Squaring Stanley G12-020 Block Plane

[John Baum]

Six or seven years ago I 'won' a new Stanley G12-020 block plane in a 'white elephant Christmas party.' It was inserted into the collection by a remodeling contractor friend for whom it was a duplicate. Today I decided to see if it could be easily used with a shooting board to square up and edge. I was surprised to see that the sides are out of square, approximately 91 degrees instead of 90. Since the sole is the widest part, I would need to take off about 0.012" out of 0.158 - 0.168 (it is slightly asymmetric at the throat) or about 7 to 7.5% of the stock. In the process, I also see that the sole is high at the throat and the tail end against a Starrett hardened combination square blade, and slightly convex in front of the mouth (the moving plate) and slightly concave behind the mouth. This is using the "light test." I checked with a feeler and it is no more than 0.002"

1) Will I significantly compromise the strength of the plane if I try to square the sides with the sole?

2) Will the performance improve if I grind down the sole using wet-or-dry paper on a flat stone surface using increasingly fine sheets, as though I was sharpening the blade?

3) If so, how fine a sheet is advisable?

Are these errors typical?

Thanks,

baumgrenze

[Don Morris]

You need to ask the guys in the Neander forum. They are the experts in that.

[John Baum]

May I move the topic to the "Neander Forum" or does this need to be done by a moderator?

I don't want to violate etiquette and cross-post or post the same thing twice. I know that is bad form.

While I am posting, the blade seems to dull quickly. I just checked the bevel angle with my protractor and it is 28.5°. I believe I read that too sharp an angle leads to quick wear and dulling. I am planing old KD birch.

Thanks

baumgrenze

[Don Kingston]

You need to ask the guys in the Neander forum. They are the experts in that.

I thought this was the neander forum.

[Archie England]

By having a collection to add it to, I presume that you have practiced such sole grinding in the past? My experiential answer is this, unless you have serious skills you will probably not get a perfect fix. However, Tablesaw Tom is a poster who does this for a reasonable fee and gets outstanding results. Would not one of your other planes be a better choice for the shooting board? BTW, I would start with good 120 grit sandpaper on a granite certified base, and finish out at either 400 or 600.

[David Weaver]

Use it as a block plane, find something else that's square. At some point in the future, you may have the skills to square it by hand, but it's not something you will use with regularity on a shoot board unless you're shooting model sized work.

You won't really compromise it lapping the sole if it's out of flat on the sole, but don't try lapping the sole to square the sides. Lap the side square to the sole at some point in the future if you want to, but look for a different plane to use on a chute board for now. Some of my vintage planes have been far off square and some have been right on it. It's easier just to use the one that's square than it is to try to make one square.

[John Baum]

Thank you, Archie,

I've been slow to get back here. Two time sensitive projects got in the way, income tax and apple and pear grafting season.

I have three "jack planes" but I doubt that any are worth the effort to fettle. I think all 3 came to me via inheritance, from father, father-in-law, and neighbor, but I've lost track of who gave which. I believe that one is a Type 20 Stanley Bailey, one an orange painted clone with no identifying marks save No. 1 cast around the knob, and the third a black painted one with rough castings but claiming "Made in USA." It has U and II cast into the underside of the straight keyhole lever cap. The frog is stamped steel as is the fluted depth of cut knob.

Here are some images.

Stanley Plane – 2-7/16” x 9-11/16” sole







Black Plane – 2-7/16” x 10” sole







Orange Plane – 2-1/2” x 9-13/16” sole - the blade is thicker 0.105" vs 0.075 for the other two.







I've probably wasted more time composing this than all the planes combined are worth.

Thanks,

baumgrenze

[James Scheffler]

The sides don't have to be square to the sole. You just use the lateral adjustment and take test cuts until it "works." I will admit that the whole thing is a bit easier if the sides are square to the sole in the first place, but it's easier to mess around with the lateral adjust than it is to machine the plane.

[James Scheffler]

These are smooth planes, not jack planes. You have a good shot at making the Stanley on top work well. It looks like it's in pretty good shape.

The one with the stamped steel frog I wouldn't bother with. Maybe there are parts that could be borrowed to make other planes work.

The orange one looks like it might be a Stanley too (but possible one of their cheaper lines). My concern is that the kidney-shaped hole on the lever cap looks really worn out. The screw might not hold well in that hole. However, with luck you might find a replacement - try the one from the black plane, for example.

Good luck!

[steven c newman]

Stanley would turn out nice. That Worth plane? I have had one or two such planes. They were for the average homeowner to use around the house. SDC14341.jpg some average tuning skills, and they can be a decent plane. Now, about that orange plane. Think Great Neck Tool Co.. That looks like a Great Neck #C-4 smooth plane. I used to have one of those, a long time ago. Never seemed to get it to stay "tight", always a rattle in there, somewhere. Save IT for parts for the Stanley. The Worth planes will fit only other planes made for that company. DAMHIKT

[John Baum]

Thanks to everyone for your input. . Thank you for the correction that these are smooth planes, not jack planes. I will get the terms straight with time. Is it true that the Stanly #4 is more suitable for jointing the edge of a board than the G12-020 block plane I opened this post with? Should I perhaps use the G12 for rough work and the #4 to finish up?

