No. 1 Stanley Plane-- Useful or Paper Weight?

[Philip McKinney]

I'm looking at the Studley tool chest on my desktop picture and isn't that a no. 1 in the arched cubby with the columns? So you may use them to make pianos?
The smallest bench planes I have are no. 2's ( Stanley and Ohio tool) and they are more comfortable to use than a block plane. I've only held but never used the no. 1, it is small, astonishingly small but if it was good enough for Studley......

[Mark Miller]

I've seen the reference to bamboo rod making before in reference to the #1. I was on the Orvis live chat line. They made their first bamboo rod when Lincoln was still a Whig. They say that not me. They use a Stanley 9 1/2 for planing cane. I thought I recalled seeing a still picture of their shop from years ago and seeing a block plane on a work bench. The bottom of the line bamboo rod costs about what a not so mint #1 would cost. About a grand if I recall. The way woodworkers dream of the #1 peeking out of a pile of junk at a garage sale, flyfishermen dream of an old battered leather covered tube containing a vintage Orvis Cane rod right next to it.

I finally found that article in the Fine Tool journal and will try to summarize with some quotes transcribed here for the record.
Mark

"The first use documented was that of beekeepers. Beekeepers work far from the bench & the small size plane was easy to tote about....The No. 1 worked very well with the softwood hives and was used to field adjust the edges when fixing a super to a hive."
"Another major user of the plane is the bamboo fly rod maker. Cane rods are made up in six sections fitted into a perfect hexagon. The No. 1 worked like a charm fr this delicate work on the very soft, stringy bamboo".
"For much the same reasons as the beekeeper the woodshingler installer and trim carpenter used the No. 1. The small size and narrow width easily fit into the bib or overall pocket. Whereas the block plane was often too wide for an easy fit."

"The boatbuilder found the No. 1 usefull for fitting & shapping the laps and gunnels of small wooden boats...."
"The work of the carpenter was often outside in the cold and always demaded a strong grip. The constant use and cold took their toll on the hands and arthritis often set it. The No. 1 proved to be a solution to this problem. The higher profile offered more to grip and did not require that the hand be closed as tightly as did the block plane. Therefore, as a carpenter aged, the hands would often not close tightly and the No. 1 replaced the block plane." (this one sounds like me)
"The only group found to date to actually use the No.1 bench plane as designed is young trade school attendants. Their small hands allowed them to hold the plane by the handles and push it along much as an adult would use a #5. Several reports were made of this use including one of a trade school auction in the 1960's where trays of #1 and #2 planes were being auctioned for peanuts. Do times change!!!"
"One of the most often mentioned uses is that of a salesman's sample. The author questions this use and doubts that it was a reason for manufacturing the plane. However, the quality of construction and small size would certainly make the small plane a convient sales tool. One story reported is that of a salesperson who did a number of hardware shows carrying a Stanley No. 1 in his pocket attached to a chain hooked to his belt...."
Blanchard, Clarence. (Spring 1997). The number one: Cute and useful. The Fine Tool Journal. 46(4). pg. 8-10.

Me again: Blanchard also says the No. 1 plane was offered by no less than 5 companies; ~ 1865 it began commercial production then Leonard Bailey was first to patent it, then Stanley, Ohio Tool Co, Union Manufacturing and Tower & Lyon all more or less the exact same size. Clarance Blanchard was a legend in antique tool collecting circles including the EAIA, MWTCA, etc, etc and a frequent author of antique tool books and articles. Sounds like the evidence is growing.

[John Powers]

The Orvis guy I spoke to specificaly said they're using the 9 1/2 for the "adjustable throat" but i wouldn't doubt that a #1 would have been the way to go back in the day. I'd like to rummage around the rod making shop up at Orvis.

[Mike Henderson]

Some block planes, like the Lie-Nielsen, can be purchased with a groove cut in the sole, from front to back, specifically for doing bamboo for fishing rods. I don't know if Stanley ever did that.

