Old planes a good find?

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • cwsmith
    Veteran Member
    • Dec 2005
    • 2737
    • NY Southern Tier, USA.
    • BT3100-1

    Old planes a good find?

    My wife was talking to our son the other day and he was telling her about a store over on the east side of town which sells all kinds of groceries at a discount. Sort of like a dollar store I suppose, but more like a surplus sales place. It was a bit different as we took our first visit there yesterday afternoon. I found they also have a whole section of odds and ends, stuff seemingly from garage sales, etc.

    There among a whole wall of used power and hand tools I spotted a couple of hand planes. A good handplane is something that I have wanted for some time, but I don't like buying off the internet and the local big box stores seem to have only junk.

    So to my surprise I found a two Stanley planes: A Bailey #3 and a #78, which I believe is a rabbet plane. The Bailey seems complete and sole is quite flat and square with the sides, with only some fore to aft scratches. Surface dirt and rust is prevalent, but not substantial or pitting, at least that is how it appears at this point.

    The #78 I had to look up on Google, and at this point appears to be missing what I think is called a "depth rod", but what I have appears to be no more than just dirty with some light rust.

    I'll take some pictures and post them and would be interest in everyone's opinion and suggestions as I'd love to get these cleaned up and into use. BTW, each was only $6, so I'm confident my purchase wasn't a foolish one. It would be highly interesting to me to know the approximate age of these, but that is only from a perspective of interest and not one of monetary value.

    CWS
    Think it Through Before You Do!
  • pelligrini
    Veteran Member
    • Apr 2007
    • 4217
    • Fort Worth, TX
    • Craftsman 21829

    #2
    Sounds like a great deal. You might not like the internet, but ebay is a great place to get the parts for your No 78. That's were I got my 78 and a few other parts for it.

    My first stanley was a No 3. I really do still like it for smoothing. The biggest thing to getting your planes performing correctly is to know how to sharpen.

    Check out some of the type studies to get an idea of the age on the No 3



    Patrick Leach's Blood and Gore has quite a bit of info:
    Last edited by pelligrini; 08-29-2013, 05:57 PM.
    Erik

    Comment

    • cwsmith
      Veteran Member
      • Dec 2005
      • 2737
      • NY Southern Tier, USA.
      • BT3100-1

      #3
      Thanks for the reply.

      Yes, I do know how to sharpen... or at least I'm good with chisels and my old Craftsman block plane came out nice.

      I haven't posted any pictures yet, and hopefully will get to that tomorrow. I did get a couple of hours today to take the Bailey #3 apart and get all the crud cleaned from it.

      After doing some reading on the Internet, I'm fairly sure it is of WWII era vintage, for the following reasons:

      It has the high knob, with the cast in base ring. The adjustment knob is 1" dia. steel with the cast iron 'wishbone", and there is no adjustment screw mechanism for the Frog. The Frog itself has the ogee-shaped tail, slotted mounting, and the lateral support is stamped "Stanley".

      Only mystery that I haven't been able to pin down is that there are supposedly four progressive design versions of the sole casting, and from what I can see, this particular one is the pre-war version with straight arched top rib running back from the mouth. The base is cast with "Bailey No 3" around the front knob and "Made in U.S.A." just in front of the Tote. There are no patent dates or "Stanley" markings.

      The casting is relatively thin, and the surface grind on the bottom and sides is fine, but certainly not mirror finished. (You can see and feel the grind, especially on the sides.) Likewise the lever cap is not plated, and the finish is more like I'm used to seeing on some other machined parts of that era. Cast into the underside is "Pat. NO.1918756" and the top is cast with the traditional "cornered" rectangle "STANLEY" logo.

      The blade iron itself is marked with the same logo etched at the top beveled area with "Made in USA" at the same width... also on the opposite side, further down on the plain iron is the number "341" stamped.

