Thread: What have you got in the shed??

A fine selection indeed. Ignore what everyone else said about those bergs, especially the 2" job. They're all rubbish. How about I do you a favour and take them off your hands for, save you a the trip to the tip...

As for your old black and decker tools you might want to have a chat with Berto Pandolfo (The Traditional Tools Group (Inc.) -- Submitted Article) He's currently doing a study of Australian made b&d tools esp drills. He would be able to tell you a thing or two about your old timers.

Nice collection mate. Look after them.

Cheers,
Virg.

DSEL74,

the little blue plane in post Nr 12 is a Zip razor plane (I bought one new back in the olden days). It is for model making and works best on balsa. The blade it uses is the same sort that you need for the shaving razor in post Nr 8.
(also in Nr 8, the "Brent" badge, I am pretty sure is off a sheet metal toilet cistern )

Regards
SWK

Originally Posted by swk

DSEL74,

the little blue plane in post Nr 12 is a Zip razor plane (I bought one new back in the olden days). It is for model making and works best on balsa. The blade it uses is the same sort that you need for the shaving razor in post Nr 8.

I hear the blades are hard to get now, the ones available are to thin & brittle a sign of the times cutting manufacturing costs.

Originally Posted by swk

(also in Nr 8, the "Brent" badge, I am pretty sure is off a sheet metal toilet cistern )

Regards
SWK

Wow that is an um……. interesting thing to collect errr…………...

Originally Posted by DSEL74

After a bit of cleaning and white paint dribbles I found a stanley mark on the bladed & a L Bailey in the chip breaker.
It also has two dates 1867 & 1868

Screw_3480.jpgBlade_3472.jpg

You are definitely on the slippery slope

Thanks for the picture of the brass depth adjuster, because I have a repaired #2 with the same lever cap stamp and i hadn't looked at the adjuster. Have a look also for patent dates on the lateral adjustment lever.

I know there are quite a few sites on dating Stanleys ... here's one I looked at.
With two patent dates on the lateral adjuster ... it narrowed my plane down to 1885-7
It looks confusing to start with ... Stanley Plane Typing MegaChart

My depth adjuster ...

#2 007.jpg

Also have you seen Derek's pages on using a Stanley-type base to make an infill plane?

Cheers,
Paul

I didn't realise steel planes were that old!

Thanks for the link, I found this one which is a bit more my speed….It has photos
RexMill.com Hand Planes 101 The Resource

DSEL, I'm no expert (not even an apprentice!) at dating & naming tools, but what you've got there is obviously a bitzer. While the body & frog seem to be bog-standard (old) Stanley, the blade & cap iron are not original, and have been canabalised from a different plane altogether. Although I can't clearly see an edge in any of your pics, I suspect that blade is much thicker than any original Stanley blade, and possibly tapered as well. The thick blade means the 'wishbone' won't reach through it to engage the slot in the cap iron, but since the cap iron in your pic has no adjustor slot, the adjustor has been rendered useless anyway. If the blade is tapered, you are going to have problems with it in a Bailey type frog, because it is going to want to loosen when advanced & tighten when retracted. The cam-operated lever cap gives enough spring that it might cope with short-range adjustments, but it would be better to replace it with a more suitable (parallel) blade.

Replacing the blade & cap iron with a more suitable set is a very easy task, the only problem I forsee is that the mouth may have been slashed open to accomodate that thicker blade. It may not have, if they were able to move the frog back far enough to let the blade through, so all you need is an appropriate new blade & cap-iron & you are home free. You can also compensate, to some extent, for a molested mouth by fitting as thick a blade as the adjuster will accomodate, & moving the frog as far forward as it will extend. The after-market blades made for these planes (Hock, Lee Valley, Lie-Nielsen, Ibbotson, etc) are all thicker than originals, and most also sell new cap-irons, so that could solve all problems at once. At worst, you might end up with a plane with a wider mouth than optimal, but still a perfectly good user for all but the most demanding work.. Despite my somewhat glum assessment, you do have a potentially nice little plane there, made when they paid a bit more attention to getting machined surfaces to mate and parts fitting together as Mr. Bailey intended. And the price was right, so it's well worth giving it your best shot, to be sure.....

