Sweetheart #3 vs Type 17 #3

[Robby Tacheny]

I want to get a smoothing plane to round out my handplane collection.

First off, I can get a nice, cleaned up 1910 patent #3 for about $50.

However, after getting a type 17 #6 I realized that the irons and build are way heavier in the type 17 planes (Black rubberized depth adjust). This was also mentioned on the "hyperkitten" website.

I can get a "needs restoration" type 17 #3 for around $30

Does anyone have documentation about type 17 planes or have a strong recommendation against them. It's not paying the money that is bothering me, but more a build quality.

-R

[Rob Luter]

For me, the Sweetheart era stuff holds more appeal. I put the original blade in a drawer and install a Hock first thing.

YMMV

- Rob

[Dave Cav]

I have a number of WWII planes, and they are all good users. No problems with the build quality at all, they just used alternate materials. Most of them have hard rubber adjustment knobs, although I have one with a steel adjuster, and most have stained hardwood knobs and totes. Most of my "user" planes at home are Bedrocks, but my three personal user planes at school (the ones the kids never get to touch) are all WWII vintage, a #4, 5 and 7.

[David Gendron]

Try to get Jim Kopke to answer a few of your questions!
David

[Jim Koepke]

Try to get Jim Kopke to answer a few of your questions!
David

My personal prejudice might intrude on my answer. So first off, my preference does not have to be your preference. The WW II built planes are listed as having a heavier casting. Sometimes they may not have the frog adjustment setup of the type 10 and later planes.

I have a #3 type 13 (SW) and it is one of the nicest planes in my shop. Many people feel the SweetHeart era was when Stanley was at the peak of their plane making. The do tend to fetch a premium.

I like the rose wood tote and knob of the pre-war models. During the war, a lot of the knobs and totes were made of other hardwoods and stained to look like rose wood. It would also depend on how much restoration the plane needed and how much you like to do restorations.

A #3 is a small smoother. For many things it is good for many other things a #4 or #4-1/2 might be more to your liking. Of course, you could just get one of each and be ready for anything.

jim

--Anyone who isn't confused really doesn't understand the situation.
– Edward R. Murrow

[Robby Tacheny]

I do plan to get 1 of each eventually.

I may wait and see if I can stumble upon any more deals too, but I would like a smoothing plane. The #3 definitely does feel pretty small in my hands!

I'll have to think on it some more. Any more opinions? Thanks for those so far.

-R

[Jim Koepke]

The #3 definitely does feel pretty small in my hands!

I'll have to think on it some more. Any more opinions? Thanks for those so far.

-R

If you have an opportunity to try them out, then you can find the size that best fits your hand.

#4s are as common as dirt and a good one shouldn't be too expensive. The #4-1/2 is a bit scarce and tend to cost more.

jim

[Sam Takeuchi]

If you are flexible about manufacturer, you can look into Record as well. They don't pop up as often as Stanley, but vintage Record (pre-mid 50s) are certainly no junk and I prefer them over Stanley (I like underdogs). They seem to have thicker blade than Stanley, and if you want to put a after market replacement blade, I think there's a good chance that a thick one will drop right in without filing the mouth. And they seem to be heavier cast than Stanley equivalent. I don't know if all are that, of course. I have a late 40s No.4, and it's a really stout plane. Even my Stanley #7 seems filmsy next to it. If you come across a good piece of vintage Record, I don't think you'll regret it. The only reason I got Stanley #7 was because I couldn't find a vintage Record #7.

I'm also looking for a #3 to do smaller work. I haven't come across a vintage Record #3 yet unfortunately.

[scott spencer]

If you are flexible about manufacturer, you can look into Record as well. They don't pop up as often as Stanley, but vintage Record (pre-mid 50s) are certainly no junk and I prefer them over Stanley (I like underdogs). They seem to have thicker blade than Stanley, and if you want to put a after market replacement blade, I think there's a good chance that a thick one will drop right in without filing the mouth. And they seem to be heavier cast than Stanley equivalent. I don't know if all are that, of course. I have a late 40s No.4, and it's a really stout plane. Even my Stanley #7 seems filmsy next to it. If you come across a good piece of vintage Record, I don't think you'll regret it. The only reason I got Stanley #7 was because I couldn't find a vintage Record #7.

