Should the Toe Section of the Sole Be Raised on a Shoulder Plane?

[Matthew Hutchinson477]

Good thing I'm remembering to look into this before I go dragging the sole across a diamond stone...

The toe section of the plane is not perfectly level with the rest of the sole, it is raised just a hair. I've noticed this on a number of planes, mostly small rabbet planes and bullnose planes, so I'm thinking perhaps there was a reason for this? My understanding is that the toe or front of the mouth of a plane is critically important because it applies pressure to the wood just ahead of the blade, and that small amount of compression somehow helps. Can anyone enlighten a plebeian like myself on this detail of plane design and function?

The photograph below shows my newly-acquired Stanley 92 that better make me a way better woodworker or else I'll be pissed about how much time and effort I spent trying to get ahold of a shoulder plane.

IMG_4738.jpg

[Pat Barry]

It could be the camera angle but that looks like a pretty fat hair.

[Robert Hazelwood]

The answer is no, it should not, but there a couple of things to try before tossing it or flattening it. The first is to adjust the tension on the mechanism that holds down the blade. Shoulder planes (and most low angle rabbeting type planes) are sensitive to that, and it is fairly easy to tighten the mechanism enough to bend the casting. You want to set it with just enough tension to keep the blade secure. See if that has any effect.

After adjusting the tension to get the sole as flat as you can, just try taking shavings. If the toe is still raised then you will have to be more careful with the pressure you put on the plane through the stroke. The sole with a raised toe is effectively convex, and that is usually workable if it's not too extreme. See if you can trim a tenon shoulder to a flat clean surface. If you can then the tool is probably good enough.

If you decide to flatten it, the nice thing is there's not so much metal to remove, but on the other hand squareness to the sides is critical. I think I would start with 80 grit paper on a decent sized granite lap, and make a wooden guide block that is perfectly square and run the plane along that while lapping. You would want to have the blade in, of course, and tensioned just like to would be in operation.

[Matthew Hutchinson477]

Pat--the camera angle is pretty close to dead on. The sole of the main part of the plane is slightly concave which is why you see a little light under it behind the iron bed. I've seen this concavity on a number of Stanley planes including well-made (SW era) bench planes in mint condition so I think they often came that way. Anyway, ya, it's somewhere around 1/64" higher so I suppose that is quite a bit when it comes to plane soles.

Robert--I haven't tried using the plane yet so I'll do that first. My thought is that the plane would work better with the toe section being perfectly in line with the rest of the sole. I tend to put a decent amount of pressure on the front of the plane, and sometimes I like to trim shoulders by leaving the back half or two thirds of the plane hanging off the piece and planing into it. Maybe that isn't necessary but so far it's been the best way I've found to trim edges of end grain without any risk of blowout (spelching?). Using that technique I would think that the toe being raised would cause me to take too big a bite.

[Pat Barry]

Hi Matt, I just checked my brand new Stanley 92 and the front and back soles are level. I haven't used it for anything yet.

[Patrick Chase]

There are some bullnose planes in which the toe is intentionally raised like that (most notably the Stanley #75) but a shoulder plane like a 92 shouldn't be that way.

1/64" is ~17 mils, which is a LOT. For comparison LV's flatness and squareness tolerances on their shoulder planes are to within 1.5 mils (IIRC this came up in a review a while back - maybe cornish workshop?). I would return it if possible, because that's a lot of sole to lap off.

IMO we woodworkers are far too obsessed with sole flatness/squareness in general, but I also think that shoulder planes are one of the few places where that obsessiveness is warranted. They don't need to be perfect (nothing does) but they need to be within a few mils.

[Jim Koepke]

Good thing I'm remembering to look into this before I go dragging the sole across a diamond stone...

The toe section of the plane is not perfectly level with the rest of the sole, it is raised just a hair. I've noticed this on a number of planes, mostly small rabbet planes and bullnose planes, so I'm thinking perhaps there was a reason for this? My understanding is that the toe or front of the mouth of a plane is critically important because it applies pressure to the wood just ahead of the blade, and that small amount of compression somehow helps. Can anyone enlighten a plebeian like myself on this detail of plane design and function?

The photograph below shows my newly-acquired Stanley 92 that better make me a way better woodworker or else I'll be pissed about how much time and effort I spent trying to get ahold of a shoulder plane.

IMG_4738.jpg

Is this a newer plane or a vintage model?

Here is a link to a post by me about fettling a shoulder plane:

http://www.sawmillcreek.org/showthre...g-and-Fettling

My curiosity about the age of your plane is from thinking if it is an older model it may have been one put together from pieces.

