Ebay Win Part 2 - VBM 424: The Good, The Bad, & The Pudding

[Chris Griggs]

Well my Sargent VBM 424 that I posted about last week arrived at the office yesterday so here's my report:

The Good:

The good is that it seems to be an early model Sargent with all original parts. Additionally, the plane arrived nicely clean and oiled. From what little I know about Sargents my guess that it was made around 1910, but I don't know a lot Sargents, so I've included some pics below that will hopefully help someone else (e.g. Joshua Clark) tell us more about it.
IMG_0413.jpgIMG_0414.jpgIMG_0426.jpg

The Bad:

Though the plane was clean and complete there were a couple aspects that concerned me when I checked it over. Using my precision wooden straight edge (aka. one of my winding sticks ), it was clear that the sole was noticeably convex, the worst offending area being the at the tip of the toe. Even more concerning, however, was the fact that in an effort to make an extra buck some numbn*ts repainted the bed and while they were at it painted right over the frogs mating surface.
IMG_0433.jpg


Honestly, I wasn't sure if this would affect the performance or not, but despite the paint on the machined mating surface, the frog still seemed to rest solidly on it's bed so I moved on to prepping the blade.

Like many old planes the blade came in really rough shape, additionally it was a bit short with a bit less 1 1/4" of life left in it. Of course, this can be taken one of two ways - yes a short blade doesn't have a lot of life left, but it also means that the plane was used a lot throughout it's life, which to me is an encouraging sign.

The back of the blade was fairly pitted, but fortunately a fellow Creeker recently gave me a Shapton Pro 120, to take care of such situations. About 20 minutes of work on the 120 and almost all of the pitting was gone (before & after below).

IMG_0442.jpgIMG_0443.jpg

After grinding out the pitting on the 120, I spent about 20 minutes regrinding the edge on my 6" grinder and then proceeded to work may way up through the grits on my Sigma's. After honing/polishing the back and bevel I dressed the leading edge of the chipbreaker which thankfully was already in very nice shape, and only took a minute. So after about 45-60 minutes of work on the blade I put the plane back together, crossed my fingers, and put metal to wood.


The Pudding: (pic heavy, see next post)

[Chris Griggs]

The Pudding:

Well despite the slightly banana'd sole and a few other concerns, the plane worked quite well with no other tuning than what I did to the blade. Somewhat surprisingly, I was able to get nearly smoother plane thickness shavings, although the plane worked most consistently taking slightly thicker (news paper thickness) cuts, which is just fine since it's a jointer plane and I'll mostly take med to med-fine shavings with it anyway. So here's the pudding in.... qs sycamore, soft tiger maple, cherry, and walnut.

QS Sycamore:

IMG_0446.jpgIMG_0447.jpg

Soft Tiger Maple:

IMG_0451.jpgIMG_0452.jpg

Cherry:

IMG_0456.jpgIMG_0457.jpg

Walnut (please forgive the stupid, obligatory see-through shaving picture):

IMG00323-20111018-0850.jpgIMG00326-20111018-0901.jpg



The Verdict:

I probably won't do any more work on this thing for the time being. At some point I may lap the sole a bit, possibly remove the paint from underneath the frog, and may invest in a new blade. But as it is, it gets wood flat and straight and leaves a nice surface, so why mess with what works. For $80 (shipped) I think I did alright. As Joshua Clark said in my previous thread I posted when I won the auction, I didn't get a steal, but I certainly didn't over pay either - I think I paid a fair price, for a tool that does what I need it to do. What more can one ask?

[David Weaver]

I wouldn't bother with the paint, my opinion. It's probably pretty uniform and you'd be able to tell if it affected performance. I can't see how it would. Maybe if the frog is on for a while and you get some of it to peel off, you can do the rest if it causes problems then.

I also wouldn't bother with the lapping - a convex sole is something you can use.

8s are a bear to lap, and it's easier to mark them with reference fluid that is on a very flat surface and then use a small block with very coarse paper to remove metal. You can't get enough pressure on a given area to get the sandpaper to bite well lapping the whole thing. I lapped an 8 for 5 hours eons ago (over several days), and did a second one a year later with much more metal removal (using a 2x3 inch hardwood block and coarse sandpaper) in about an hour and a half. Less sandpaper overall, better results, much less sweat. But that plane was way off and the first one had huge problems at the mouth.

