unknown (to me) Stanley No 80 - rare?

[Joe Bailey]

Most of us are familiar with the No 80 scraper, and the malleable iron version (the 80M). But has anyone out there ever seen an aluminum No 80? I recently acquired one, and can find no mention of it anywhere. As a point of comparison, whereas the iron versions tip the scales at about 1 3/4 pounds, this one weighs in at just 12.5 ounces!

DSCN5642.jpgDSCN5645.jpgDSCN5646.jpgDSCN5647.jpgDSCN5649.jpgDSCN5650.jpg

[Jessica Pierce-LaRose]

I've seen folks home-cast some interesting things out of aluminum. I wonder if it's possibly a home-made job, with the casting based off a buddies number 80?

Stanley did have a fascination with aluminum for a while, though, so who knows?

[Frederick Gross]

Stanley didn't apply japanning to the aluminum body planes that I am aware of. The ones I have owned all had the raw aluminum finish.

[Jim Koepke]

That looks too good to be a clone copy of another.

My first check would be to see if the screw threads are the usual odd Stanley threads or if they are common standard threads. A cast copy I
once owned had cast fasteners, a sure give away.

It might be something on which someone like Patrick Leach or other folks at the top of the Stanley Collector Food Chain might be able to offer an opinion.

If it is a rarity, it might be enough to buy you a new edition from your favorite vendor along with a few other goodies.

Keep us informed, this could be interesting.

jtk

[Tony Zaffuto]

Good point about the threads Jim. Stanley made an A4, A5, A6, A18, A78 & A45 planes. I've never heard of an A80 (I accumulate Stanley aluminum planes). I've also heard Stanley made an aluminum miter box along with some smaller tools.

[Joe Bailey]

Thanks all for your responses.
The copy idea is intriguing -- made even more plausible since I acquired it when I bought a patternmaker's tool chest (along with a nearly perfect No. 56 core box plane!).
Jim - I followed up on your idea re: checking the threads. The wingnut studs are 20 tpi. I also fully agree that it looks too good to be a copy. Moreover, I would add that it seems like a lot of trouble for what would have been a very inexpensive tool.
I will email Mr Leach and let you know what I find out.

[Joe Bailey]

Patrick Leach was kind enough to respond to my inquiry. He states unequivocally that Stanley only made these in cast iron and malleable iron -- meaning that mine is merely a copy.

[Bill Houghton]

If it works, it's not "merely" a copy - it's a workable tool.

[Joe Bailey]

If it works, it's not "merely" a copy - it's a workable tool.

Thanks Bill - I will, of course, receive that in the spirit in which it was offered.
My use of the adjective "mere" was intended to highlight the disparity between the tools' value as a copy and its value as a rarity.

[Jessica Pierce-LaRose]

I suppose if it was a copy, you could check it versus a couple of known examples of the actual thing - I'd imagine that there'd be some slight size differences from using an original for the mold. Of course, that might not be an accurate gauge given the lifespan of thing - I'd imagine there's quite a bit of variation over the years as Stanley made the thing. But if the baseplate is substantially thicker or something, that'd tell you something. Not that I doubt Patrick's word.