Author Topic: Hand Planes  (Read 152419 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline mikeswrenches

  • Contributor
  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1833
Re: Hand Planes
« Reply #1065 on: September 23, 2019, 07:45:09 AM »
Hey Lou,

You’re right about that.  Those 1/4 - 28 x 1/2” slotted head screws were a little harder to find than I initially thought they would be.   I’ll admit that I wasn’t happy to find out that after buying two #193 planes, I was still missing a few Stanley factory original parts, even if the parts were just simple screws.  I think the original Stanley machine screws were flat on top of their heads (like bench plane frog screws) versus rounded like the replacements I found.  Like I said, I learned a lot on this one.

Jim C.

Jim, Out of curiosity, did you try the bench plane screws to see if they would fit? Stanley would surely have used something in their "parts bin" if they could, especially on a low volume plane like this.

Mike

Offline Jim C.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 870
Re: Hand Planes
« Reply #1066 on: September 23, 2019, 10:47:30 AM »
Hey Lou,

You’re right about that.  Those 1/4 - 28 x 1/2” slotted head screws were a little harder to find than I initially thought they would be.   I’ll admit that I wasn’t happy to find out that after buying two #193 planes, I was still missing a few Stanley factory original parts, even if the parts were just simple screws.  I think the original Stanley machine screws were flat on top of their heads (like bench plane frog screws) versus rounded like the replacements I found.  Like I said, I learned a lot on this one.

Jim C.

Jim, Out of curiosity, did you try the bench plane screws to see if they would fit? Stanley would surely have used something in their "parts bin" if they could, especially on a low volume plane like this.

Mike

Hi Mike,

Thanks for stopping by the thread.  To answer your question, yes, I did try the typical Stanley bench plane frog screws.  When I saw the screws attached to the side of the #193 in the photo from Jim Bode Tools website, I could see that the heads were very similar to the typical bench plane frog screws.  I was thinking what you were thinking.  Stanley would probably use a common screw that they had on hand for use in other models.  In this case, the bench plane frog screw is one of the most common screws there is!  Once I figured out the threads per inch (tpi) on the #193 attachment arms that thread into the sides of the main casting and determined they were 28 tpi, I was pretty sure that the thread count was too fine for frog screws.  I thought the tpi on the frog screws were more coarse. Well, they were, actually 20 tpi to be exact.  Too bad for me because you know how much I detest "Chasing Parts!"  Frog screws are easy to come by.  Those for the #193 not so much. What I noticed is that the frog screw diameter is also 1/16" smaller than the screws used to join the circle cutting attachment to the sides of the #193.  Check out the photo below.  The appropriate screw for the #193 is on the left and the typical Stanley bench plane frog screw is on the right.  See the difference between the two?  For the record, the screw needed for the the circle cutting attachment on the #193 is, 1/4 -28 tpi x 1/2" and the standard Stanley frog screw is, 3/16 - 20 tpi x 3/8". 

Jim C.       
« Last Edit: September 23, 2019, 10:59:37 AM by Jim C. »
Our Go-To Type Study Member

Offline coolford

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 545
  • Old as dirt
Re: Hand Planes
« Reply #1067 on: November 03, 2019, 02:34:37 PM »
Went to an auction yesterday, no box lots, but what I call table piles.  Everything in the picture was laid out on a table and then pulled together in a pile.  Bidding stopped at $15.00 and I was high bidder.  Obviously no one knew what the plane in the middle was except maybe me, Stanley No. 93 Made in the USA.  Also a nice Stanley No. 80 spoke shave in the back.

Offline Bill Houghton

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2308
Re: Hand Planes
« Reply #1068 on: November 04, 2019, 07:23:29 AM »
Well, you scored, Coolford!  The 93 is not a common size, either.

The No. 80 is a cabinet scraper, by the way, not a spokeshave: used for scraping flat surfaces without wearing out your fingers as fast as holding a card scraper.

The smoothing plane - well, if the rest of it is of the quality of the lever cap, it'll make a nice donation to your local ReStore.  But you still made out quite well.
« Last Edit: November 04, 2019, 07:46:49 PM by Bill Houghton »

Offline lptools

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1991
Re: Hand Planes
« Reply #1069 on: November 04, 2019, 01:10:18 PM »
Hello, coolford. Nice group of tools, and a great buy!!!
Member of PHARTS-  Perfect Handle Admiration, Restoration and Torturing Society

Offline Jim C.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 870
Re: Hand Planes
« Reply #1070 on: November 04, 2019, 07:24:14 PM »
Hey coolford,

For fifteen dollars, the #80 cabinet scraper alone would have been a nice score.  That’s a super useful tool.  Getting a #93 in the deal was a HOME RUN!  For anyone engaging in fine woodworking, well, it’s a must have tool.  Yours appears to be in top condition, so you literally stole it.  Well done!