      The whole thing is in pretty good condition I think with only some slight surface rust, though the plane iron and the cap iron both are slightly stained, but no pits. The two wooden parts have no cracks but the base of the rear tote is not flat, so there's a bit of "rocking" which needs to be addressed. Not sure of the wood species though; slightly maple-like in color, but no discernable figure in the grain on the tote. It had a very dark, grape-like coloring which mostly came off when I cleaned the grime from it.

      At this point it looks like it might clean up will... I'll post some pictures I took yesterday and of the parts as they look now after I cleaned the grime off.

      The "78" I haven't addressed yet.

      CWS
      Last edited by cwsmith; 08-30-2013, 01:26 PM. Reason: Typos... changes in italics
      Think it Through Before You Do!

      Comment

      • phrog
        Veteran Member
        • Jul 2005
        • 1796
        • Chattanooga, TN, USA.

        #4
        cwsmith, firstly, that was a good find at a good price.

        I have an old #4 and a #78. Both are very useful; the #4 is useful for smoothing while the #78 is great for cutting rabbets. (The #3 and #4 are similar.) There are several good sites for restoring old planes. You might want to look at these:


        Great for plane restorations


        This one has a lot of hyperlinks to other sites about planes and restoring them.


        Another on rust removal and restoration.

        The sites that Erik referenced are great sites also.

        A great book on sharpening is Leonard Lee's The Complete Guide to Sharpening.

        Also, you need to flatten the sole and adjust the mouth opening to get the plane to work corrctly. (Mouth adjustment is very important.) Another great book on planes, adjusting them, and using them is The Woodworker's Guide to Handplanes by Scott Wynn. It covers both metal and wooden planes.

        Good luck.
        Last edited by phrog; 08-30-2013, 12:24 PM.
        Richard

        Comment

        • cwsmith
          Veteran Member
          • Dec 2005
          • 2737
          • NY Southern Tier, USA.
          • BT3100-1

          #5
          Richard and Eric,

          Thanks for the links that you have provided, they are simply great.

          Reading a few of them through, I'm pretty much assured that this is a WWII-era "type 17". but with a few differences.

          For example, the pictures I see show a screw holding down the front of the tote, in addition to the long steel screw through the tote. On this particular plane that I have, there is no mounting screw in the front, but just a cast pin-like bump that the tote sits over.

          The frog itself seems to be like the pre-war version, as does the sole casting, but there is no tapped or cast hole for the frog adjustment screw, which the site mentions is often left off from the Type 17.

          The other question in my mind is the overall size, which seems to be more of what I can find for a #4 bench plane. This particular sole is 9-1/4 inches long and 2-1/8 inches wide.

          I'll try to get those pictures posted tonight.

          Thanks to both of you for the great help and referrals,

          CWS
          Think it Through Before You Do!

          Comment

          • phrog
            Veteran Member
            • Jul 2005
            • 1796
            • Chattanooga, TN, USA.

            #6
            Originally posted by cwsmith
            Richard and Eric,
            For example, the pictures I see show a screw holding down the front of the tote, in addition to the long steel screw through the tote. On this particular plane that I have, there is no mounting screw in the front, but just a cast pin-like bump that the tote sits over.
            If I remember correctly. the screw holding the front of the tote is found on the #5 - #8. My #4 does not have one.

            Originally posted by cwsmith
            The frog itself seems to be like the pre-war version, as does the sole casting, but there is no tapped or cast hole for the frog adjustment screw, which the site mentions is often left off from the Type 17.
            On the #4 the tapped hole for the frog adjustment screw came into being with the April 1910 patent date. Those prior to this date do not have the adjustment screw.

            Originally posted by cwsmith
            The other question in my mind is the overall size, which seems to be more of what I can find for a #4 bench plane. This particular sole is 9-1/4 inches long and 2-1/8 inches wide.
            If you read the introduction of Patrick Leach's site that Erik referenced (Blood and Gore) he states that there is great variation in the sizes from one year to another or producton run to production run. (I don't remember exactly but that size variations are common.) Only in cases of a huge variation should you get excited that you have a Stradivarius.