Mike

[Harry Goodwin]

I own a LN and was surprized how small it was. It's cute and once I stopped trying to use it like a larger plane it did well. Try the thing just grabing the thing and try not using the normal rear handle but just grasp it like a block plane and you may be a lot happier. Also I have lots of block planes and old hands so turning a new tote for the front of one of my block planes was a great help in holding a block plane. I love the # 1 but could do without it if something had to go. Harry

[Mark Miller]

Some block planes, like the Lie-Nielsen, can be purchased with a groove cut in the sole, from front to back, specifically for doing bamboo for fishing rods. I don't know if Stanley ever did that.

Mike

Nope Stanley never did that, at least not according to Anitque & Collectable Stanley Tools by John Walter or Patented Transitional & Metallic Planes in America 1827-1927 by Roger K Smith. Lie Nielsen never thought the No. 1 ever had ANY practical use in the past so that makes sense he would put the bamboo groove on his current block plane, which I did see before. Typically Lie-Nielsen makes changes where HE thinks they are necessary in the original planes. Again, Mike, we are not trying to prove this was the perfect plane, just that it was used & is used by some for real honest practical reasons that you or LN will probably never believe or agree with. Thats fine. Live & let live.

Mark

[Mike Henderson]

Nope Stanley never did that, at least not according to Anitque & Collectable Stanley Tools by John Walter or Patented Transitional & Metallic Planes in America 1827-1927 by Roger K Smith. Lie Nielsen never thought the No. 1 ever had ANY practical use in the past so that makes sense he would put the bamboo groove on his current block plane, which I did see before. Typically Lie-Nielsen makes changes where HE thinks they are necessary in the original planes. Again, Mike, we are not trying to prove this was the perfect plane, just that it was used & is used by some for real honest practical reasons that you or LN will probably never believe or agree with. Thats fine. Live & let live.

Mark

Please don't think I'm trying to denigrate the #1. I'd really like to find the story behind it. I'm sorry if I came off as favoring a block plane over the #1. Didn't intend to.

Mike

[Derek Cohen]

I have no idea why the #1 was reallymade, but I like the idea that it was made for a child's hand. As Mike reasoned, it is unlikely that it was used in schools. Perhaps it was sold for use at home?

I really cannot see it as an alternative to a blockplane. It simply is not designed to be held comfortably. By comparison, look at the tote addition that LV have for their block plane. Block planes are far more useful. I have a Stanley #18 knuckle joint with a 60 degree cutting angle (i.e. 40 degree bevel) for use as a small smoother.

A #1 would make a fine paper weight.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Mark Miller]

I have no idea why the #1 was reallymade, but I like the idea that it was made for a child's hand. As Mike reasoned, it is unlikely that it was used in schools. Perhaps it was sold for use at home?

I really cannot see it as an alternative to a blockplane. It simply is not designed to be held comfortably. By comparison, look at the tote addition that LV have for their block plane. Block planes are far more useful. I have a Stanley #18 knuckle joint with a 60 degree cutting angle (i.e. 40 degree bevel) for use as a small smoother.

A #1 would make a fine paper weight.

Regards from Perth

Derek

Has anyone bothered to read the articles I copied here in this thread? They WERE used by school children and trade schools. They WERE used by bamboo fishing rod makers, they WERE used by bee keepers, they WERE used by carpenters who worked in the cold who had bad grips who needed the extra gripping power due to arthritis, etc, etc, etc. As previously said by some of us, they oviously were not held like ordinary bench planes by adults where the fingers wrapped around the tote. These are used by grasping the entire plane. If you don't have arthritis or weak hands you will probably not understand why it makes a difference.

My guess is 90% of the paperweight crowd has never owned or used one of these. 75 years is a long time to make a useless paperweight dude. Take the blinders off.

[Mike Henderson]

Has anyone bothered to read the articles I copied here in this thread? They WERE used by school children and trade schools. They WERE used by bamboo fishing rod makers, they WERE used by bee keepers, they WERE used by carpenters who worked in the cold who had bad grips who needed the extra gripping power due to arthritis, etc, etc, etc. As previously said by some of us, they oviously were not held like ordinary bench planes by adults where the fingers wrapped around the tote. These are used by grasping the entire plane. If you don't have arthritis or weak hands you will probably not understand why it makes a difference.

My guess is 90% of the paperweight crowd has never owned or used one of these. 75 years is a long time to make a useless paperweight dude. Take the blinders off.

