You've heard me say more than once that I'm attracted to odd ball planes, and those that exhibit a high level creativity and/or "contraptionism." While I like them from a collector's perspective, it's still my opinion that those tools frequently provide more promise than actual results. What I've found is that in an effort to deliver a plane that accomplishes multiple functions, something suffers. Typically it's the finished work product, user friendliness, ergonomics, or some combination of the three. Well, I have another example to show you today. Way back in the thread on page 22, reply 318 (I'm so glad I kept up with that thread index), we discussed the Stanley #79 side rabbet plane. If you go back and review that post, you'll recall that a side rabbet plane was designed to be a precision tool that will take a fine shaving from the sides/shoulders of rabbets, grooves and dados. Set for a light pass, side rabbet planes will fine tune a joint just a whisper at a time making little adjustments that provide a perfect fitting union between two workpieces. It's a tool that a fine furniture and/or cabinet maker might use. Recognizing the utility of such a plane, other manufacturers besides Stanley made what they thought were "better mousetrap" versions.
Sargent #81:
This is a unique little plane. If you've been following the thread, just looking at it, you can see why I'm attracted to this plane. Its very design incorporates a certain level of creative imagination. With its crisscrossing irons, the plane was designed to cut in both directions. Unlike the Stanley #79 however, which was also designed to cut in both directions, but dragged its non-cutting iron across the workpiece thus distorting its cutting accuracy, the Sargent #81 takes the non-cutting iron out of the rabbet/groove/dado and places it on top of the plane...... right where the user's hand would grasp the plane while pushing it through a cut. By flipping the plane one hundred and eighty degrees, the non-cutting iron would now engage the workpiece allowing the user to push the plane in the opposite direction along the same shoulder of the rabbet/groove/dado.......and again placing a sharp iron immediately beneath the user's hand. Cutting in both directions with the same plane seems like a convenience, but if you recall, with the Stanley #79, better accuracy would be achieved by retracting the non-cutting iron beyond the main body of the plane. To cut in the opposite direction, the iron would then have to be readjusted past the body of the plane to re-engage the workpiece. That's not really convenient in my opinion. Well, Sargent came up with a "better" idea. By putting one iron above the other, thus taking the non-cutting iron out of the rabbet/groove/dado, it (the non-cutting iron) did not need to be retracted. Convenient? I guess so. Safe? Maybe not so much. While the Sargent #81 gets high marks for convenience (and contraptionism), ergonomics and user friendliness are questionable. What I've found is that a side rabbet that cuts in one direction, like the Stanley #98 and #99 (both of which we'll get to), might be the best option in terms of convenience, ergonomics/safety and results delivered. Sometimes less is more.
Sargent produced the #81 between 1913 and 1943. The plane depicted below is an earlier version, likely manufactured prior to about 1924. What you may have noticed is that the nose piece is removable, allowing the user to get all the way into the corner of a joint......further exposing the non-cutting iron on the top of the plane. Yikes!! Who thought that was a good idea? The nose piece has a little bullnose protrusion on either side. Those little extensions are fragile and frequently cracked off. Like so many specialty planes, its parts are unique to the plane itself. The nosepiece (and its accompanying screw) and the little iron clamp casting are tough to find if they're missing. Those parts can be expensive. If its missing parts, think twice before buying a #81 for your collection. Finally, if you do acquire a #81, and can't resist giving it a try, please be extra careful!
Jim C.