I'm also looking for a #3 to do smaller work. I haven't come across a vintage Record #3 yet unfortunately.

Either that you mentioned should be easy to get into good serviceable condition. Like any wood cutting device, setup and blade are the determining factors to a large degree. I have several Record planes and my view is similar to Sam's...all that I've seen except for the very recent models should very capable. I'd also suggest adding Millers Falls to your list....the MF equivalent to a Stanley #3 is a #8.

Here are my #3s:

[Dominic Greco]

A #3 is a small smoother. For many things it is good for many other things a #4 or #4-1/2 might be more to your liking. Of course, you could just get one of each and be ready for anything.

And so it begins,.......

Like this poor guy needed another push down the slope! You're greasing his skis and spraying the powder down with water so it freezes! (LOL!)

And as far as having one of each,..that's how I started out. Now I embarrased to say I have (2) of each! (don't look at me like that! You all know I'm not the only one who does this!! LOL!!!) I set one for a thicker shaving, and one for ultra thin.

I found that a No3 is a tad small for me (honesty time, I only have one No3! But it's a SW like yours). But it comes in REAL handly when I need to smooth out the sides of small drawers or boxes. Learning to hold the plane with my index finger "riding shotgun" along the side really made the difference in learning to control this and my No4.

My favorite general purpose medium sized smoother is my Type 16 No.4. For real finesse work I pull out the No.604 with a Hock blade installed. For the big stuff I use a Type 11 No.4 1/2 or a LN No.4 1/2

[Ron Petley]

The flagship of the fleet:
http://www.sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?t=102785

Cheers Ron.

[Robby Tacheny]

I'll have to go back this weekend. I only got in close to closing time and didn't have a lot of time to inspect. They do have some other brands of planes too, although the only other I recognized was sargent. Overall though I think there must be 15 #3's.

Maybe I'll report back with some brands this weekend, and sneek a couple phone pics and you guys could help me narrow it down. A

Again thanks for all of the advice, and I think am partway down the "slippery slope", since I now have 2 #5's, a 6, 7, 8, and a newer block plane. So don't worry about suggesting I get 1 of each! I already plan to!

-R

[Sam Takeuchi]

Sargent is good, so is Keen Kutter (especially the single K model like K4 etc, not KK4, single K model is a bedrock design line. They seem to go cheap on the 'Bay).

In a way I'm glad there is absolutely no shop selling non-Japanese style planes around here. Otherwise I'd be blowing money left and right. I have a strict rule of not buying planes that overlap their functions and uses. It's hard, though, especially when I see nice shiny 606 going for pretty cheap! But I have BU Jack (5 1/2 size) and #7, sometimes I find myself trying to convince myself I don't need #7, but I need #6 (actually what I need is a 20" plane, not 18" #6 or 22" #7...#29 transitional). So far I've been sticking to my strict diet of single plane of different sizes. So yes. I'm glad I don't have planes being sold near me. There is one plane on the way in the mail, a sweetheart era #60 (not 1/2). Then I'm done with plane purchase for any foreseeable future unless I drop them and break them

[Jim Koepke]

Sargent is good, so is Keen Kutter (especially the single K model like K4 etc, not KK4, single K model is a bedrock design line. They seem to go cheap on the 'Bay).

Sam is right, these are all good. You may want to avoid some of the lesser known names such as Defiance by Stanley or Fulton.

One thing to consider is the availability of replacement parts and tools needed to repair. A Stanley plane with a missing knob and tote is bad enough having to hunt down the hardware and then the wood could cost more than buying another plane. I have bought a few junk planes just for the parts.

Many people feel the early Sargent planes were better than the Stanley Bailey planes. This may be true. I do know they are a bit less common and parts are even less often seen for sale.

jim

[Robby Tacheny]

Excellent! Thanks for the advice on some other brands. The place I am going to is funny. They have non stanley-bailey and bedrock planes stashed on the bottom of displays and generally out of sight.

My next target of interest is their 3 boxes of antique chisels. More on that later.

-R