Jim C.
Our Go-To Type Study Member

Offline Jim C.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 870
Re: Hand Planes
« Reply #1071 on: November 15, 2019, 08:17:44 PM »
Hello hand plane enthusiasts!  I hope everyone enjoyed a great end of the summer and the one or two days of autumn weather we had.  Was it just me, or did we skip fall altogether?  Here in the Midwest it went from summer to winter over night.  Winter weather makes me want to go out into the shop and get a project going.  Of course that gets me thinking about using old woodworking machines, tools and hand planes.  Last night I started roughing out some lumber for a bed.  That means starting with a scrub plane.  You’ve heard me say that my shop isn’t very big, so most of my planes are puzzled together on shelves or in boxes not necessarily according to their pattern, or frequency of use, but purely in manner that most efficiently utilizes the space I have to store them.  So many times, a user quality block plane (or scrub plane in this instance) can find itself sitting right next to a top notch, collector quality plane.  There’s no rhyme or reason to it.  My organization is based on available space.  I just need to be careful when I’m reaching for one plane, not to accidently pull another one off the shelf with it.  Anyway, that brings me to the plane (actually scraper) I’d like to feature today.  I picked it for the thread because it just so happens to sit right next to my favorite scrub plane. 

Stanley #85:

If you’re not familiar with this tool, just giving it a quick glance might make you think that it’s a bench rabbet plane.  It’s very similar in size to a #10 ½ bench rabbet plane and obviously has rabbet sidewalls for getting right into the corners of a work piece.  Well, there’s a lot more going on with this plane that might not be obvious without really studying its features.  First off, it’s really a scraper, designed to make fine lace-like shavings one would expect from any other properly tuned scraper.  What makes this one unique is the fact that its knob and tote can be adjusted to tilt either to the right or left while the tool is being used to make a pass in a ninety degree corner thus saving the craftsperson’s knuckles/fingers from getting in the way and/or getting chewed up by the vertical portion of the work piece itself.  I’m not sure why, but I’m fascinated by the mechanism Stanley used to securely attach the knob and tote to the main body casting, allowing them to tilt in either direction with the simple adjustment of a screw.

The main casting was made to include what I’ll call a “tunnel” that was located beneath the front knob and the rear tote.  Those tunnels run parallel to the length of the main casting.  On the top of both tunnels, a perpendicular slot/arc was added.  That slot accommodates a screw that runs through the respective knob or tote into a cylindrical metal dowel-like anchor that fits into the tunnel.  The dowel-like anchor has a threaded hole in it that accepts the threaded screw that holds the knob or tote to the main casting.  Loosening the screw head at the top of the knob or tote allows the user to adjust them into any side-to-side position desired.  Tightening the same screw heads then hold the knob and tote in place by pulling the dowel-like anchors into the top of their respective tunnels.  Also notice the knurling on the anchors.  I’m guessing that adds a little extra bite once the anchor and tunnel come into contact while being tightened together.  I feel like a lot of thinking went into that whole design!  Pretty cool.  But things didn’t end there.  Since the knob and tote each sit on those tunnels in the main casting, their bottoms can’t be flat like they are on most other planes.  As a result, the bottoms of the knob and tote had to be contoured to match the arc of the tunnels themselves.  Once again, I’m impressed by the thought that went into this design.
   
The frog mechanism is functional but includes an adjustment that could prove to be a design flaw.  I’ll address that issue below.  What I do like about the frog is its ability to provide solid support to the cutting iron as the scraper is being pushed into the cut.  The iron is inserted into the scraper through the sole of the main casting, up into the frog, where it is sandwiched between two pivoting sections.  A knurled screw located at the top rear section of the frog, when tightened, pushes the top of the iron into the top front section of the frog.  By pushing the top of the iron forward, the bottom of the iron is canted back towards the heel of the main casting slightly opening the throat thus allowing wood shavings to escape without clogging the throat.  It’s a good design that works.  That being said here’s where things can go wrong.  If you take a look at how the frog attaches to the main casting, you’ll see two common frog screws running through the oval shaped slots in the base of the frog down into the main casting.  That’s nothing new.  Now take another look just behind those two frog screws.  See that little slotted set screw centered between the frog screws?  If the user loosened the frog screws and advanced that set screw, he/she could slightly change the iron’s pitch, perhaps achieving a more aggressive, or less aggressive cut.  The problem with advancing that set screw is that it no longer allows the base of the frog to sit flat on the base of the main casting.  Essentially it creates air space between the two flat surfaces.  Now if the user over tightens those two frogs screws, well, the base of the frog is going to crack somewhere between the frog screws and the set screw!  That would be an extremely frustrating and expensive mistake to make.

When looking at a #85 for your collection, or to use, be very cautious and inspect all of its components carefully, preferably with a magnifying glass under good lighting.  Check the arches on the rabbet sidewalls, the tunnels on the main casting, and the frog for cracks, and make sure the knob and tote are correct, original and undamaged.  I’ve seen more than one #85 with homemade knobs and totes, and more than a few with cracked frogs.  Most of the parts on this particular scraper are unique to it.  I’d be reluctant to buy one, even in user condition, that was incomplete and/or damaged in any way.  Parts for the #85 are scarce and costly if you can even find them.   