Cheers,

Ian, I think that the Mathieson tapered blade might have been a separate purchase.
The plane itself looks like it has an English blade, and it has done some work from the looks of it.
The plane appears to me like a Type 6 - 1888-1892, but I am open to correction on that one. In any case the plane is an oldie and it is not surprising that the original blade is worn out and gone.
These are good planes and this one looks like it will respond to some TLC.
Cheers
SG

Originally Posted by Scribbly Gum

Ian, I think that the Mathieson tapered blade might have been a separate purchase.
The plane itself looks like it has an English blade, and it has done some work from the looks of it.
The plane appears to me like a Type 6 - 1888-1892, but I am open to correction on that one. In any case the plane is an oldie and it is not surprising that the original blade is worn out and gone.
These are good planes and this one looks like it will respond to some TLC.
Cheers
SG

Yes the Mathieson blade was a separate purchase to the plane which came the bailey breaker & stanley blade shown in the later grouping.

TLC is an understatement but it was cheap and for it's purpose of testing and learning will do it's job.



PMCGEE
I will look up Derek's pages on using a Stanley-type base to make an infill plane may be easier than trying to re fit original handles.

Everything seems to match up on mine as a Type 5.
Also included are the details for the Type 6 which I was asked about.



Type 5
1885-1888

All of the features of the previous, except:
Lateral Lever, Two Piece with out Round Disc

• The lateral adjustment lever makes its debut. It has two patent dates, "2-8-76" and "10-21-84", stamped into it, along with the word "STANLEY". The lateral lever is a one-piece construction, with its portion that engages the slot in the iron being straight across.
• Top of the frog no longer rounded as before. The top is more a flattened arch-shape.
• The number is now cast into the main casting; i.e. on the smaller planes, at the toe, and on the heel, #5 and up.
• The trademark stamped into the iron is the same as before, except that "STANLEY" is in a straight line, in large letters, and the rest of the logo immediately below, in small letters.

The lateral lever is a one-piece construction, with its portion that engages the slot in the iron being straight across.




The lateral adjustment lever makes its debut. It has two patent dates, "2-8-76" and "10-21-84", stamped into it, along with the word "STANLEY".

Top of the frog no longer rounded as before. The top is more a flattened arch-shape.

The number is now cast into the main casting; i.e. on the smaller planes, at the toe, and on the heel, #5 and up.

Bead at base of Knob.

Trade Mark P
The trademark stamped into the iron is the same as before, except that "STANLEY" is in a straight line, in large letters, and the rest of the logo immediately below, in small letters.

Originally Posted by DSEL74

I will look up Derek's pages on using a Stanley-type base to make an infill plane may be easier than trying to re fit original handles.

At that age, it is of interest to a collecter, even if it's only as parts.

Type 6
1888-1892

All of the features of the previous, except:

Three Patent Date on Lateral Lever
Old Style Frog

• Lateral adjustment lever now is a two-piece construction, with a circular disk replacing the straight portion at the point where it engages the slot in the iron. "7-24-88" is also stamped into the lever, with the rest of the dates, as before.
• The brass adjusting nut now has a left-hand thread.
• New iron design, where the circular hole is now located toward the cutting edge, instead of the top. Stanley claimed:
• Bead eliminated from the front knob.
• Frog receiver has two shallow grooves, parallel to the plane's sides, cast into it. The screw holes are located in the grooves.
• "STANLEY" "PAT. AP'L 19, 92" (in two lines) stamped on the iron. The original type study doesn't mention this, but some of these irons can be found with just "STANLEY" and not the patent date.
  
