etc.  I'm basically doing my homework, unlike when I bought that #289 I described in previous posts.  So maybe you're wondering where this is going? The answer lies in the quotes above.  About eight years ago I was online looking for a tool I thought was called a “carpenter's” square.  I later learned I was actually looking for a “speed” square.  In my initial Google search, I typed in, “carpenter’s square.”   As I was scanning though the Google search results, I came across a link to an eBay listing entitled, "Staley carpenters devise."  (It should be noted that earlier in the day, when I made my routine visit to eBay searching for "Stanley Planes," I did not come across anything that said "Staley carpenters devise.") Anyway, I blew right past the link while I was looking for a used/vintage “carpenter’s” square.  If possible, I like to buy vintage used tools.  I like the fact that they were made in the U.S.A. and I like giving an old tool another chance.  Anyway, the search results yielded new squares and a lot of plastic, made over seas stuff.  So, I decided to go back to eBay and look for a vintage “carpenter’s” square.  Once again, still not knowing I was looking for a “speed” square, I typed in “vintage carpenter’s square.”  As expected, my eBay search produced several hits, one of which was "Staley carpenters devise," which I had seen but pretty much ignored on my first Google search.  The only difference was that my eBay search included a somewhat out of focus photo of the “Staley carpenters devise.”  I clicked on it.  When the item came into full view on my computer screen, I think I said something like, “Holy S##T!!!  That’s a Stanley (not Staley) #289!!!”  A gem mint #289, still in the box, with an original advertising brochure and original packaging materials……. And most amazing was that it had no bids.  My only guess is that the seller had misclassified the plane so badly, never mentioning it was a plane but rather a “carpenters devise” and misspelled the word Stanley as “Staley,” that it didn’t show up in a typical “Stanley Plane” search.  I think I came across it only because the word “carpenter’s” was in the title of the auction and in my search.  Lucky for me that I didn’t know I was looking for a speed square and not a “carpenter’s” square.  Had I searched for “vintage speed square” and not “vintage carpenter’s square,” I may have never found the “Staley carpenters devise.”

I couldn’t believe this NOS still in the box #289 had no bids.  As I recall, the auction had been going for a couple days and still had three more days to go.  No one appeared to even be watching it.  I didn’t dare add it to my “watch list” either because I didn’t want to draw attention to it.  Even though it wasn’t on my official eBay watch list, I looked at that listing twenty times per day waiting to see some bidding activity.  Nothing.  At the end of the second day, and checking every hour, still nothing!  On the last day of the auction, I was sure the bidding would start.  I drove myself nuts checking that auction and then trying to decide what to bid.  The plane and box, etc., were easily worth what I had overpaid for the “user” quality #289 I had purchased years earlier.  The starting bid was less than twenty five dollars and a few more for shipping.  So, I decided to put in a realistic bid with a few seconds left in the auction and hope for the best.  I watched that auction all day, and still no other bidders.  In the last hour of the auction, I logged into the listing and watched the count down.  I typed in my bid amount and just waited to hit the “bid” button.  With about five seconds left, I sent in my bid.  The auction ended, and my computer screen refreshed…….”You won this item.”  Needless to say, I was happy, but then immediately wondered what the damages were.  I looked.  I looked again.  There was only one bid.  Mine.  For a fraction of what I paid several years earlier for my other #289, I got the plane you see depicted below.  Like I said at the top of this post, things have a way of equaling themselves out. 

While my “user” #289 was produced early on, probably somewhere between 1911 to 1915, the plane shown below came a little later in the production cycle. I’d estimate during the early to mid 1930s.  The only real functional difference between the two versions of the plane is the single lobe spur (early version), versus the three lobed spur (later version).   Also note the later version no longer has patent information on its main casting, but rather “MADE IN U.S.A.”

What you see in the photos is exactly how I received the plane, to include the location of the advertising brochure on top of the plane itself.  After inspecting this plane, it’s absolutely clear to me that is was never used or even put together.  The iron still has the original factory grind on it.  Since owning the plane, I’ve only assembled it twice.  The photos below depict the second, and probably last time.  I rarely take it out of the box, because I don’t want to split a corner.  It’s a somewhat rare tool in a condition that makes it one of a kind.  As a collector, I believe it’s my job to preserve it.

Jim C.             
« Last Edit: July 22, 2018, 01:27:10 PM by Jim C. »

Offline Jim C.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 650
Re: Hand Planes
« Reply #774 on: July 22, 2018, 09:09:55 AM »
Just a few more photos of the #289 along side of the earlier version (on the right) discussed above in prior posts.  Take note of the spurs.

Jim C.
« Last Edit: July 22, 2018, 09:22:14 AM by Jim C. »

Offline Papaw

  • Owner/Administrator
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9928
  • Alvin, Texas
    • Papawswrench
Re: Hand Planes
« Reply #775 on: July 22, 2018, 10:17:57 AM »
Funny. I used to search for wrenches and often would misspell the name to see what might show up.
Member of PHARTS - Perfect Handle Admiration, Restoration and Torturing Society
 
 Photobucket - http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v439/papao55/

Offline Jim C.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 650
Re: Hand Planes
« Reply #776 on: July 22, 2018, 01:01:00 PM »
It was a once in a lifetime occurrence Papaw.  I think the key word in all of this was “carpenters,” and at the time I was misusing the word too.  I was looking for one of those little triangular speed squares, but I kept typing carpenter’s square in the search box.  I knew what I was looking for, but never referred to it as a speed square.  I’m not sure if the seller’s misspelling of the words “Staley” (Stanley) and “devise” (device) factored into my dumb luck or not.  Regardless, it’s one of the more interesting back stories associated with any of the planes in my collection.  Over the years I’ve had a few good finds, but in terms of a tool’s condition, completeness, and price, well, nothing comes close.  I really hope everyone enjoyed the Stanley #289 trilogy, and I hope you’ll stay tuned for more hand planes.  As always, if anyone would like to jump in and feature a plane from their colllection, I’d love to to see it.

Jim C.
« Last Edit: July 22, 2018, 05:32:18 PM by Jim C. »

Offline p_toad

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 527
Re: Hand Planes
« Reply #777 on: July 22, 2018, 05:47:03 PM »
I think in some forums the appropriate response is "you suck".    :embarrassed:  :shocked:

That's a REALLY nice find and I'm glad you decided to share that with us.   There have been a few times over the years I have found things by accident on ebay, but i'm not on there very often any more...not sure SWMBO would appreciate me getting more stuff (I don't have room for).   :tongue:

Thanks again!  :smiley:

Online Northwoods

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1282
Re: Hand Planes
« Reply #778 on: July 22, 2018, 06:17:45 PM »
The ORIGINAL Northwoods.

Offline Jim C.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 650
Re: Hand Planes
« Reply #779 on: July 22, 2018, 06:44:36 PM »
I think in some forums the appropriate response is "you suck".    :embarrassed:  :shocked:

That's a REALLY nice find and I'm glad you decided to share that with us.   There have been a few times over the years I have found things by accident on ebay, but i'm not on there very often any more...not sure SWMBO would appreciate me getting more stuff (I don't have room for).   :tongue:

Thanks again!  :smiley:

Hi Peter,

Thanks for keeping up with the thread.  I am familiar with being conferred a “you suck” by another member of the web site, so I take that as a compliment.  On the other hand, if you consider what I foolishly paid for the first #289, you’d say I sucked for totally opposite reasons.  I really did suck in a bad way.  Like I said, things have a way of equaling out in the end. 

Jim C.
« Last Edit: July 22, 2018, 06:50:41 PM by Jim C. »