            I forgot to mention in the previous post that the #78 should have two "accessories"; 1. the depth stop which mounts on the "label" side of the plane with a thumbscrew and 2. A rod with a long piece that mount on the rod which serves as an adjustable fence (making this a moving fillester plane). There should also be a small "spur" on the label side in a small cutout near the sole. Most of these pieces are available on eBay for a decent price if you are missing any.
            Last edited by phrog; 08-30-2013, 10:31 PM.
            Richard

            Comment

            • Pappy
              The Full Monte
              • Dec 2002
              • 10453
              • San Marcos, TX, USA.
              • BT3000 (x2)

              #7
              Stanley plane dating flowchart. This will give you the type and range of production dates on Stanley bench planes except for a #1 or #2. The #1, from everything I have read, never had any changes made to it. The modifications to the #2 didn't follow the changes on the # 3-#8.

              Don, aka Pappy,

              Wise men talk because they have something to say,
              Fools because they have to say something.
              Plato

              Comment

              • cwsmith
                Veteran Member
                • Dec 2005
                • 2737
                • NY Southern Tier, USA.
                • BT3100-1

                #8
                Thanks to everyone for all the great links, comments, and advice. Still reading, but am quite sure this is the WWII-era Type 17 (third and following pictures). The single-piece, long screws for tote and knob are steel as is the one-inch diameter adjustment knob; and the lever cap is not plated, and not too finely polished either. There is NO hole, tapped or otherwise for the frog adjusting screw, so figure that was just a matter of war manufacturing shortcomings.

                In any case, here are some pictures (finally). Sorry, but I couldn't figure out how to post as thumbnails, but at least I cropped and reduced the images to 800 pixels wide. I have these on Photobucket and I guess I don't do enough of this to figure it out properly. Even as they are, I've got to edit the link that Photobucket gives me in order to post anything. Strange, but then like I said, "I don't do enough"... so maybe I'm doing it wrong.

                I also couldn't seem to get these in the order that I would have liked. But surely everyone is probably more familiar with these two planes than I am.
                There are two each of the #78 and the Bailey #3 as I purchased them. One picture of the #3 disassembled and roughly cleaned up with 0000 steel wool to get just the loose surface grime off of them. And then two pictures of the #3 reassembled in that slightly cleaned condition.

                Thanks again for everything, CWS

















                Last edited by cwsmith; 08-31-2013, 06:50 PM.
                Think it Through Before You Do!

                Comment

                • phrog
                  Veteran Member
                  • Jul 2005
                  • 1796
                  • Chattanooga, TN, USA.

                  #9
                  Call me crazy (and you won't be the first) but your #3 shows signs of more than one type unless I'm missing something or forgotten something. The frog adjustment screw (which yours does NOT have) was added in 1907. That would make me think the plane was made PRIOR TO 1907. However, the lever cap has the kidney shaped hole rather than a keyhole shaped hole. The kidney shaped hole was the later shape and was added in the early '30's. That would make me think that the plane was made AFTER 1930-35. You may have a hybrid. Someone may have replaced the lever cap, perhaps. My head hurts. I don't even want to look at the #78.


                  PS: The #3 appears to be in really nice shape.
                  Richard

                  Comment

                  • pelligrini
                    Veteran Member
                    • Apr 2007
                    • 4217
                    • Fort Worth, TX
                    • Craftsman 21829

                    #10
                    Nice job on the No 3. It cleaned up well.

                    I don't think it is pre-1907, just because the absence of the frog adjusting screw. I believe the frog mounting area was different then. The steel adjusting wheel, tall knob, and other things make me want to think war era. I can't quite make out the logo on the iron. It could be a piecemeal hybrid. All that really matters in the end is how well it works.

