Stanley 31 pics / tote question

[Michael J Evans]

Spent a good couple hours this morning with the chisels, files and sandpaper shaping the new blank I glued on last night. Used a number 4 handle as my shaping guidance and was actually pretty proud of how it was looking.
Finally got it how I wanted it and started drilling the larger bottom hole and the back side blew / cracked out >
Decided to hell with it and super glued it back together temporarily. Its just a temporary fix and seems to be working. I plan on making a all new handle (later) and moving it backwards a bit, so I can make it larger / taller for my hand.
If anyone has any reasons for not moving back please speak up, I'm trying to figure out why Stanley made it so dam close and small.

[Jim Koepke]

My plane has some patent dates stamped onto the lateral adjuster and a date on the iron itself. Do those patent dates actually have relation to the plane itself, or just was the patent was received?

Patent dates usually stayed on for ~15 years if my memory is working.

If the patent date came with the plane, as in the date on the iron, it indicates the plane was made that year or later. The '92 patent date wasn't used after a new Stanley logo came out in ~1907. The patent dates on the lateral lever had various combinations. A single patent date was on the lateral lever in 1899.

If there are three patent dates on the lateral lever and a '92 patent on the blade and these are original parts, your plane was likely made between 1893 and 1899.

If there are only two patent dates on the lateral, then the blade is likely a replacement and your plane dates a bit earlier.

jtk

[Michael J Evans]

Patent dates usually stayed on for ~15 years if my memory is working.

If the patent date came with the plane, as in the date on the iron, it indicates the plane was made that year or later. The '92 patent date wasn't used after a new Stanley logo came out in ~1907. The patent dates on the lateral lever had various combinations. A single patent date was on the lateral lever in 1899.

If there are three patent dates on the lateral lever and a '92 patent on the blade and these are original parts, your plane was likely made between 1893 and 1899.

If there are only two patent dates on the lateral, then the blade is likely a replacement and your plane dates a bit earlier.

jtk

There are three patent dates on the lateral adjuster and only one on the iron. The last digit is missing on the iron. But I swear it said 199? It's hard to read so it must be 189?
I was thinking it would be awfully weird to be made in the 1990's. It just reads
STANLEY
PAT. XXXX

Thanks for the insight. I looked a little on the Web but didn't find much.

[Jim Koepke]

There are three patent dates on the lateral adjuster and only one on the iron. The last digit is missing on the iron. But I swear it said 199? It's hard to read so it must be 189?
I was thinking it would be awfully weird to be made in the 1990's. It just reads
STANLEY
PAT. XXXX

Thanks for the insight. I looked a little on the Web but didn't find much.

Actually many folks see the same date and think it is 1992. It is actually AP'L 19,92 smushed all together:

Stanley Logo.png

Here is a link to Stanley logos over the years:

http://www.antique-used-tools.com/stantms.htm

I think Mr. Kaune has a couple of errors in this study, but what is life without errors?

jtk

[Dave Zellers]

I have a plane exactly like that but it is stamped 'Bailey No 31' on the front end. Bought it thirty years ago and just cleaned it up a few months ago including flattening the bottom and squaring the sides. It works amazingly well and I just built my first shooting board with it in mind. I've always been mostly a power tool guy but wow using that plane is fun!

[Michael J Evans]

Actually many folks see the same date and think it is 1992. It is actually AP'L 19,92 smushed all together:

Stanley Logo.png

Here is a link to Stanley logos over the years:

http://www.antique-used-tools.com/stantms.htm

I think Mr. Kaune has a couple of errors in this study, but what is life without errors?

jtk

That's exactly it. Thanks again Jim. I'm gonna bookmark that site for future reference.

[Robert Hazelwood]

I kind of like the Transitional design, and think they tend to get a bad rap. One weird aspect to the design is that they made the frog adjustable, but only have the frog support the upper 2/3 of the blade. The lower third of the blade is unsupported unless the frog is pulled back so that it is co-planar with the wooden part of the blade bed. So they may often have poor blade bedding and that leads to chatter. I would make sure the frog is pulled back so that it is co-planar with the wooden bed, or slightly behind the wooden bed, then bed the blade to the wooden sole like you would with any normal wooden plane. (i.e. mark the bevel side of the blade with oil/graphite mixture and check for contact between the blade and wooden bed right at the base of the blade bevel- if there's no contact there, carefully pare away other contact points and/or adjust the frog, then recheck until there is good contact all the way across). At this point the frog should not be adjusted again. With solid bedding it should plane chatter-free, but the mouth may be pretty large. This can be fixed by adding a mouth patch.

For tote-shaping tools, I use rasps and files and scrapers. A hardware store rasp is good for removing more material but leaves a pretty gnarly surface, so leave some material for cleaning up the rasp marks. A file will fine tune the shape and remove rasp marks, and then 150 grit sandpaper should clean up the file marks fairly quickly. Then you can sand up to whatever grit pleases you.

[Michael J Evans]

Robert.
I found that my plane had the frog moved forward and the iron unsupported. I never tried to use it like that, just seen it and thought it didn't look right. Loosened the two wood screws and moved it back as best I could to get the bed and iron co-planer.

The mouth looks pretty large now, but I've never had a jointer or handled one, so I'm comparing to my #4. I guess the real test will be when I take full width cuts. I was planning on trying that the other day, but sleep got the best of me that night and I've spent the last few days chopping mortises.

I do need to get myself a rasp,scaper,spokeshave, well pretty much everything, but for right now I just add as I go. Yesterday I just shaped the add on with a aggressive double cut file, fine file and a chisel. Took awhile but got me where I needed to be.

I realised, I won't be able to move the handle back because of the bolt location, but I may try to shape it differently to change the ergonomics slightly. Guess I'll have to cut the blank out with my jig saw. Trying to figure out if I'll be able to drill the bolt hole accurately enough with just a hand drill or brace. I have a feeling the brace and auger would be more accurate, but both of my 1/4" bits are shot, so I may be stuck with cordless and twist bit.

[Robert Hazelwood]

If you notice any chatter marks, I would just double check that the blade is supported right down at the bottom, at the base of the bevel. It doesn't really need to touch the wooden bed anywhere else. I wouldn't be surprised if the frog surface and wooden bed surface are at slightly different angles, so that even if you flush them the business end of the blade could still be floating. I just mention this because I had to adjust it on my Sargent jack plane. But I'd see if it cuts fine first and if it does then no worries.

As for the mouth, you can leave it as is and it will work fine so long as you can set your chipbreaker properly, at least in terms of preventing tear out. I think planes are nicer to use with a mouth that isn't too wide, though. It can be annoying on the beginning and end of cuts and cause some snipe if you aren't careful. I've found that a really wide mouth can have feeding problems too, where curly shavings get sucked back into the mouth and you have to pull them out constantly. You don't need or really want a super tight mouth on a jointer, but 1/32" or a bit less is nice.

[Michael J Evans]

I wouldn't be surprised if the frog surface and wooden bed surface are at slightly different angles, so that even if you flush them the business end of the blade could still be floating.

Hmm wouldn't of even thought to check the end of the iron and make sure it was supported. Thanks for the tip, if I notice any issues I'll check that first.

[Phil Mueller]

Hi Michael,
Did the add on piece solve the issue with the toe rising when bolted down? I got here a bit late, but was going to suggest you bolt down the tote, and then scribe the bottom of the tote to where it seats into the metal. Just thinking that maybe when you planed the bottom flat it might not have been at the correct angle to seat properly.

Also, when drilling a through hole, you can clamp a sacrificial piece where the drill will exit...that will help minimize blow out. But, frankly, I've been known to do exactly as you did...other than you knowing it's there, it won't effect anything.

[Michael J Evans]

Hi Michael,
Did the add on piece solve the issue with the toe rising when bolted down? .

It did fix it but not 100%, there is still a very slight gap, but ithe is tiny and no longer wobbles. I'm willing to live with it until I can make a new handle.
I was wondering originally if scribing the base would work like on saw horses, but the toe portion was already so thin and per the suggestion of others I just did the add on.