Information on Wm Bingley?

[Mark Baldwin III]

I found a plane iron today marked: "Wm Bingley, PATENT". I'm curious if anyone knows anything about this maker, or where I can find some info. It is a laminated blade with a W. Ash & Co chipbreaker. Thanks!

[Don McConnell]

Hi Mark,

Well, this was a new mark to me, but I have been able to find a little bit of information to get things started. William Bingley and Son, are listed in one 1818 Directory under the trade listings of Grinding, Polishing, and Rolling Mills as well as Manufacturers of Plated Goods on Bishopgate Street, Birmingham. In Wrightson's New Triennial Directory of Birmingham for that same year, is this more complete listing which I'm quoting in full. Note the mention of patent plane irons:

"Bingley Wm. and Son, manufacturers of plated wire,
plated spoons, curbs, &c. stair carpet wires and eyes,
all kinds of brass, copper, and iron tubes for gas
lights and lamp makers' and brass founders' uses,
patent plane irons and fussels, Patent Forge, Bishop-
gate-Street."

So far, I've not bee able to find any additional information about the working dates of this firm. But, an 1823 publication, _Chemical Essays..._, by Samuel Parkes, has this description of Bingley's patent plane irons:

"It is well known that it is the circumstance of
drawing down the shear-steel under the tilt hammer
that gives it the superiority over common steel.
Mr. Bingley therefore thought that, if he could roll
out his steel much thinner than it had ever been
done before, he could improve its quality; and
accordingly a very thin piece of steel is let into the
face of a plane-iron made of cast iron' and, as the
steel for this particular purpose has to go through the
rollers several times to make it sufficiently thin, it
becomes of a peculiar texture, and the tool made
with it is found to suit the joiner much better than
the plane-irons heretofore in use." [vol. 2, pp. 498-9]

Setting aside any discussion of the claims for this patent iron, it seems to me that your iron may be a somewhat rare survivor of a relatively early such patent. That may not mean anything monetarily, but I'm thinking that Jane Rees, who is reportedly working on a fourth edition of Goodman's _British Planemakers from 1700_, could be very interested in the mark and information regarding it.

Don McConnell
Eureka Springs, AR

[Mark Baldwin III]

Thank you, Don! I really appreciate that. I'm just after the history when I go checking around on these things (though I have to admit, finding something rare or scarce is a nice bonus, even if it isn't worth much). Some of these old tools have really been on some journeys, and it's a lot of fun. Here's two more pictures of the iron, the lamination is very obvious. The iron only has about 1/2"-3/4" more usable steel. I don't intend on sharpening it up, it's going in the geek files. If Jane Rees needs an example for the book, I'd be more than happy to help if there are no better ones out there.

[Brian Cameron]

Don:
What a great reply. Do you have any idea of a possible issue date for the new Jane Rees book?
Thanks
Brian

[Don McConnell]

Glad to hear the information was useful, Mark, and, with your permission, I'd like to pass it and your photos on to Jane Rees to see if it will be interest.

Brian, regarding an updated version of Goodman, I've just checked Jane's web-site (updated this month), which provides this information: "... A 4th edition is on its way, but is unlikely to be completed for a couple of years yet." Patience is in order, I guess.

Don McConnell
Eureka Springs, AR

[Mark Baldwin III]

Glad to hear the information was useful, Mark, and, with your permission, I'd like to pass it and your photos on to Jane Rees to see if it will be interest.

Don McConnell
Eureka Springs, AR

Absolutely!

[Kees Heiden]

Yes this is fun to read.
I must say the steel insert in your planeiron doesn't look particulary thin. Maybe this one predates the patent?

[Mark Baldwin III]

I must say the steel insert in your planeiron doesn't look particulary thin. Maybe this one predates the patent?

The overall thickness of the blade at the working end is .138". The inlaid piece is about .045". The blade is tapered, but I have the feeling that the cutting steel would have been of uniform thickness.
Only two of my other irons (T.Shaw and Moulson Brothers) appear to be laminated, but it's hard to tell how thick the cutting steel is on those ones. They are probably 40 years newer than this one anyway. Of course, those may not be laminated, and my eyes could just be playing tricks on me. In other words, I don't remotely know enough!
I s'pose that leaves the question, what was considered "thin" at the turn of the 19th century?

[Kees Heiden]

foto.jpg


Well, I don't have such old benchplanes, but I have a few 18th century Dutch molding planes. The one in this picture is 3mm thick, with the steel part less then 1mm thick.

I'll let you do the conversions to imperial yourself.

[Mark Baldwin III]

That looks like fun to sharpen! I don't have a handle on the complex blades yet.
Let's see...1mm, and we get .039"... give or take

[Don McConnell]

Mark et al,

Some additional information regarding William Bingley's working dates and activities.