                    Your 78 appears to be missing the fence and the depth stop. It's a later model than mine as yours has the adjusting lever. Looks like your knicker is turned without an edge cutting.
                    Erik

                    Comment

                    • phrog
                      Veteran Member
                      • Jul 2005
                      • 1796
                      • Chattanooga, TN, USA.

                      #11
                      Originally posted by pelligrini
                      Nice job on the No 3. It cleaned up well.

                      I don't think it is pre-1907, just because the absence of the frog adjusting screw. I believe the frog mounting area was different then.
                      That's what gave me a headache. If you read Patrick Leach's frog description, this is what I think he describes as the third type (definitely Not 1 or 2). He says it was first used in 1902 and it used an adjustment screw to move the frog forward or backward. Then he goes on to say the screw was first used in 1907. Perhaps there was a period of 5 years when the screw was missing on this third type but he doesn't say one way or the other. Perhaps they just removed the screw for certain periods. ???

                      Originally posted by pelligrini
                      The steel adjusting wheel, tall knob, and other things make me want to think war era. I can't quite make out the logo on the iron.
                      I missed the part about the steel wheel. I kept trying to make out whether or not it was brass. Thanks for pointing that out.

                      Originally posted by pelligrini
                      It could be a piecemeal hybrid. All that really matters in the end is how well it works.
                      That's what I believe in both cases. And if it works for you for what you paid for it, you Done Good. It definitely looks like a great user.

                      PS: the knicker Erik is referring to on the #78 is in the little recess near the sole on the "label" side just in front of the blade opening. It should be turned when in use so that one of the "points" scores the wood before the blade cuts the wood.
                      Last edited by phrog; 08-31-2013, 10:36 PM.
                      Richard

                      Comment

                      • pelligrini
                        Veteran Member
                        • Apr 2007
                        • 4217
                        • Fort Worth, TX
                        • Craftsman 21829

                        #12
                        Check out the Type 17 (1942-45) description on Rexmill's page:
                        http://home.comcast.net/~rexmill/pla...ing/typing.htm He even mentions the inconsistencies of the frog adjusting screw. The machining cwsmith shows on the top of the frog is a lot later than the pre-1907.

                        Most of my Stanleys don't have a frog adjusting screw. Most are Type 11's and before. Nothing really old and collectible though.
                        Erik

                        Comment

                        • cwsmith
                          Veteran Member
                          • Dec 2005
                          • 2737
                          • NY Southern Tier, USA.
                          • BT3100-1

                          #13
                          Thanks again to everyone,

                          I've pretty much read through the provided links, so I'm pretty sure that this is the Type 17, WWII era plane. That makes it about as old as I am, I guess.

                          My understanding is that there have been four frog mounting designs of the base, and if that is so then this is the third design. The frog itself seems to also fall into that after-30's design too; and the "Stanley" logo marking on the blade iron, lever cap, and lateral adjustment lever are all indicating this period.

                          A couple of articles pointed that "tapping the hole" for the frog adjustment screw "was only doing half the job" without also adding the the adjustment itself on WWII-era planes, but then I also read that there were many inconsistencies during that time period. Also bear in mind the steel hardware, instead of brass, as brass was used for other things during the war. One thing that caught my eye though was one of the articles pointing out that WWII-era casting were heavier or thicker than others. Yet this particular #3 seems to be on the thin side and more like my Sears 107-37031 block plane from what I believe is the late 40's or early 50's.

                          The sole casting only bears "Made in U.S.A." and "Bailey No. 3" raised on the casting.

                          One thing that I forgot to mention and I don't know if it is important or not, as I haven't seen it mentioned anywhere (could have missed it though): On the #3 sole casting, underneath the tote handle is a "U", and on the frog, in that area which supports the lower end of the blade there is also a "U". These appear to be 'stamped' into the casting. On the #78, I found a similar mark " 1 U " upside down in between the ribs on that curved nose piece. Whether any of these were stamped or cast-in, it appears to be done at the factory before the paint was applied.