Does yours have a screw on the under side of the top? Be careful trying to turn it. If it gives resistance give it a drop of your favorite rust busting and loosening lubrication.

Shoulder planes.jpg

Hopefully you understand a single tool will not be what makes you a better woodworker. My shop is filled with more tools than many of the woodworkers here who do work much better than mine.

It is a bummer though to purchase a tool, be it from an auction site or a tool seller, that doesn't meet expectations or basic usability standards. This is something I have experienced all too well.

jtk

[Matthew Hutchinson477]

This plane is an older model. A SW era plane, actually. Of course that is assuming all of the parts are original and nothing has ever been replaced. But as far as I can tell that is the case. No new planes for me--budget just won't allow it at this point.

IMG_0460.jpg IMG_0459.jpg

Jim--this one does have that screw underneath the top/toe piece, and it is rusty actually. I haven't tried turning it yet but I've been soaking it in oil. The whole plane could use a little de-rusting but none of it is too bad.

I share your experience in purchasing a lot of old tools from The Big Auction Site. In hindsight, given the amount of time I have spent fettling old tools, I might have been better off just coughing up the cash for newer LN or LV tools. I don't really mind, and often even enjoy, restoring and tuning old tools but it certainly does take a lot more time than I originally anticipated. Buying something sight unseen is a risk that I try not to take anymore. The more I do this the more selective I become in which tools to take. Whereas before I bought purely on price and always went for the cheapest thing I could find, now I realize that it is generally worth it to spend the extra $20-30 for a tool in better shape. That all said, I got this one for $40 after looking for almost a year. Even the old Stanley shoulder planes never seem to go for less than $60 or more on ebay, so I couldn't pass up this one for this price.

[Pat Barry]

This plane is an older model. A SW era plane, actually. Of course that is assuming all of the parts are original and nothing has ever been replaced. But as far as I can tell that is the case. No new planes for me--budget just won't allow it at this point.

IMG_0460.jpg IMG_0459.jpg

Jim--this one does have that screw underneath the top/toe piece, and it is rusty actually. I haven't tried turning it yet but I've been soaking it in oil. The whole plane could use a little de-rusting but none of it is too bad.

I share your experience in purchasing a lot of old tools from The Big Auction Site. In hindsight, given the amount of time I have spent fettling old tools, I might have been better off just coughing up the cash for newer LN or LV tools. I don't really mind, and often even enjoy, restoring and tuning old tools but it certainly does take a lot more time than I originally anticipated. Buying something sight unseen is a risk that I try not to take anymore. The more I do this the more selective I become in which tools to take. Whereas before I bought purely on price and always went for the cheapest thing I could find, now I realize that it is generally worth it to spend the extra $20-30 for a tool in better shape. That all said, I got this one for $40 after looking for almost a year. Even the old Stanley shoulder planes never seem to go for less than $60 or more on ebay, so I couldn't pass up this one for this price.

http://www.rockler.com/stanley-sweet...shoulder-plane

[Matthew Hutchinson477]

Here's a thought. The mating surfaces between the two parts of the sole do have a little bit of surface rust on them (see photo below). Perhaps that is causing the two pieces to not mate together as tightly as before and thus causing the toe piece of the sole to be raised a little bit.
IMG_0461.jpg

[Patrick Chase]

I share your experience in purchasing a lot of old tools from The Big Auction Site. In hindsight, given the amount of time I have spent fettling old tools, I might have been better off just coughing up the cash for newer LN or LV tools.

There's also the intermediate solution of buying old tools from a reputable dealer.

As to your other post: Yes, gunk in that interface would raise the toe. That's probably the first thing to try.

[Matthew Hutchinson477]

There's also the intermediate solution of buying old tools from a reputable dealer.

That is probably the most reasonable course to follow. But alas, $$$. I have more time than money right now so restoring tools myself is often what I am constrained to whether or not I want to. Lucky for me, I enjoy it.

[Dave Parkis]

Well, if you want to come over to Albany, you're welcome to test tools before you buy.

[Jim Koepke]

That is probably the most reasonable course to follow. But alas, $$$. I have more time than money right now so restoring tools myself is often what I am constrained to whether or not I want to. Lucky for me, I enjoy it.

This is what saved my some big bucks on my path to tool acquisition. My tools may not be the prettiest or shiniest, but they can do their job just as well as their modern day counterparts.

jtk

[Don Orr]

From the 1st photo it appears to me that the overall high spot seems to be just behind the cutting edge of the blade. If all the other suggestions don't pan out it would seem like not a lot of material to remove CAREFULLY in just that one small area and might just bring things back to flat or at least flatter and flat enough.