The thing that's hard for me to reconcile on the #1 is the shape. While it can be held, it cannot be held by an adult in the same manner as a larger bench plane - i.e. an adult cannot put his/her hand around the tote. So I wind up asking myself, "Why did Stanley make this plane as a miniature of the larger block planes? Why didn't they give it a more ergonomic shape?" For 75 years they made it the same way without any ergonomic modifications. While it offers a different grip than a block plane, it does not appear to be an optimized shape for the hand.

I think those responding to you have read your posting about how the plane was used (like the Fine Tool Journal info) but in the absence of strong evidence, treat the infromation as opinion rather than fact.

I have never used a Stanley #1 but have used a Lie-Nielsen #1 which I think is the same size as the Stanley.

Mike

[Mike Henderson]

Hehehe, now you want to argue about what is STRONG evidence? My God, some of you have more time on your hands than brains. Find someone else's forum to hijack (you've done it before Mike) but eanwhile I'm leaving for clearer waters & other forums where people aren't quite so pigheaded.

I try to be polite when posting but sometimes the written words may not convey my intent properly. If the tone of my postings offended you, I apologize.

However, I stand by the content of my postings and do not apologize if that content offended you.

Mike

[Alan DuBoff]

Hehehe, now you want to argue about what is STRONG evidence? My God, some of you have more time on your hands than brains. Find someone else's forum to hijack (you've done it before Mike) but eanwhile I'm leaving for clearer waters & other forums where people aren't quite so pigheaded.

Not for nothings but your previous insistence of how they were used is taking someone else's opinion based on pure fact, I would say a reality check may be in order.

Not that I agree with Mike all the time, but he makes good points, and I see nothing that proves all those people used them, and certainly not every fly rod maker, school student, bee keeper, carpenters, or circus clowns were proported to use them. I agree with Mike in that it sounds like Clarence's opinion more than anything else.

Maybe a chill pill is in order, and let's hope your day gets better Mark.

EDIT: And BTW, telling someone that they have more time than brains is not my idea of good people skills, but then I've never been known for people skills myself.

[Jerry Palmer]

I see some logic in the Wood Mag quote above. I had heard/read somewhere before that the #1 was a kid's plane and I also know from my dad about the scrap metal drives around WWII. He talked of an old semi-portable saw mill they had around his dad's farm in upstate NY. Apparently driven with a belt around a flywheel on a tractor. He never remembered it being used and as a very young lad used to play on it. Around the beginning of WWII his older brother loaded it up and hauled it off to sell as scrap.

[John Gornall]

Is there any data about how many No.1 planes were made?

It's a bit surprising that it wasn't modified to keep it's basic size and shape but with a better way of holding it. As has been said above you just put your hand on it like a block plane. The tote is not really usefull to a full sized hand.

I'm also wondering about the other end of the size range - were No.8's used by many?

[Mike Henderson]

I see some logic in the Wood Mag quote above. I had heard/read somewhere before that the #1 was a kid's plane and I also know from my dad about the scrap metal drives around WWII. He talked of an old semi-portable saw mill they had around his dad's farm in upstate NY. Apparently driven with a belt around a flywheel on a tractor. He never remembered it being used and as a very young lad used to play on it. Around the beginning of WWII his older brother loaded it up and hauled it off to sell as scrap.

I certainly agree about the scrap metal drives during WWII. My parents also told me stories about the scrap metal drives during the war, and also about ration coupons.

The problem I have with the assertion that the #1s were school planes is the difference between the #1 and the 1/4 planes, which we know were used in schools. We would expect that the 1/4 planes would have been submitted for the scrap drives as well as the #1s, and yet we have surviving 1/4 planes with school "marks" - stamps with the school name and replacement of the handles (obviously, not all planes were submitted for the scrap drives). We should have some surviving #1 planes with school marks, just like the 1/4 planes - after all, we have existing old #1 planes. For me, good evidence would be showing some #1 planes with those school marks, not just speculation that because they are small planes, they must have been used in schools. It's unreasonable to assume that all the #1s used in schools were destroyed, while some of the 1/4 school planes survived.

Mike