Ebay Droppings Thread.

[lightwood]

This has GOT to be worth a prize of some sort...

This seller is flogging a genuine McConnell smoother; along with "possibly an incomplete second McConnel" (my paraphrasing). OK, to me anything more than $20 for one of those WW2 abominations is money that could have been better spent on something like support groups for gay Halal vegan butchers; but someone has actually copied one of those useless things! DELIBERATELY! It would be like counterfeiting a Philips screwdriver from a $2 shop; in the name of all that is holy WHY would anybody do such a thing???


I'm tempted to buy them only so they can be forever removed from circulation; a bit like those last remaining samples of smallpox bacteria held in the CDC. Just not as desirable.

They are both McConnel planes. Some had Pat Pend, some had Pat, some no mark.
If they aren't are the ugliest plane ever to have been dreamed up, I've not seen the worst, and I sell them as fast as I can if they ever fall into my hands.

HOWEVER ...note they are already at $127.50, which is about where I would expect it to finish.
They generally go for around $80 - $100 max, BUT I sold an Australian made wood heater on ebay for $1630.00 ... I as hopeful for around 3 - 500.

[Chief Tiff]

Are you SURE the second one is a genuine McConnell Peter? Notwithstanding your considerable expertise and experience in all thing plane-y; it rings alarm bells for me. The hole for the knob drilled through the sole but no countersink for riveting, the very poorly shaped handle, the nuts holding the handle on instead of screws and the slightly odd shape of the rear plate all made me look again. To me though the clincher against its authenticity are the sharp edges everywhere, particularly on the edges of the two welded on braces. Basically the finer details look too good; which has got to be the most unlikely statement you could ever apply to a McConnell.

As previously inferred though I hold your opinion to be considerably more considered than mine so if you stand by your statement then I will stand corrected.

And I agree 100% you won't find an uglier plane this side of the mortal veil...

[lightwood]

Are you SURE the second one is a genuine McConnell Peter? Notwithstanding your considerable expertise and experience in all thing plane-y; it rings alarm bells for me. The hole for the knob drilled through the sole but no countersink for riveting, the very poorly shaped handle, the nuts holding the handle on instead of screws and the slightly odd shape of the rear plate all made me look again. To me though the clincher against its authenticity are the sharp edges everywhere, particularly on the edges of the two welded on braces. Basically the finer details look too good; which has got to be the most unlikely statement you could ever apply to a McConnell.

As previously inferred though I hold your opinion to be considerably more considered than mine so if you stand by your statement then I will stand corrected.

And I agree 100% you won't find an uglier plane this side of the mortal veil...

I'll go back for another look ... do I really have to???
P

[Chief Tiff]

I'll go back for another look ... do I really have to???
P

So long as you apply the "Safety Squint" and have a double shot of Bundy on standby you should be ok...

How do you cope when they come to you for on-selling? Do you have an extension in your shed... in another state...

Actually I have just thought of real use for one; in the same way that plain girls go clubbing with less attractive friends to make them look better; put one of those in every photo when you're trying to sell something made by Carter...

[lightwood]

Are you SURE the second one is a genuine McConnell Peter? Notwithstanding your considerable expertise and experience in all thing plane-y; it rings alarm bells for me. The hole for the knob drilled through the sole but no countersink for riveting, the very poorly shaped handle, the nuts holding the handle on instead of screws and the slightly odd shape of the rear plate all made me look again. To me though the clincher against its authenticity are the sharp edges everywhere, particularly on the edges of the two welded on braces. Basically the finer details look too good; which has got to be the most unlikely statement you could ever apply to a McConnell.

As previously inferred though I hold your opinion to be considerably more considered than mine so if you stand by your statement then I will stand corrected.

And I agree 100% you won't find an uglier plane this side of the mortal veil...

