Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 17 of 17

Thread: Squaring Stanley G12-020 Block Plane

  1. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by James Scheffler View Post
    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.
    James,

    Thank you for this further information. I pulled the screws and took three photos which I've attached to this message. I tried to use angled, incident lighting and adjusted the brightness in Photoshop to bring up the grinding marks.

    I have photos of:

    1) the mating part of the bed (I did not clean this at all. There were residues beneath the frog suggesting a poor fit? This may be the big trouble spot as the round corners made by a poorly handled end-mill don't match the square corners of the underside of the frog.) It is hard to see how to work on this, but I'll give it some thought. Do restorers resort to Dremel tools? I could work with more control using my drill press with the plane bed mounted in my Harbor Freight quality compound vice. What tool would folks use for this purpose?



    2) the underside of the frog (Here there are 2 rectangular areas that appear to be flat. I might be challenged to check just how close to parallel the two faces are. That said, the faces they match on the plane bed may also not be parallel.



    3) the topside of the frog that supports the plane blade. (Do restorers disassemble the lateral adjustment part so that the face can be lapped on wet-or-dry paper on a flat stone slab?)



    Thanks,

    baumgrenze
    Last edited by John Baum; 04-01-2013 at 7:14 PM. Reason: forgot to include images

  2. #17
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Springfield, MA
    Posts
    313
    That might be something you can work with. A lot of times the bed near the mouth doesn't really need to be worked, because you can work the mating surfaces on the frog instead. I can see what you're saying about the way this one was machined. My older Stanley planes were all better than that. The rounded corners might affect how far back you can push the frog (i.e. opening the mouth) while maintaining good contact between the frog and bed. It might work ok with the frog in an intermediate position. It will just take some experimentation. See if the frog rocks back and forth in different positions, etc. If it's a problem, I'm not sure what's the best way to fix it. Maybe someone else will jump in....

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •