Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 32

Thread: Favorite Stanley planes

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Milton, GA
    Posts
    3,213
    Blog Entries
    1

    Favorite Stanley planes

    David Weaver and a host of other posters finally convince me that I should try a few old planes so I could at least find out if I like using them as much as my Lee Valley and hand made wooden planes. I was not looking to spend much money on an experiment so I started out cheap with a Sargent #414 that I picked up for under $10. This first plane convinced me to spend a little more to get a few classic pre WW II Stanley planes. I spent a month or so low bidding and just trying to get a feel for the market for these planes. I decided I did not want to buy into an extended restoration commitment, as I have projects to do and limited time. When I thought I had a reasonable feel for what I could get a plane in good condition for I bought a Stanley 5C, type 14, 1929-30 and a 6C Type 11, 1910-1918. I am also looking to buy a 4 or 4C manufactured within the same time frame.

    I typically use lumber I buy finished on three sides. I have a small Steel City planer and a good bandsaw, which needs repairs. I do not feel I need the ability to hog off large amounts of dried wood. I do use green wood for some projects, bowls, Windsor Chairs. Which might lead me to other needs at some later date.

    I am interested in which, specifically older Stanley planes, people find the most useful/favorites and why. I know what the common uses for these planes are. I am especially interested in where people find these planes superior to wooden or BU planes. I know this has been discussed in other threads, but I thought it might be fun to post pictures of favorite plane(s) with information on why they are favorites. Once I finish a little work on the classic Stanleys I have I will post pictures and reviews.

  2. #2
    I like a 4 and a 7. I almost always do the jack level work with a wooden plane, so don't have much to say about the others, though I think a 6 is a nice plane, too, set up either as a true fore, or an attempt to make a poor man's panel plane.

    I like the 4 better than any other smooth plane I've used of any type.

    I like 7s as a more accurate alternative to wooden planes (though it's not necessary to do good work) and for heavy flattening, especially on harder woods. Sometimes the old woodies aren't that pleasant to use in a heavy cut on stuff like beech, and I guess the cap iron on the stanley plane is generally easier to set. The tradeoff is that if you don't wax it often, it's got a lot of drag.

    The 4 and 7 I use a lot. The rest of the stuff, not so much. I don't care too much about types, though I don't like the oldest planes as much as the stuff that's from the T10-WWII era. I also don't get wrapped up in old frog vs. new style, etc. I just haven't seen much difference in use between the two, and I do like the bigger handwheel on the later stuff. Not a type addict, so I don't know what that includes - through type 18 or something?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Mandalay Shores, CA
    Posts
    2,690
    Blog Entries
    26
    I have Bailey #'s 3, 4, and (2) 5's. I favor types 9 through 13 (mine are 3 type 11 and one type 13 - my great grandfather's). Unlike David I can go for after market blades (you need to check the thickness though) on some of the planes. Mine are all users. I am not a collector. Before I bought the planes, I checked carefully for condition (primarilly crackes in the castings) and sole flatness. If those are right, most other things can be addressed. Have fun!
    Shawn

    "no trees were harmed in the creation of this message, however some electrons were temporarily inconvenienced."

    "I resent having to use my brain to do your thinking"

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Perth, Australia
    Posts
    9,467
    On hardwoods that test the performance of a plane ...

    I get a decent result from a UK Stanley #3 (LV PMV-11 blade and chipbreaker), US Stanley #604 (either Galoot Tools laminated blade or LN A2, with LV chipbreaker) and a US Stanley #4 1/2 Type 11 (LV PMV-11 blade and chipbreaker). All of these planes have been tuned.

    As good as these are now - since using the chipbreaker - they are not in the same class as a HNT Gordon smoother (60 degrees), LV BUS (62 degrees), or a number of other high angle planes I have. I emphasise that the woods I have go beyond the testing range of average US woods. The differences I experience may not be needed in the USA.

    The above does not discuss Stanley #605 and #7 Type 11.

    Regards from Perth

    Derek

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Dickinson, Texas
    Posts
    7,655
    Blog Entries
    1
    I have Baileys #3,4,5,5 1/2,6 and Bedrock 4,5,7. You can tell I don't care much for Stanley planes.

    OBTW, the #3 is one I go to a lot. It feels kind of like a block plane. I bet a #2 would be sweet, but who can afford one?
    Last edited by lowell holmes; 07-15-2014 at 2:17 PM.

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by Shawn Pixley View Post
    Unlike David I can go for after market blades (you need to check the thickness though) on some of the planes.
    I used to have only aftermarket blades in planes and shipped away a lot of OEM irons in planes that I got and changed my mind on, but that needed an iron donation. I wish I hadn't done that!!

    I don't have any strong feelings though about aftermarket or not, I'm just fascinated with trying to find out what the manufacturers intended when making the irons, and pairing irons of different types of planes against the abrasives they were hardened and tempered for has been really enlightening.

    A 64 hardness iron doesn't work well with oilstones, but a 58-60 plain steel iron does very well. The edge on a 58-60 plain steel iron is sort of uninspiring if japanese waterstones are used, but if a very hard white steel iron is used, then the edge is wonderful. Warren said something a long time ago about matching irons and abrasives, and I thought it was quaint because "well, there is nothing better than modern abrasives". I don't know how I got sucked into all of this esoteric stuff - but man did I go into it WAY deep.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Israel
    Posts
    1,503
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by David Weaver View Post
    I used to have only aftermarket blades in planes and shipped away a lot of OEM irons in planes that I got and changed my mind on, but that needed an iron donation. I wish I hadn't done that!!

    I don't have any strong feelings though about aftermarket or not, I'm just fascinated with trying to find out what the manufacturers intended when making the irons, and pairing irons of different types of planes against the abrasives they were hardened and tempered for has been really enlightening.

    A 64 hardness iron doesn't work well with oilstones, but a 58-60 plain steel iron does very well. The edge on a 58-60 plain steel iron is sort of uninspiring if japanese waterstones are used, but if a very hard white steel iron is used, then the edge is wonderful. Warren said something a long time ago about matching irons and abrasives, and I thought it was quaint because "well, there is nothing better than modern abrasives". I don't know how I got sucked into all of this esoteric stuff - but man did I go into it WAY deep.
    I can second that. since I bought some arkensas stone I really have come to love the old steel, they are in no way less good than new stuff, unless you use water stones then they kinda suck. I like the way they feel also. the 10K gokumyo water stone does very well with old steel too, but I'm still learning how to use it.

    Right now I'm loving the single wartime Bailey No. 4 I recently bought. I put a old russian blade in it that came from a sadly long gone wooden plane. it's slightly thicker so the mouth is a nice size and the frog is fully supported. I notice the the wartime plane has a larger mouth with the same frog setting then a more recent one I am currently restoring. I usually don't love metal planes over a no.5 size, but the lightness of the old ones make a 6 nice too.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Dickinson, Texas
    Posts
    7,655
    Blog Entries
    1
    I have Stanley irons in the #3 and the #5 1/2, but LV irons in the remainder.

    Chip Breakers are another story. I'm using LV breakers in the Bedrocks and they are remarkable.

    The Stanley breakers in the #3 and #5 1/2 are ok, but don't equal the LV breakers.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Enchanted land of beer, cheese & brats
    Posts
    1,314
    My herd is mostly vintage Stanley (3, 4, 5, 7, 8). A lot of folks will say to stay away from the post WWII stuff, but one of my favorite 4's is of that type. Only the 7 has a aftermarket iron, a pmv11 and that only because the iron it came with was almost used up. And personally I don't feel the bedrock series is worth the premium.

