Quote from: Jim C. on June 15, 2018, 04:08:47 PMSee it right there in the middle of the picture?  Is that a super clean 710 Autoset?  Look at that!!

Jim C.

What, no picture of it in the trunk of your car, or cradled in your arms, or something like that?  I hope it jumped into your car.

Have no fear Bill, I wasn't leaving without that plane.  It rode home covered by a thick old athletic sock in my "kit" bag (remember that post?) which was on the front passenger seat of my car.  I still can't believe I was lucky enough to find it first.  I hadn't even made it through the entire room or saw everything that was available when I made the deal.  I usually like to see everything and then start making a list of planes that I liked as I walk around.  I rank them in order from most desired to least and then I go back to where I saw them, starting with the one I liked the most.  Well, I had this feeling that if I walked away, and there was just one other Autoset collector in the room, I might miss out.  It wouldn't have been the first time I walked away to think things over and then came back to find that the plane was gone!  Not this time.  I know that somewhere back in the thread I mentioned that Autosets were some of my all time favorites.  Anyway, I kept my cool, went through a complete and detailed assessment of the plane using my magnifying glass, flashlight and notes on Autoset planes.  After really checking it out, to include having the seller disassemble it, I satisfied myself that it was an untouched, relatively early example of a Sargent #710 Autoset.  The parts were all vintage correct, the numbers were right, and the condition was amazing.  We negotiated a price and that was that.....then I reassembled it since it was now my plane.  Im still giddy about it!  I'll definitely feature the plane in detail at some point in the future.

Jim C.         

Quote from: Jim C. on June 15, 2018, 10:23:21 PMI usually like to see everything and then start making a list of planes that I liked as I walk around.  I rank them in order from most desired to least and then I go back to where I saw them, starting with the one I liked the most.  Well, I had this feeling that if I walked away, and there was just one other Autoset collector in the room, I might miss out.  It wouldn't have been the first time I walked away to think things over and then came back to find that the plane was gone!

Over on Old Woodworking Machines (acronym: OWWM), the group has, over the years, developed a list of rules related to the gathering and use of the machines.  This rule is relevant here: "OWWM Rule No. 5: In the time between finding a machine and asking others [or yourself, in this case] if you should buy it someone else will come to the proper conclusion."

Glad you were the first person with one on the life list to have spotted it.

Hello, Jim. nice find!!!! Regards, Lou

Quote from: Bill Houghton on June 16, 2018, 08:52:45 AM

Quote from: Jim C. on June 15, 2018, 10:23:21 PMI usually like to see everything and then start making a list of planes that I liked as I walk around.  I rank them in order from most desired to least and then I go back to where I saw them, starting with the one I liked the most.  Well, I had this feeling that if I walked away, and there was just one other Autoset collector in the room, I might miss out.  It wouldn't have been the first time I walked away to think things over and then came back to find that the plane was gone!

Over on Old Woodworking Machines (acronym: OWWM), the group has, over the years, developed a list of rules related to the gathering and use of the machines.  This rule is relevant here: "OWWM Rule No. 5: In the time between finding a machine and asking others [or yourself, in this case] if you should buy it someone else will come to the proper conclusion."

Glad you were the first person with one on the life list to have spotted it.

Hey Bill,

I visit the OWWM website frequently.  I don't post too much, but I do enjoy reading some of the threads.  I'm a die-hard Delta fan.  That's another one of my interests and a topic for a different thread.  I'm familiar with the "rules" over there.  Some of them are pretty humorous.  Over the years, I've missed out a few nice planes because I wanted to think it over.  I'm not exactly sure why I didn't pull the trigger, but there must have been a reason.  I'm guessing that the planes were right between nice user quality and collector quality.  Those are tough calls.  Most of the planes I've overpaid for typically fall into that category.  On the other hand, when the plane was unquestionably right, and clearly a top condition, collector quality tool, I had no trouble going all in.  That Sargent #710 yesterday was an easy decision. 

Jim C.

Quote from: lptools on June 16, 2018, 12:18:19 PM
Hello, Jim. nice find!!!! Regards, Lou

Thanks Lou.  Considering the fact that the plane is about one hundred years old, I'm very happy to have added it to my collection.  While the #710 is probably the most common of the Sargent Autoset series, what makes this one special is its condition.  I saw a lot of nice stuff and tons of great user quality planes.  I did come home with a couple users too. For the most part, I go with a budget. When it's gone, or mostly gone, I'm done.  It's really easy to get carried away if you're not careful.

Jim C.

Several years ago I bought a poster depicting the H.O. Studley tool chest.  If you engage in even the most basic woodworking projects, you're likely very familiar with this tool chest and its contents.  The wall mounted tool chest is an absolute work of ingenious, functional art that's filled with more than three hundred tools, several of which are old Stanleys to include a #9 block plane and a #1 bench plane to name a few.  Anyway, like I said, I've had the poster hanging in my shop for several years now.  I think I bought it and hung it in my shop for inspiration.  While I am inspired by it, I doubt I'll ever make anything as beautiful or as brilliant as that tool chest.  It's really a classic.  Mr. Studley, its creator, worked as a craftsman at the Poole Piano Company into his eighties.  He died in 1925.  Maybe you're wondering where I'm going with this.  I'll get to the point.  Well, this past weekend I was out in the shop working on a drawer for the vanity in my master bathroom, when I stopped to look at that poster hanging on the wall.  I wasn't looking for inspiration considering the fact that I was just making a simple drawer.   Still, for some reason, I studied the poster and out of the blue, asked myself, "I wonder if there's a Stanley #97 somewhere in that tool chest?"  After all, one of the most iconic tool chests of all time belonged to a piano maker.  In its inventory of tools, was there a #97 chisel plane?

Stanley #97:

This might be another example of Stanley trying to fill a niche in the woodworking world, this time specifically aimed at piano makers.  Part of Stanley's description and adverting associated with this plane mentioned that it would be useful to piano makers and cabinetmakers.  Hhmm, piano makers....... Although I've had that poster for a while now, I never even remotely wondered if Mr. Studley used a #97 or if he just used chisels in its place.  The Stanley #97 was in production from 1905 to 1943, so it would have been available in Mr. Studley's time.  Prior to writing this post, I did a little research and could not conclusively determine if a Stanley #97 chisel plane was included in the tool chest or not.  If someone reading this knows for sure, please let the rest of us know.

As one can see, a chisel plane is an extremely specialized tool.  It's really most perfect for cleaning up internal corners (like glue squeeze out) in cabinets (and pianos I guess).  The same job could probably be accomplished with a sharp chisel, however, the sole of the plane might keep the iron from digging it, which could happen with a chisel held at a high angle.  It's an interesting plane for sure, but not necessarily one that I'd put near the top of my "must have" list to use.  At ten inches long, it's hardly compact enough for internal cabinet work.  I often wondered why Stanley didn't make a smaller version.  You may recall that a while back, I featured a Lie-Nielsen chisel plane, the #97 ½ (see page 11, reply 164) that was modeled after the Stanley #97.  At six and a half inches long, the L-N #97 ½ made more sense I think.  L-N also made a full size (ten inch long) #97, but ceased production at some point, perhaps because the larger version just didn't sell.   As far as I know, L-N's smaller version is still in production and sells for about $140.  That's a lot of money for a specialty tool, but in this particular instance, if one really wants a chisel plane to use, then it's the way to go.  Original Stanley's, in undamaged condition (which I'll discuss), typically sell for several hundred dollars.

If one were to remove the pressure cap and iron, he/she would see that the leading edge of the plane's sole tapers down to essentially nothing.  Can you imagine how easily it would chip?  A small chip or two probably would not effect the plane's function, but to a collector......forget it.  I've seen more that a few that have been chipped.  The front corners are also something to watch out for.  Those can also be damaged, chipped etc.  I've read more than once that Stanley very slightly relieved the front corners to avoid that problem.  I've seen planes with relieved corners, and some with ninety-degree corners.  Might both have been Stanley factory induced, or a later "cleanup job" by a less than honest vintage tool enthusiast/collector/dealer?  The point is simple; look closely at the front edge and corners if you're considering a #97 for your collection.