First, he was working at least as early as 1787, in Birmingham, as a manufacturer of plated goods, attested to by the fact that he was granted a "Sheffield Plate" mark in that year. Additionally, I found a trade listing for him in the _Universal British Directory of Trades, Commerce ..._, published some time between 1791 and 1800. That listing indicates that he was a "Plated wire-drawer and Buckle-maker, Islington, near the Five Ways. [Birmingham]" Further evidence of his activities can be found in a 1795 letter in which he states he's been making metal rope or chain, as invented by William Hancock, of Birmingham, for the previous four years. Other letters in _Transactions of the Society ... for the Encouragement of Arts, Manufactures, and Commerce_, state that Bingley had also been using these wire chains in his wire drawing manufactory. At first, I thought these references were simply for wire rope or cable as we know it, but an illustration shows it to be somewhat different:

wirechain.gif

When the firm became William Bingley and Son is unclear, but one secondary source indicates possible working dates of this partnership to be from 1808 to 1818. In addition to the activities we already know about, they also undertook the manufacture of David Brewster's newly invented kaleidoscope, apparently at the recommendation of James Watt, in 1817. The partnership may have continued past 1818, but I've found no specific indication to that effect. Though we do know that William Bingley passed away in 1823.

As to whether Mark's iron was made under William Bingley's patent, we probably can't be entirely sure at present. Though, I wouldn't place too much weight on Samuel Parkes' second-hand description of the patent. Basically, I have some doubts as to the accuracy of some of that description, which I decided not to get into yesterday. For one thing, his mention of the steel being let into the face of the iron made of cast iron seems implausible to me. Cast iron has very high carbon content and is quite brittle, so I think it would be unsuitable for use in a plane iron. I think it much more likely it was let into wrought iron. Also, I wouldn't place too much emphasis on how thin the steel insert is. My sense is that the primary focus of the patent likely was on the hot rolling out of blister steel to obtain the "hammer refinement" obtained in creating shear steel. Whether this was successful or not, the result would have been steel plates considerably thinner than the bars of blister steel.

Further, based on Mark's photos and his perception that the inlaid steel appears to be of uniform thickness, my sense is that this is not a typical plane iron of the late 18th and early 19th century. For one thing, the steel does not seem to be forge welded to the body of the iron. I don't know for sure from the photos, but it appears the steel may have been brazed or soldered into place. At the least, the apparent gaps between the steel and the body of the iron are quite unusual. For another, the uniform thickness of the steel is completely atypical. The 18th and 19th century bench plane iron's I've looked at have been universally "scarf welded." In other words, the steel is relatively thick at the cutting edge and gets thinner, wedge-like, as it progresses up the iron body. Thus there is no distinct shoulder at the terminus of the steel as appears to be the case with Mark's iron. (Is this the case, Mark?)

These unusual features, to my mind, heighten the likelihood that the "Patent" mark on the iron indicates it was made according to William Bingley's patent. Though, a less likely possibility is that it refers to their works, "Patent Forge." We might be able to clear this up if we could find the actual text of the patent claims.

In any event, I am forwarding the information to Jane Rees as the William Bingley mark is not included in the plane iron makers list in the third edition of _British Planemakers from 1700_. I think she'll be quite interested if she hasn't already learned of it.

Don McConnell
Eureka Springs, AR

[Mark Baldwin III]

Further, based on Mark's photos and his perception that the inlaid steel appears to be of uniform thickness, my sense is that this is not a typical plane iron of the late 18th and early 19th century. For one thing, the steel does not seem to be forge welded to the body of the iron. I don't know for sure from the photos, but it appears the steel may have been brazed or soldered into place. At the least, the apparent gaps between the steel and the body of the iron are quite unusual. For another, the uniform thickness of the steel is completely atypical. The 18th and 19th century bench plane iron's I've looked at have been universally "scarf welded." In other words, the steel is relatively thick at the cutting edge and gets thinner, wedge-like, as it progresses up the iron body. Thus there is no distinct shoulder at the terminus of the steel as appears to be the case with Mark's iron. (Is this the case, Mark?)



Don McConnell
Eureka Springs, AR

Here's two more pictures showing the lamination more clearly. It was a detail that caught my eye, because it definitely appears brazed or soldered. My vote is for solder. It's difficult to get a clear picture of the side of the iron, but I believe that the cutting steel is indeed inset (as opposed to tapering up). Thanks again, Don.

[Kees Heiden]

Thanks Don for your information.

The iron looked like a pretty bad forge welding job to my eye too. But with a brazed bit, it looks like you have something rather special overthere!