If yours takes continous shavings on a flat board, then I'd call it good.

[Chris Griggs]

Good advice as always David. Yeah, I probably won't do anything else to it. I was concerned about the paint because I was thinking it might have globs that would impact how well the frog mated to the plane, but it seems to have been applied lightly and didn't hurt anything.

Regarding the sole, in addition to the being a bit convex across the length I forgot to mention that it is noticeably concave across the width. I'm guessing this is because the plane was used a great deal on edges and that the sole slowly wore in the center over time. Doesn't seem to matter though - and as far as I know (correct me if I'm wrong) some concavity across the width shouldn't create problems.

If I do any lapping (which I probably won't) I will probably use something smaller as you suggested, and just do enough to lessen the convexity & concavity. Once again, the little I've used the plane seems to indicate that I shouldn't bother with any lapping, but I will need to use it a bit more to get a final diagnosis. If it takes consistent shavings, does a good job getting a face flat, and gets an edge straight and square to the face, (which I think it does/will) then I agree, there is no reason to mess with it. Thanks for the input David - your advice is always appreciated!

[Jim Koepke]

Chris,

Looks like you have a great working plane. Is the blade on that 2-5/8"?

I haven't found too much on putting a date on Sargent planes. David Heckel has published a book on Sargent planes and often has one or more listed on ebay.

I did find one site that has some dating information:

http://www.horizontalheavens.com/418...Comparison.htm

I was surprised to not only find this page, but to learn Sargent went in the opposite direction on blade bedding than Stanley. Stanley went from a full bed to partial bed and Sargent had a partial bed and moved to full bed.

jtk

[Chris Griggs]

Chris,

Looks like you have a great working plane. Is the blade on that 2-5/8"?

I haven't found too much on putting a date on Sargent planes. David Heckel has published a book on Sargent planes and often has one or more listed on ebay.

I did find one site that has some dating information:

http://www.horizontalheavens.com/418vs418VBM Comparison.htm

I was surprised to not only find this page, but to learn Sargent went in the opposite direction on blade bedding than Stanley. Stanley went from a full bed to partial bed and Sargent had a partial bed and moved to full bed.

jtk

Thanks for the input Jim. Actually, I didn't double check the blade width with a ruler, but its bigger than my 2 3/8 no. 6 blade and the seller listed it as being 2 5/8 - guess I'll check when I get home tonight.

I actually ran across that page this morning, which is where I got my guess of a date around 1910, but looking back at the page now I can't help but wonder if it's older. On my previous thread Josh Clark said the inscription/image on the blade is what would provide the best info about the date. Hopefully, he will chime in and tell us something. Either way, I'll probably send him the pics, to and see what he says - just out of curiosity.

[Jim Koepke]

On my previous thread Josh Clark said the inscription/image on the blade is what would provide the best info about the date.

That is good if the blade hasn't been replaced or swapped with another plane.

There also seems to be some dating characteristics in the depth adjuster's knurling.

jtk

[Chris Griggs]

That is good if the blade hasn't been replaced or swapped with another plane.

There also seems to be some dating characteristics in the depth adjuster's knurling.

jtk

I suspect it's the original, but certainly couldn't say for sure. I didn't know that about the knurling - I also just saw looking back at that page that the position of the tote seems to have some dating characteristics. I believe mine is farther forward, so now I'm wondering if the plane is pre 1900 - (of course there is the possibility that it is a Frankenplane). Another thing about the tote on mine is that it is noticeably smaller than my other planes. When I grip it, the tote bottom and the top horn hug my hand fairly tightly - it's not uncomfortable, but it definitely feels quite different than any of my other planes.

[David Weaver]

Probably no issue with lateral concavity - several of my planes have had a diagonal "rut" on them (for lack of a better term) from edge jointing what were probably dirty roughsawn boards. A wooden plane I had was so bad I cut it up to make beech billets and saved the iron. The wear made the plane look like it was badly twisted to the naked eye.