I plan to work on the Stanley as time permits. The sole and sides are pretty close to square with one another. Even using just the blade from my Starrett combination square the sole is less than flat, so clearly that could use tuning.

I have a ¾” x 13.5” x 19”slab of marble I bought years ago at a local house recycling yard. I once used it for tempering chocolate. I find that our new synthetic stone countertops work better for that; they are less porous and dry much faster. I just checked it with my ¼” x 2” x 34” steel straight edge that was milled for checking engine heads. I find the marble flat to less than 0.0015” along both diagonals and also edge-to-edge and end-to-end at several points. That sounds flat enough to me to use effectively to support sandpaper for flattening and sharpening.

Here’s a tip I gleaned from a metal working website. Isopropyl rubbing alcohol was suggested as a cutting fluid for working with aluminum, for drilling, tapping, cutting, etc. I also use it as a sharpening lubricant. It is more viscous than water. It dries up more quickly and is less prone to promote rust. That said, you should wipe it off steel and iron surfaces when you are done working with it.

I also noticed that the lever cap on the orange plane is cracked. The crack runs from the lower corner of the lever to the lower edge in the image showing the top view of the cap. It needed to be brightened quite a bit to make it stand out in the photo. Perhaps I can use the blades from the orange and the black planes to make some wooden rabbet planes. Time will tell.

I found it was easy to find comments by ‘purists’ who dismiss the Type 20 and anything Stanley made after it as unworthy of restoration, even as a working tool. Thanks for encouraging me to see what I can do.

Thanks again,

baumgrenze

[Jim Koepke]

I found it was easy to find comments by ‘purists’ who dismiss the Type 20 and anything Stanley made after it as unworthy of restoration, even as a working tool. Thanks for encouraging me to see what I can do.

If there was one in my shop it would be checked and fixed up if possible.

The quality during some years of Stanley production did not seem to be much of a concern. So if one was offered at a yard sale for more than a buck or two my option would likely be to pass on it. There are two many previous to this time period that have a much higher percentage of good users among their ranks.

If it can be made to work well, then it is one of the good ones.

Most made after the 1940s that have come my way have had problems that do not fully respond to the efforts of tuning them.

jtk

[John Baum]

Thank you, Jim,

You said:

If there was one in my shop it would be checked and fixed up if possible.

The quality during some years of Stanley production did not seem to be much of a concern. So if one was offered at a yard sale for more than a buck or two my option would likely be to pass on it. There are two many previous to this time period that have a much higher percentage of good users among their ranks.

If it can be made to work well, then it is one of the good ones.

Most made after the 1940s that have come my way have had problems that do not fully respond to the efforts of tuning them.

jtk

Is it at all possible to predict ahead of time whether or not this plane will respond positively to tuning?

I see these 'features' that tell me this plane is 1962 - 1967, in particular:

Is bed painted blue? -------------> Type 20 1962-67

What would you look for before deciding to invest the labor in tuning?

Thanks,

baumgrenze

[Jim Koepke]

What would you look for before deciding to invest the labor in tuning?

Most of the time my first test is to see what it does when taking a shaving. This could be done with a small piece of scrap wood. It should be able to take a full shaving across the width of the blade. This would be subject to the condition of the blade and has to allow for any cambering done to the blade by a previous owner.

My preferences are again only that, my preferences. They include rosewood handles, no ring around the front knob, low knob and pre-ogee frog. Only one or two of my bench planes were made in the 1930s or later. There are sure to be some who have a great set of users from the later years. My planes tend to be mostly type 6 to type 11 with a few outliers on either end.

Some like to have all of their planes be of the same type. The type 11s are popular among these folks.

jtk

[James Scheffler]

Thank you, Jim,

You said:

Is it at all possible to predict ahead of time whether or not this plane will respond positively to tuning?

I see these 'features' that tell me this plane is 1962 - 1967, in particular:

Is bed painted blue? -------------> Type 20 1962-67

What would you look for before deciding to invest the labor in tuning?

Thanks,

baumgrenze

I would take the frog screws out and see how well the frog interfaces with the base. If the mating surfaces are sizable and well machined, and the frog doesn't rock at all, it might tune up to work well. Stanley reduced the sizes of the machined surfaces over time, and the workmanship of the machining also declined, which is sometimes a problem. The fit of the frog might be correctable with careful filing if it isn't very good.

On the other hand, there is something to be said for trying to tune this plane even if it's never going to be a great tool. You'll learn a lot, and chances are it'll be useful for rough work at a minimum. Lots of us have multiple examples of a given size because we can keep them set up different ways. (e.g. iron sharpened straight across vs. iron with a curvature to the cutting edge). You'll also be more able to evaluate planes you might run across in the future and decide if their worth buying or not.