Stanley produced the #85 between 1905 and 1934.  The example depicted below is a Type 4, manufactured between 1921 and 1934.  From a collector’s point of view, it includes some desirable extras, those being the visible remnants of the “Stanley” decal on the rear tote and a Stanley logo stamped on the iron.  The tote decals are typically worn off and most irons I’ve seen are unmarked.  I got lucky with this one!  Now that doesn’t mean I didn’t pay for a nice scraper with a few extras.  I bought it from another hardcore collector several years ago.  He certainly knew what he had and priced it accordingly.  Like I’ve said so many times before, if you’re considering adding a #85 to your collection, make sure to do your homework and know what you’re looking at.  Even a user quality example can be pricey. 

Jim C.             
« Last Edit: November 18, 2019, 07:49:52 AM by Jim C. »
Our Go-To Type Study Member

Offline Jim C.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 870
Re: Hand Planes
« Reply #1072 on: November 15, 2019, 08:18:18 PM »
Additional photos of the Stanley #85 scraper.  Thanks for stopping by the thread!

Jim C.
« Last Edit: November 15, 2019, 08:20:28 PM by Jim C. »
Our Go-To Type Study Member

Offline lptools

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1991
Re: Hand Planes
« Reply #1073 on: November 16, 2019, 06:47:00 AM »
Hello, Jim. That is a beauty!!! I have never seen one dis-assembled, thanks for sharing!! Regards, Lou
Member of PHARTS-  Perfect Handle Admiration, Restoration and Torturing Society

Offline Jim C.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 870
Re: Hand Planes
« Reply #1074 on: November 16, 2019, 07:18:42 AM »
Hi Lou.  Thanks for stopping by the thread!  The #85 is definitely a nice scraper.  It’s one of my favorites.  I’ve been looking for a user quality example for awhile now, but even those that are in complete original condition can still run a few hundred dollars.  I either see them in collector quality condition or examples that are really rough.  Finding one somewhere in the middle seems to be difficult, and like I said, even those are pricey.  I’ll keep looking.

As for seeing the plane in its disassembled form, well, I think that makes it easier for the readers to see what I’m talking about as I’m rambling through the narrative.  Taking it apart also gives me an excuse to re-lubricate it.  Who knows when I’ll pick that plane up again?  Anyway, I haven’t put the #85 away yet, so if there’s some aspect/detail of the plane you’d like to see up close, just let me know and I’ll post a few more photos.

Jim C.
« Last Edit: November 16, 2019, 02:05:06 PM by Jim C. »
Our Go-To Type Study Member

Offline coolford

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 545
  • Old as dirt
Re: Hand Planes
« Reply #1075 on: November 16, 2019, 01:44:43 PM »
Hey Jim---a great post will need to look it up again when a find a No.85.  Hope springs eternal, If I can buy a No. 1, 2, 602, 93 etc. at a farm auction I may find a No.85.

Offline Jim C.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 870
Re: Hand Planes
« Reply #1076 on: November 16, 2019, 02:34:27 PM »
Hi coolford,

Thanks for checking out the Stanley #85 post.  I hope you do find a nice #85 for your collection.  If anyone is going to find one, and get a smoking hot deal on it to boot, my money is on you!  You’ve had some amazing luck finding some great tools for little or no money.  While luck is certainly a part of the equation, I fully believe that you also have an educated eye for old tools.  You seem to have a real knack for spotting stuff that others miss.  Happy hunting!

Jim C.
« Last Edit: November 16, 2019, 02:39:10 PM by Jim C. »
Our Go-To Type Study Member

Offline p_toad

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 714
Re: Hand Planes
« Reply #1077 on: November 16, 2019, 04:31:00 PM »
Jim,

Thanks.   That's a sweet looking "plane"/scraper and i would never have known to look in all those places for damage.   i have a block plane i'll have to photograph some time so you can see what some prior owner did to it (it ain't pretty).

I figure by the time i get planes 1 to 100, i'll be close to 100 myself...lol...ain't gonna happen.    :tongue:

Offline Jim C.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 870
Re: Hand Planes
« Reply #1078 on: November 17, 2019, 08:13:35 AM »
Hey Peter,

Who says you have to collect #1 through #100?  Go after those models that you like/need/want.  If you come across something special and the parts are all there, the condition is good, and the price is right, then go for it!  I’ve seen plane collections that focus exclusively on early Bedrocks or just scrapers, etc.  Although my collection is mostly focused on old Stanley planes, also remember that I typically go after Sargent Autoset bench planes too.  I have a few other Sargent models, but I don’t actively seek them out even though I do like the Autosets.  There’s no wrong way to collect.   :smiley:

Jim C.
« Last Edit: November 17, 2019, 08:16:17 AM by Jim C. »
Our Go-To Type Study Member

Offline Bill Houghton

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2308
Re: Hand Planes
« Reply #1079 on: November 17, 2019, 11:22:57 AM »
And, it's not even required to collect them; I see myself as more of a gatherer with a plan to use the planes - although I find my gathering outstrips my using, I'm still oriented toward functional planes.

But it all works.