                          Whatever the case, I'm not really a "collector" and am perhaps more interested in using these. Surprisingly, the blade on both of these are remarkably sharp and to a some degree usable as is; though I'm certainly going to put a better edge on them. The sole is also remarkably flat.

                          Question though: While I understand these are neither rare or even a great find for "a collector", I certainly do not want to ruin them in any way. Does one repaint the the black 'jappaning' or leave it alone (it is only slightly deteriorated) and should one also refinish the tote and knob, brighten up the iron, removing the surface grind marks, etc.?

                          Thanks,

                          CWS
                          Last edited by cwsmith; 09-01-2013, 10:35 AM.
                          Think it Through Before You Do!

                          Comment

                          • phrog
                            Veteran Member
                            • Jul 2005
                            • 1796
                            • Chattanooga, TN, USA.

                            #14
                            Originally posted by pelligrini
                            Check out the Type 17 (1942-45) description on Rexmill's page:
                            http://home.comcast.net/~rexmill/pla...ing/typing.htm He even mentions the inconsistencies of the frog adjusting screw. The machining cwsmith shows on the top of the frog is a lot later than the pre-1907.

                            Most of my Stanleys don't have a frog adjusting screw. Most are Type 11's and before. Nothing really old and collectible though.
                            Erik, I think you are absolutely correct. That's what I get for relying too much on one source (Patrick Leach). He goes into detail explaining and showing the four different types of frog receivers but, as far as I could see (my vision is poor and I may have overlooked this info on his site), does not mention a suspension of the frog-adjusting screw during the war. I've learned something here and thank you for pointing that out. (I have used your referenced site before but not as much as the Patrick Leach site.) I thought that all non-adjusting screw bench planes were prior to 1907. Both my bench planes carry a 1910 patent date and have the screw (and I'm sure each is worth at least a million dollars). Again, thanks.
                            Richard

                            Comment

                            • phrog
                              Veteran Member
                              • Jul 2005
                              • 1796
                              • Chattanooga, TN, USA.

                              #15
                              Originally posted by cwsmith
                              Thanks again to everyone,
                              Whatever the case, I'm not really a "collector" and am perhaps more interested in using these. Surprisingly, the blade on both of these are remarkably sharp and to a some degree usable as is; though I'm certainly going to put a better edge on them. The sole is also remarkably flat.

                              Question though: While I understand these are neither rare or even a great find for "a collector", I certainly do not want to ruin them in any way. Does one repaint the the black 'jappaning' or leave it alone (it is only slightly deteriorated) and should one also refinish the tote and knob, brighten up the iron, removing the surface grind marks, etc.?

                              Thanks,

                              CWS
                              My understanding is that re-japnning a plane can be a real PITA. Somewhere I have a link on this. If I can find it I will post it.

                              As far as the iron is concerned, most of the experts say that the face should be mirror polished anywhere from 1/32 inch above the cutting edge to all the way to the slot. It depends on which "expert" you read. I polish mine about 1/2" above the cutting edge. The bevel itself should also be polished of course.

                              Also, for use, the sole should be flattened in at least three points - the very front, the very back, and the area just in front of the cutting edge. These flattened areas should be in the same plane.This should be done with the blade, chip-breaker, and lever cap in place but retracted so that the blade does not protrude.

                              If the tote and knob feel good in your hands, I would leave them alone. After all, you're the one who will be using it.

                              Other things to consider for use: the bed should be flattened to prevent chattering. Some say the whole bed while others say only the bottom 1' or so. The chip breaker should be fitted to the blade and adjusted properly for the size chip you are creating. The frog should be adjusted to obtain the proper mouth opening.

                              When everything is sharp and adjusted properly, they are a joy to use. Good luck.

                              PS I apologize for the confusion I caused with the dating. Erik and you are absolutely correct. I explained that in my previous post.
                              Last edited by phrog; 09-01-2013, 01:30 PM.
                              Richard

                              Comment

                              Working...