Thread: 54 Plough won't cinch small blades

If it's like the plough plane I have, the outside skate isn't used for small blades only wider ones.

Remove it then reattach the retaining bolt, which will comfortably hold the blade in place.

Regards,

Adam

As Taz says you don’t use the LH skate for the narrow blades; sounds like you are missing the narrow blade holder which is just a simple disk with a threaded rod sticking out the centre of it. HERE is my (still extant) Marketplace ad for one, you can see the holder in the 2nd picture next to the LH skate and picture 4 shows it used with the 1/8” blade.

Additionally may I offer my most sincere condolences for the loss of self esteem and social status; unfortunately the stigma of Carter ownership will likely taint you for years…

Thanks Folks,
your advice is spot on. I thought that bolt with the knurled head in the bottom of the box was a mistaken addition.
It's cross threaded but I have a friend that can fix that.

The LH skate has an adjustment screw towards the rear that bumps into the main body. I guess that's meant to tweak the runner into parallel?

Oh Dear! I am fairly new to this hand-tool stuff and didn't realise that I've joined the Carter Club. I guess there's nothing I can do apart from keeping that news as quiet as possible

Thanks for the great assistance.

Originally Posted by pat.hawkins

Thanks Folks,
your advice is spot on. I thought that bolt with the knurled head in the bottom of the box was a mistaken addition.
It's cross threaded but I have a friend that can fix that.

The LH skate has an adjustment screw towards the rear that bumps into the main body. I guess that's meant to tweak the runner into parallel?

Oh Dear! I am fairly new to this hand-tool stuff and didn't realise that I've joined the Carter Club. I guess there's nothing I can do apart from keeping that news as quiet as possible

Thanks for the great assistance.

Hi Pat,

Correct on the adjustment screw, that puts the skates into parallel.

I'm fortunate not to know what using a carter is like. Trusting chief's advise suggests that you won't get the same joy out of it compared to other brands. Hopefully it's good enough so so you don't get frustrated by it.

Regards,

Adam

Hi Adam,
by an extraordinary co-incidence of timing, I've just been to a shed clean out and picked up a Carter 78 duplex.
It's painted blue, heavily rusted and complete with fences and snicker.

Not sure what criteria constitutes serial offender ......... or why I'm even admitting this.

Don't worry too much Pat - a plough plane is not a particularly sophisticated tool (or at least it certainly doesn't need to be) & unless there is something radically wrong with your Carter, I'm sure it can be persuaded to do its job.

'Inferior' tools can be a great learning experience - they hone your fettling skills.....

Cheers,
Ian

Originally Posted by IanW

unless there is something radically wrong with your Carter, I'm sure it can be persuaded to do its job.

The fence on my 54 isn't parallel in the vertical plane with the skates and blade; as the cut deepens the angled surface of the fence forces the plane to creep to the left, widening the width of the cut. As the fence is quite narrow with no holes I had to use double sided tap to attach an angled slip of wood to bring it into alignment.

The frog on my 6 had almost no adjustment fore and aft; the sand mould had partially disintegrated during the pour and the screw head recesses weren't big enough to allow the frog to move more than a couple of millimeters. The factory couldn't be bothered to fix it and just used extra paint to conceal the resulting sand and iron conglomerate which I had to grind away. I then discovered that the sole is actually twisted; if you put the plane on a flat surface you can rock it side-to-side with over a millimeter gap under each opposite corner. I don't have enough years of life left to flatten the sole only using 40 grit emery but a milling machine could do it; if lubricated by my tears of frustration and misery.


If I was rich I think I would try to buy every Carter plane ever made to remove them from circulation; this would be a wholly philanthropic gesture similar to the eradication of smallpox .

Hmmm, okay, those sorts of problems are certainly not fixed by a swipe of a file here or a bit of easing of fit there. The fence issue I reckon I could deal with satisfactorily one way or another, but flattening a twisted sole or re-constituting a frog would be something I'd put in the "some day, maybe" basket....

I have never had the displeasure of owning a Carter, so I'm totally ignorant of their peculiarities. The worst example of a plane-like object that has come into my possession was an Asian knock-off #4 whose only redeeming feature was that it provided a couple of parts for another plane - most of it went to landfill...

Cheers,

With the slip of wood attached to the fence the 54 now performs adequately as a plough but I’ve not been game enough to sharpen up the nickers and see if it can be made to trench as well…

The 54 came as a surprise inclusion within the box of a Lewin 6-15 combination plane; the 6 was purchased by mistake as it was described as a jointer and the cast number “6” looked more like an “8” in the poor quality photos. All pics were taken at oblique angles so judging the overall size was very difficult and I knew almost nothing about Carters at the time and so was unaware that the largest they made was the 7. Since then I’ve also handled some 4’s, 5’s, a different version of the 54 and a 78; without exception they were all just plane (sic) nasty. I know some people like them; but then again some people like Country so there is no accounting for taste…

Well Chief, I was unlikely to acquire a Carter of any description, but after your glowing assessment, the chances have decreased even further!

Over the years I've noticed the 3 Australian-made Stanley knock-offs (Carter, Falcon, Pope) tend to get an unfavourable press, and often for justifiable reasons, e.g. aluminium frogs! (insert 'vomit' icon here). Occasionally, I felt it was more like simple prejudice against a home-grown product. I didn't know any of this until long after I'd acquired my Falcon, so was blissfully unaware I could have been buying a pig in a poke, but luck trumped ignorance on that occasion & I ended up with a pretty good plane for a ridiculously small outlay - $7 which included the auction fee. Admittedly that was about 1982 or 3 when the weekly supermarket bill was considerably less than we paid yesterday, but it was still a bargoon. Actually, it had little to do with price, I was with a friend at a farm clearing-sale (he wanted to buy a hay baler), when I was working in Canada and at the sight of "made in Australia" on the plane I was overcome by a wave of nostalgia & couldn't resist bidding. Only one other person bid against me, & they quit very early - perhaps he knew far more than I did...

I guess the worst aspect is that such planes are likely to be picked up by newbies (attracted by the price), and they are the least likely to be able to persuade the things to do their job. That could lead to a life-long aversion to woodwork rather than a satisfying hobby......

Cheers,
Ian

There are others!

Falcon-Popes aren't bad; it was Turners and the later Popes that used alloy frogs. When Stanley Australia bought the whole lot out they continued with them... but only for a little while. Providing they they haven't been abused they are comparable to the English Stanleys and Records of the same years; (ie useable but outclassed by pre WW2 Stanleys and pre-'57 Records). Sturdee and Pacific MEM are also Aussie made clones I often see for sale online but never having handled them it would be unfair to deride them out of hand purely on the basis of their country of origin. There is another Aussie plane manufacturer who is still current and produces infill style planes of exquisite quality; unfortunately they are infrequently released and almost never offered up for resale. He often claims to have "made his last" but he's had more comebacks than John Farnham...

In my (admittedly jaundiced) view Carters, Sharmancos and Davelco's are wretched abominations that should never be used; merely held up as examples of how badly you can copy someone else's product and still have the bare faced cheek to describe them as tools. There is also McConnell; but they are totally unique in their vileness and are worthy of either their own thread or a trip to the dump. Preferably the dump.
I guess for someone just starting out with hand tools learning with Carters would be comparable to having a Trabant as your first car. Yes all the important features are there and you can achieve great things with them but you'll be filled with self-loathing every time you touch it...!