Page 6 of 9 FirstFirst ... 23456789 LastLast
Results 76 to 90 of 126

Thread: First and last Stanley handplane restoration

  1. #76
    I have read this thread with pleasure. Lots of opinion, good information, and wonderful humor here.
    I myself prefer vintage tools. Just because they are vintage. I'm like that with a lot of other things, too, and like to restore them to working order and use them.
    If I had the cash for new, I just might buy them, but there is a character, or a feel/emotion for me using the older stuff that really makes using them such a pleasure, especially when they were restored to usable condition by my hands.
    But I'm not doing this for money, I'm doing it for pleasure, so I can spend my time as I choose, and part of that pleasure is what I just mentioned above. I know it's not technically wood working when we spend time restoring, but it for me is soooo much fun. There is time for it all, for me.

  2. #77
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Location
    Ramona, CA by way of Phliadelphia
    Posts
    270
    +1 what Mike said.
    Yesterday I cleaned up a type 17 1946-47, some surface rust and grime, did a little file work on the frog seat and face and I know I was the first person to sharpen it.
    I think the guy who bought it used it a few times and put it on the shelf for 70 years I think that happens a lot with planes.
    Rick

  3. #78
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Hutchinson, MN
    Posts
    600
    Quote Originally Posted by Rick Malakoff View Post
    I think the guy who bought it used it a few times and put it on the shelf for 70 years I think that happens a lot with planes.
    Rick
    Some years ago I picked up a nice type 11 no. 4 at a garage sale. The seller said it was his favorite plane and that he used it a lot. The blade was in bevel up, the chip breaker set back a quarter inch, and the blade looked like it had been sharpened on the sidewalk. It cleaned up nicely, once I got all the surface rust off.

  4. #79
    Quote Originally Posted by Bruce Haugen View Post
    The blade was in bevel up, the chip breaker set back a quarter inch, and the blade looked like it had been sharpened on the sidewalk. It cleaned up nicely, once I got all the surface rust off.

  5. #80
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    Texas Hill Country
    Posts
    94
    Rick:

    Makes on feel good to put an unused plane back into operation, helps a bit when they obviously were never really used ;-) what a lucky guy you are....

    mos maiorum,
    Andy

  6. #81
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Location
    Ramona, CA by way of Phliadelphia
    Posts
    270
    This Craftsman #3 size I found in this condition a few weeks ago, the iron was recessed behind the chip breaker (rust line)and you can still see the hollow grind. I'm not sure if it was ever used and if it was the guy was using the chip breaker as the cutting edge and decided that it was too dull.
    IMG_2802[1].jpgIMG_2803[1].jpgIMG_2804[1].jpgIMG_2805[1].jpg

  7. #82
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    twomiles from the "peak of Ohio
    Posts
    12,120
    Seen that a lot. One of the Craftsman plane I rehabbed..turned out to be made by Millers Falls, and was almost the same as their No.8 plane..
    IMAG0286.jpgIMAG0290.jpgIMAG0291.jpg
    Made to Sears' spec, of course, but..
    IMAG0292.jpg
    No, 8 in from (type 2) and the Craftsman 3C bb behind it.
    IMAG0288.jpg
    The shavings back there came from this little plane.

    When there isn't any Projects going on, nice to have something to do....never know what might turn up..
    big planes.jpg
    Like a # 0-8 ( they wanted $110 for it...) that be a No.6 on it's left...

  8. #83
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Dublin, CA
    Posts
    4,119
    Clarifying my previous remarks and responding to a couple others...

    Just because something is good or works for one person doesn't mean that everything else is bad or isn't the right answer for others. Unlike the movie "Highlander", there can be more than one.

    The fact that proper use of the double iron had been lost to "common woodworking knowledge" meant that many of us were missing out on a very useful approach to avoid tearout with difficult woods. IMO it doesn't mean that the approaches we used instead were bad or aren't still useful, but rather that we had lost an important and useful tool.

    With respect to weight, I think that some posts in this thread have implied that some newer planes (iron-body L-Ns for example) are much heavier than they actually are. As was demonstrated earlier, those planes and particularly the larger/longer ones are generally within ~10% of their Stanley counterparts. That's a simple statement of physical reality, and doesn't contain or imply a judgment as to whether light weight is good or not. If you prefer heavy planes then by all means use Marcou, Holtey, etc.

  9. #84
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Location
    Ramona, CA by way of Phliadelphia
    Posts
    270
    Steven, thanks for the comparison, just took mine apart and cleaned it a little. Yours must be older it has brass fittings, mine they cheepend up with nickel adjustment and cap heads on the knob and tote.
    Also do you know if Sargent made planes for Sears on the bottom of the frog casting 408 was cast in?
    Rick

  10. #85
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    twomiles from the "peak of Ohio
    Posts
    12,120
    Hmmm...could be..
    IMAG0112.jpg
    This one had a 408 under the frog..
    IMAG0115.jpg
    Sargent, made for sears Craftsman line of planes

    Compare to the Fulton they also made..
    frog.jpg
    and..
    IMAG0004.jpg
    Sears alway called for a Red Frog....regardless of whom made the plane.
    This is a tad older, sold before the Craftsman line started...

  11. #86
    Quote Originally Posted by Patrick Chase View Post

    The fact that proper use of the double iron had been lost to "common woodworking knowledge" meant that many of us were missing out on a very useful approach to avoid tearout with difficult woods. IMO it doesn't mean that the approaches we used instead were bad or aren't still useful, but rather that we had lost an important and useful tool.

    With respect to weight, I think that some posts in this thread have implied that some newer planes (iron-body L-Ns for example) are much heavier than they actually are. As was demonstrated earlier, those planes and particularly the larger/longer ones are generally within ~10% of their Stanley counterparts. That's a simple statement of physical reality, and doesn't contain or imply a judgment as to whether light weight is good or not. If you prefer heavy planes then by all means use Marcou, Holtey, etc.
    I don't know where you get your 10% figure, but my iron planes are much lighter. I have only ever owned five bench planes, all put into service from 1973 to 1983.

    The Lie Nielsen #3 is 36% heavier than my #3 Bailey.
    The Lie Nielsen #4 is 28% heavier than my #4 Stanley.
    The Lie Nielsen #7 is 19% heavier than my #7 Record.

    The Lie Nielsen equivalents are 48% and 50% heavier than my wooden jack and trying planes.

    As mentioned earlier, we have come a long way in the last eight years. A discussion like this years ago would have brought out arguments that the "additional mass produced the momentum" to "power through the cut". And that the weight would help with chatter and tear out. Guys were excavating wooden planes and incorporating lead.

    There is still a plane maker who claims that additional mass makes for less effort on the part of the user. Maybe you would want to comment on that, Patrick.

    The main advantage of light planes is the speed and ease with which one can work.

  12. #87
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Dublin, CA
    Posts
    4,119
    Quote Originally Posted by Warren Mickley View Post
    The Lie Nielsen #3 is 36% heavier than my #3 Bailey.
    The Lie Nielsen #4 is 28% heavier than my #4 Stanley.
    I said "iron-body L-Ns" in the post you quoted. The numbers you cite here are obviously for the heavier bronze versions (though admittedly L-N only makes the #3 in Bronze).

    The iron-body L-N #4 is 4 lbs, vs 3.75 lbs for the Stanley #4.

    Quote Originally Posted by Warren Mickley View Post
    The Lie Nielsen #7 is 19% heavier than my #7 Record.
    Numbers/data?

    The L-N 7 is 8.25 lbs. The Stanley #7 is 8.125 lbs (~1.5% lighter). Unless the Record is a *lot* lighter than the Stanley I don't see how you get to 18%.

    Quote Originally Posted by Warren Mickley View Post
    The Lie Nielsen equivalents are 48% and 50% heavier than my wooden jack and trying planes.
    Sure, woodies can be pretty light. No argument there. The point I was responding to in this thread was a comparison to rehabbed Stanleys, though.

    Quote Originally Posted by Warren Mickley View Post
    As mentioned earlier, we have come a long way in the last eight years. A discussion like this years ago would have brought out arguments that the "additional mass produced the momentum" to "power through the cut". And that the weight would help with chatter and tear out. Guys were excavating wooden planes and incorporating lead.

    There is still a plane maker who claims that additional mass makes for less effort on the part of the user. Maybe you would want to comment on that, Patrick.
    As I've already stated, I'm personally not a fan of truly heavy planes like Marcou or even WoodRiver/Quangshang.

    Furthermore, if we look at the physics, it's impossible that a heavier plane would take less overall mechanical work (i.e. energy input in Joules), so in the strictest possible interpretation that manufacturer's statement is false.

    With that said the maker claimed lower "effort" (not "lower force" or "less energy"), and "effort" is a subjective perception that is not always the same as mechanical work. Physics also undeniably tells us (unless you think Newton was also a quack) that a heavier plane will tend to smooth out disturbances, i.e. the user won't feel as much variation in planing force throughout the stroke. The average force may be higher, but the peaks will be a bit lower. I can easily see how some people would subjectively perceive that as "less effort" and prefer it, and IMO there's nothing wrong with that.

    I think that the difference here is that even I am not arrogant enough to take the step from "X works better than Y for me" to "X is the right answer period and everybody who prefers Y is insane/a quack/etc". And I'm pretty darned arrogant, so that's really saying something.
    Last edited by Patrick Chase; 07-13-2017 at 4:10 PM.

  13. #88
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Michiana
    Posts
    3,047
    Quote Originally Posted by Patrick Chase View Post
    ..... And I'm pretty darned arrogant, so that's really saying something.
    I knew there was something special about you Patrick. At my house, we call it confidence
    Sharp solves all manner of problems.

  14. #89
    Quote Originally Posted by Patrick Chase View Post
    The bronze L-N #4 is $350, though the more appropriate comparison to a used plane is probably the iron version for $300. The classic (non-custom) Veritas #4 is $220 for that matter.
    Yah, you're probably right Pat. (Man I hate when that happens. But fair's fair.

  15. #90
    OP here .... I sure learned a lot from the responses in this thread and for that I want to thank all of you. There was more at play than frustration with my first restoration. The availability of woodworking tools, especially vintage Stanley planes are few a far between in this rural location. One could scavenge local garage sales, etc. for months and never come across a single plane. When the Stanley #5 mentioned earlier finally came about it was just unfortunate that the sole was severely convex and it required so much work to get into shape. I still haven't been able to flatten it to my satisfaction. Balancing the scarcity of used planes around here and the effort required to get what I do find in shape it makes sense to me for now to buy what I need in order to continue with my woodworking projects. Fortunately the cost of the LNs are not out of reach for me. Perhaps afterwards with less urgency and more patience I'll tackle another restoration, that is if I find a better prospect next time. Thanks again everyone!

Posting Permissions

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