• "The improved form of this Plane Iron renders it unnecessary to detach the Cap Iron, at any time, as the connecting screw will slide back to the extreme end of the slot in the Plane Iron, without the danger of falling out. The screw may then be tightened, by a turn with thumb and finger; and the Cap iron will serve as a convenient handle, or rest, in whetting or sharpening the cutting edge of the Plane Iron."

There you have it, in all its glory, why the circular hole was repositioned, after it being at the top of the blade for some 100 years. At least that's how Stanley described the change. However, the patent drawing for the change shows what I believe is the real reason for the change - the circular disk, on the lower end of the lateral adjustment lever, loses its ability to engage the slot provided for it (in the cutter) when the iron is nearly used up. By relocating the circular hole toward the bottom of the cutter, the iron can be used right up to the slot, without sacrificing the advantage gained from the lateral adjustment lever.

Lateral adjustment lever now is a two-piece construction, with a circular disk replacing the straight portion at the point where it engages the slot in the iron. "7-24-88" is also stamped into the lever, with"2-8-76" and "10-21-84" the previous dates.


Trade Mark P
New iron design, where the circular hole is now located toward the cutting edge, instead of the top. Stanley claimed:
"STANLEY" "PAT. AP'L 19, 92" (in two lines) stamped on the iron. The original type study doesn't mention this, but some of these irons can be found with just "STANLEY" and not the patent date.


The brass adjusting nut now has a left-hand thread.


Frog receiver has two shallow grooves, parallel to the plane's sides, cast into it. The screw holes are located in the grooves. You can't see in this image


New NO Bead on Base

Type 5 and before Beaded at Base

Last Year for Bailey's name and Patent Dates on Brass Adjustment Knob

Originally Posted by Colin62

At that age, it is of interest to a collecter, even if it's only as parts.

If any collectors want it I'm happy to sell for a good price

Hi DSEL ... your frog at least has the Type 6 disk on the lateral adjuster. (He says ... making like he knows what he's talking about)


Regarding Derek's website ...

A Galoots Infill Smoother

GalootSmootherII

also ... Another stanley infill
Cheers,
Paul

Originally Posted by Scribbly Gum

Ian, I think that the Mathieson tapered blade might have been a separate purchase.
The plane itself looks like it has an English blade, and it has done some work from the looks of it.
The plane appears to me like a Type 6 - 1888-1892, but I am open to correction on that one. In any case the plane is an oldie and it is not surprising that the original blade is worn out and gone.
These are good planes and this one looks like it will respond to some TLC.
Cheers
SG

Right again, SG! I saw the blade in the opening pic & jumped to the conclusion that it had come out of the Stanley. I was so worried about the butchery that would have been required to get a thick old tapered blade to stick out of a Stanley mouth, I fired off without checking the remaining pics!

Anyways, we agree that this plane is likely to be well worth going to a bit of trouble to clean up & get working. It is hardly a collector's item, DSEL, they are not so rare that they fetch big prices unless in mint condition, & that description doesn't quite fit your plane. As I said, I know next to nothing about dating Stanleys, but what I do know is that it's complex and fraught with potential errors, so you would need to get an expert to look at it to get a reliable dating, but I think we can all agree that it's old, attested to by the frog style & the lack of a cast ring for the base of the knob. It could be quite a nice little performer when you get it cleaned up.

Before I did anything serious, I would check the sole to make sure it is still flat & isn't warped or damaged beyond hope (a few rust pits are neither here nor there). Once you get it working, and you are satisfied it is sound, you could invest in a new blade & cap iron, which can make a very worthwhile difference.

I reckon it would be easier by far to restore it than to convert it to a Derek style "infill", despite the few challenges you face. New/replacement bits are easy to come by. Look up Jim Davey's website (scroll down this page & you'll find parts), and knobs and handles are easy enough to make, or buy if you don't feel up to it. I have a soft spot for the old low-knob workaday Stanleys, so I would rather see it restored & given the dignity of earning a living again, but of course, it's your plane....

Cheers,