    For a smoother I prefer a non corrugated, might be better too, for jointer if you're doing edge work with it, but I don't know, both my jointers are corrugated and seem to work out just fine. For a fore plane I don't really care if its corrugated or not.
    Last edited by Judson Green; 07-15-2014 at 9:39 PM.
    I got cash in my pocket. I got desire in my heart....

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Ekenäs, Finland
    Posts
    187
    In order to answer the actual question I cannot say I have a vast experience of Stanley types. I have owned several old Baileys but being a Millers Falls fanatic myself I have used the old Stanley's as a way to finance my desire to buy the tools I actually want to own.
    As much as I love the patent dates on a body, the aesthetic of a low know or the patina on a truly old plane I must say that I have been able to turn UK made Baileys into very good users. These are te a me kind that Paul Sellers uses. So I don't think it is all about the era. It is about getting most things right, like a square enough sole and well mated frog and a very sharp and very good iron. My favourite planes at the moment are a MF no 4 with a Berg cutter and a cheap Mohawk Shelburne no 5 with a thick Jernbolaget cutter.
    So to finally answer the question. The type doesn't make a lot of difference. It is how the plane works and to some extent how you tune it and the quality of the iron.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Milton, GA
    Posts
    3,213
    Blog Entries
    1
    Great to hear so many comments.

    I just won a 4C. Did not care whether or not the 4 had a corrugated or smooth bottom. I do have a Veritas 164 1/2H BU, so I have a heavy smooth bottom smoother. I also have light & heavy wood smoothing planes, so something in the middle seemed attractive. I like the totes and knobs on planes from prior to WWII (rosewood or mahogany?). Many of these totes and knobs seem to have survived the test of time with little damage.

    I am reworking a nice light 26" purple heart jointer. I have a Record jointer and a 17" wood Try plane as well so I am not rushing into another jointer.

    I may have to try the PM-V11 LV cap irons and blades. I am anxious to try the Stanley blades too. It will be interesting to break out my 40 year old Arkansas stone, put a little fresh oil on it and see what it can do to a Stanley plane blade.
    Last edited by Mike Holbrook; 07-15-2014 at 5:44 PM.

  12. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by lowell holmes View Post
    I have Baileys #3,4,5,5 1/2,6 and Bedrock 4,5,7. You can tell I don't care much for Stanley planes.

    OBTW, the #3 is one I go to a lot. It feels kind of like a block plane. I bet a #2 would be sweet, but who can afford one?
    Lowell, I stumbled on to a #2 in an antique store a few months back for $14. It was painted black and was apparently a window decoration some place. I had been debating buying the new LN #2 because LV didnt have an equivalent. Glad I hesitated! I really like that little plane.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    South Bend IN 46613
    Posts
    843
    My main use of bench planes is for smoothing, usually fairly large surfaces for cabinets, so the Bedrock 604-1/2 is the go to plane for me. I don't care which type it is so long as it has the large adjuster knob. The large adjuster knob enables me to adjust the depth of cut on the fly with one index finger, which I find to be an advantage over wood bodied planes. Honestly I like the wood on wood better but in reality usually use the Bedrock just because it takes less concentration to set up.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC] "You don't have to give birth to someone to have a family." (Sandra Bullock)




  14. #14
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Belden, Mississippi
    Posts
    2,742
    I have a #3, 4C, 5 1/2 C, 7.
    Not caught up in the types or mfg. dates. Just want them to work well, and they do.
    All have the great totes and knobs, have not had to spend a great amount of time with the tune up.
    Bill
    On the other hand, I still have five fingers.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Enchanted land of beer, cheese & brats
    Posts
    1,314
    Quote Originally Posted by Frederick Skelly View Post
    Lowell, I stumbled on to a #2 in an antique store a few months back for $14. It was painted black and was apparently a window decoration some place. I had been debating buying the new LN #2 because LV didnt have an equivalent. Glad I hesitated! I really like that little plane.


    Thats a stealth gloat if I ever saw one! Good hunting!
    I got cash in my pocket. I got desire in my heart....

Posting Permissions

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