Believe it or not, as basic as this plane seems, it did undergo a few changes during its production run.  I think a Type study concluded there were seven Types that were manufactured between 1905 and 1943.  As one can see, its iron advancement/retraction screw mechanism was very similar to many of Stanley's common block planes.  One of the more significant improvements was added to the main body casting around 1907.  Look closely at the sidewall cut outs/arcs.  See that quarter spherical bump on either side of the iron adjustment screw?  I suspect those "bumps" were added to the casting for purposes of providing strength to the casting itself.  By opening the sidewalls up so easy access to the iron adjustment screw could be achieved, perhaps a weak spot was created across the casting beneath the screw mechanism.  I guess it's possible that if a craftsperson really got behind the plane and pushed the leading edge into a corner of a workpiece, the plane might crack at its weakest point......probably right under those arcs.  The bumps must have added some bulk to the casting and solved the problem to some extent.

The plane depicted below is a Type 6 that was most likely manufactured between 1931 and 1935.  Notice that it has a tall rear knob, much like one might see on the front of a typical bench plane.  That's a correct knob for that time period of #97 production.  Pre and very early Type 6 planes came with lower, more-squat looking rear knobs.  Also, the barrel nut holding the knob to the threaded post was nickel plated later in production.  Earlier barrel nuts were polished brass.

As always, if you're looking to add an original Stanley #97 to your collection, look it over carefully and do your homework.  Really scrutinize the front edge of the main casting!!  And if you really want to use a chisel plane, buy the Lie-Nielsen version or possibly use the back half of a 90 series rabbet plane (see page 2, reply 25).

Jim C.

A few more photos of the Stanley #97.

Info about the H.O. Studley tool chest and a list of the tools...

http://ggober.com/shop/documents/FW_Studley_Smithsonian.pdf

Great link p.!!!!  So did Mr. Studley have a #97?

I didn't see one on the list (it kinda jumps around how things are listed).

Just realized I have a Stanley No. 82 hiding out in the garage and i may have to try to clean it up a bit and get a few pictures to share.

Hi p.,

I did do some research prior to submitting the post regarding Mr. Studley and the #97. I couldn't find anything saying that he had and/or used a #97.  We may never know if we can't find a comprehensive list of all the tools in the chest. The list must exist, but I couldn't find it.  We do know that Stanley thought there were enough piano makers out there who would benefit from owning a #97. They carried it in their product line for thirty eight years.   Who knows?  Maybe we'll get the answer at some point in the future.

As for your #82, well, let's see it!

Jim C.

That PDF link supposedly has a list of all the tools that were in the chest.

Hi p.,

I checked the link you posted again and at the end of the article, there is an inventory of tools, but the write up says it's a "partial list."  I don't think a #97 is included.

Jim C. 

After adding the Stanley #97 chisel plane post, I got to thinking about some reference materials I saved regarding #97 prototypes that were under consideration at Stanley.  Sometimes it's easy to forget, or not even think about what goes into product development.  I typically get caught up in the final design of a plane without giving too much thought to how the plane became the tool that was mass-produced and offered to the public.  Why was one design chosen over another?  Why did one feature make the cut while another did not?  More than once I've asked myself, "What were they thinking when they came up with this?"

The photos below are actual #97 prototypes.  Notice the high angle on the 1870 – 1875 version, and the traditional looking bench plane rear tote.  It appears that Stanley considered using a bench plane lever cap as well.  Decades later, the plane's angle decreased dramatically, however, the bench plane tote and level cap were still being tinkered with even in 1907, two years after the plane was in production.  In the end, Stanley stayed with the knob over the tote, and the block plane-like pressure cap in favor of the bench plane lever cap.  While I can't say for sure why the knob was used rather than the tote, perhaps the block plane pressure cap worked better with the block plane iron adjustment screw/mechanism, which was the design used on the mass produced versions of the #97.  Since the plane is most suited to cleaning up internal cabinet and piano corners, maybe the tall bench plane tote didn't make sense in confined areas so the shorter knob was used instead. 

Makes me wonder what sort of prototypes were considered during the R&D stages of planes (contraptions) like the #171 router or the #444 dovetail plane.

Jim C.