I've seen so many variations in them, I'm pretty happy to accept the sharp edges (seen that before), and those ribs look like the riveted variety...I think I can just pick up the outline of a pin at the front, close to the camera. I've seen round fronts, sharp and like this one, a bluntish front.
Happy to accept the handle as a replacement. Also looks like the throat may have been opened more ( why ??) the front edge of the throat has a "back angle".
Front knob maybe missing due to poor rivet job..explaining both the missing knob and missing bevel.
I'm tending more towards poor make, and modifications on an original rather than a complete make of a copy.... BUT we must remember these were being made at a time when NO planes were being imported into Aust, and as you suggest, that could explain a contemporary copy from mid 1940s, which might look very much like this thing.
A copy made by a less than expert maker would look a lot like what I think is an average make by McConnell, and I've seen them!

Less certain than I was an hour ago!
P

[lightwood]

So long as you apply the "Safety Squint" and have a double shot of Bundy on standby you should be ok...

How do you cope when they come to you for on-selling? Do you have an extension in your shed... in another state...

Actually I have just thought of real use for one; in the same way that plain girls go clubbing with less attractive friends to make them look better; put one of those in every photo when you're trying to sell something made by Carter...

LOL ..... I try and look at the them the same way my kids look at my most precious treasures, through glasses that bear a resemblance to a pair like these ones ^----$^$----^

[Chief Tiff]

Ok; I'm happy with your opinion that it could actually be a genuine Thing That Should Not Be. Please accept my gratitude for risking your eyesight and sanity whilst double checking!

[lightwood]

Ok; I'm happy with your opinion that it could actually be a genuine Thing That Should Not Be. Please accept my gratitude for risking your eyesight and sanity whilst double checking!

For all the humor these create, they do have a place in our history and folk seem to relate to the basic standard of design and workmanship in them. Back in the 80s when very few were known, a certain QLD tool dealer made out like a bandit!!

I usually see such horrible copies or forgeries that are offered up as genuine, looking for all the world like they were made out in a paddock, and Blind-Freedy could tell they are suspect ... but here the original, genuine article also looks like it was made out there in the paddock.

[ian]

At the bottom of the page with the MacDonald "plane" was this Rare Stanley 4 1/2 hand plane

to me it looks too clean and shiny with far too much remaining blade for "over 100 years old"

[IanW]

At the bottom of the page with the MacDonald "plane" was this Rare Stanley 4 1/2 hand plane

to me it looks too clean and shiny with far too much remaining blade for "over 100 years old"

The high knob & ring cast in the sole to receive it caught my eye, so I did a really quick check of the type study & the high knobs started in 1919, so it can only be 98, at best.

Looks like a Rosewod tote, but the shaping doesn't look oval in cross-section & not consistent with pre-1930s. Woodwork can be changed, of course. It's certainly been tarted up rather garishly!...

Cheers,

[Chief Tiff]

Type 14 or 15; 1929 at the earliest. Unless the seller is talking dog years...

I hate these blatant restoration jobs; ok repaint the sole and polish the bare metal but coating the woodwork in thick varnish ruins it.

[goodvibes]

At the bottom of the page with the MacDonald "plane" was this Rare Stanley 4 1/2 hand plane

to me it looks too clean and shiny with far too much remaining blade for "over 100 years old"

Actually on a close look it is a pretty gross and clumsy clean up. Bad sanding to the metal and wood, really bad varnish job. The photography is of much higher quality than the restore.

As for the cutter, it might be suss but it's not a rule. I've seen SW cutters that look like they might have been used once or twice, but never sharpened.

Type 14 or 15; 1929 at the earliest. Unless the seller is talking dog years...

I hate these blatant restoration jobs; ok repaint the sole and polish the bare metal but coating the woodwork in thick varnish ruins it.

To each his own. I don't mind a Full Monty refinish if it attempts to recreate (and goes close to achieving) the look of the tool the day it was sold.

So called patina is often over emphasised IMO.

[Bushmiller]

So called patina is often over emphasised IMO.

I think all too often patina is a euphemism for cruddy. I find myself comparing the restoration of hand tools to automobiles. Would we pay a lot of money for one with original rust?

Regards
Paul

[rob streeper]

Ultra Rare Very Early Henry Disston Joiners Saw Double Eagle Lambs Tongue | eBay

More like Jointers or Dis-jointers saw.

[Bushmiller]

Is that a Joiner's saw, a hacksaw or a surgical saw? It's style looks to be early 1840s. I'm not really into either of those latter types of saw but I can see the appeal. Nice handle.

Regards
Paul