If anything, the mouth might have a tiny bit of surface relief from the concavity (like thousandth or thousandths), but I would be surprised if it affected use - a chip still isn't going to be able to pop far up into open space like that, and the fine surface work can be saved for the smoother. I think you can blindly use it and not worry about anything unless there's a problem, or unless you want to fix it up to look like a showroom plane just for your own edification.

[Jim Koepke]

Another thing about the tote on mine is that it is noticeably smaller than my other planes. When I grip it, the tote bottom and the top horn hug my hand fairly tightly - it's not uncomfortable, but it definitely feels quite different than any of my other planes.

On Stanley planes there seems to be more wood in places in the early years. Later on, more wood was removed making room for fingers.

It may have been the original idea was not to wrap the fingers around the tote so much as it was to have a place for the hand to exert force pushing the plane.

Often times my fingers do not wrap around the tote. My fingers are kept straight while pushing the plane. One has to be careful to still hang on to the plane when doing this.

jtk

[Joshua Clark]

Well my Sargent VBM 424 that I posted about last week arrived at the office yesterday so here's my report:

Chris-

I'm glad the Sargent jointer tuned up nicely and works well. Great job on flattening that blade! Seeing that sort of pitting I would have deemed it a goner. I'm a big fan of the earlier Sargent planes. They don't have some of the features of the Stanley planes but they perform very well and usually cost a lot less.

The definitive guide to Sargent planes of all types is Dave Heckel's book, "Sargent Planes Identification and Value Guide". It is generally available on eBay. Look for the second edition. Based on Heckel's research, your plane is a "type 3" made between 1910-1918. Sargent began making bench planes in 1887 but the earliest planes, the type 1 and 2s, are very scarce. I've only found one or two of them. The type threes like yours are much more common and are really the best planes Sargent made in my opinion. These planes are branded with the VMB (Very Best Made) logo on the blade and cap iron. The later types 4 and 5, made up until the end of the 1940s, are also good, but lack some of the refinement of the older planes.

I hope this helps. Nice plane!

-Josh

[george wilson]

In reality,how many years will it take you to use up the rest of that blade? As well as it is working,I'd say just to use it. Maybe by the time you really need a new blade,some super blades made of powdered metal or something else will have come out.

[Chris Griggs]

Josh, thanks for great info - I appreciate you sharing that with us. I am of course quite pleased that it has turned out to be a good user. The lack of a frog adjustment screw is a little inconvenient, but for how much less these Sargents seem to go for than Stanley's, I'll probably keep an eye out for more.

Regarding the blade, I was of course disappointed that it was in such rough shape definitely worried I wouldn't be able to get the pitting out. This is the first time I've really put the Shapton 120 to task since it was given to me. It's does a great job doing what it does - cuts very quickly and the photo hopefully showed the scratches it leaves are consistent and not too deep. I was able to go straight to my 1k stone from it - although going straight to a 1k does take longer than is ideal a to get the 120 scratched out, and having something in the 400-700 range would be better. If I were doing this a lot I'd probably do what David W always suggests and get a Kanaban and some loose diamonds which I imagine is even faster, but for now the 120 is great for me and I am quite appreciative to the guy who gave it to me.

George, great point - you're totally right about the blade. I'd have to be using this thing a lot (or grinding unnecessarily) to use it up any time soon. There really is no need to replace it. I appreciate you and everyone else reinforcing that I don't need to put more time and money into this plane and to just use it. It really is working quite well, and admittedly, I sometimes have a tendency to want to fix things that aren't broke (which usually leads to me messing things up that previously worked fine).

[David Weaver]

Am I the only person who got a chuckle out of Jim's post where he mentions that there's a "dating site" called "horizontal heavens?"

[David Weaver]

Btw...I don't know how fast 100 grit diamonds would take the pitting out of that iron, but I think in the end it wouldn't be a lot faster than 20 minutes when all was said and done. I had less luck with the shapton 220, but it may be that the 120 is so coarse that loading isn't much of a problem (sure looks like it was cutting just fine from that picture).

I make the same jump - strong 1000 grit stones can take care of 120 grit scratches quickly - It would take more time to work through grits to get to and through the 1k stone than it takes just to go directly to 1k.