Thread: 2 x Stanley Bailey no. 7's, which one to keep?

If it were me HPF timber handles and a little patina (cleaned up) is a touch nicer than Plastic handles and the heavier body style of the later one.
I would be checking the difference in the backlash of the adjuster wheel as well. It couldn't be much different from each other on such hardly used planes but would be interesting to consider. Less backlash is better but if its reasonably close I'd keep the older one.
Ive got one plastic handled 4 and its used for first time users to work with. It works just as good as the older Stanley planes I have though.

Edit.
Also, if it were me I'd keep both as I have at least two of each plane on the shelf above the bench. One with a straight ground blade for keeping things flat like for jointing and matching surfaces and one with a curved grind to the blade for when I cant have the edge lines left by a straight blade driving me nuts. Something Ive been dealing with today matching drawer divider rails to drawer fronts on a recently assembled chest of drawers.

You have to have the need of course . When I was just starting out I got by fine with just 5 planes.
The 3 , 4 , 6 a 78 rebate and a 110 block plane.

Definitely keep the older one with the wooden handles.
Stanley production quality is better the older they are (except wartime production)

Originally Posted by auscab

If it were me HPF timber handles and a little patina (cleaned up) is a touch nicer than Plastic handles and the heavier body style of the later one.
Also, if it were me I'd keep both as I have at least two of each plane on the shelf above the bench. One with a straight ground blade for keeping things flat like for jointing and matching surfaces and one with a curved grind to the blade for when I cant have the edge lines left by a straight blade driving me nuts. Something Ive been dealing with today matching drawer divider rails to drawer fronts on a recently assembled chest of drawers. You have to have the need of course.

Thanks Rob. I certainly have a soft spot for the older one and whilst I can appreciate how a pair would be useful for you I doubt that the type of work I do warrants it but certainly food for thought.

Originally Posted by dubrosa22

Definitely keep the older one with the wooden handles.
Stanley production quality is better the older they are.

I too would be looking at the older one - expecting it to be better quality. However, even the older one dates to a period when Stanley QC was slipping. You may have a good new one from the period when quality was generally bad - and a bad older one from the era when quality was mostly good.

Your best bet might be to a sharpen an iron and try it in both - to see which one you get on with.

My tuppence worth.

Cheers, Vann.

I have a no 7 I Sorby hand plane with the Rose wood handle.
I would keep the older one. I got mine 46 years ago.

Martin.

Older one would also be my call too.
Regards
John

The older one unless there is some not-obvious performance difference.

the older one is a type 20, which I've grown quite fond of over the years after starting on the internet and finding out "all type 20s are junk". they definitely are not.

After that, stanley at some point moved to not having the frog go all the way down to the casting, and in harder woods, that creates a performance problem.

I'd keep the older one, likely a type 19, maybe a 20

Yet another voice for the older plane....

The fact it belonged to your old pot would be an influence in any decision, I would think, and anything with plastic handles would put me off straight away so those two factors alone would be enough for me to decide! Also, as DW pointed out the older plane has a lighter casting and the small difference adds up to a lot in a heavy planing session (or maybe I'm just getting old & feeble), and a double-seated frog is a major plus (I've not examined a 'modern' Stanley #7 & wasn't aware they'd switched to a cantilevered frog, that would make it vastly inferior to the older style imo, & might explain why it's still iob!). So the older plane wins on almost every angle, unless there is some major problem with it.

The blade & chip breaker look to be in pretty rough condition, but they may be ok down in the bowels where it's a bit better protected. In any case, I'm a fan of slightly thicker aftermarket blades so I'd be looking for any excuse to replace it. The most obvious thing to do, as someone else has already said, is sharpen a blade and try it out in each plane. Likely, you won't notice a lot of difference in a few minutes' use of each, but you should notice if anything is radically wrong.

A #7 certainly isn't a necessity for everyone, I treasure mine & will hold onto it 'til death do us part, but it depends what you use planes for (or if you use them at all). If you mostly make small stuff, like boxes, for e.g., a shorter plane like a #5 can probably do all the jointing & flattening you need, a larger plane would just be more metal to push around for little or no gain in accuracy. But for edge-jointing longish boards, it's hard to beat the accuracy & convenience a #7 can bring to the task.

When I started serious woodworking, I thought I had to have every size of bench plane plane from 1 to 8 (why else would Mr. Stanley make so many? ). It took me quite a while to discover I certainly didn't, & realise there are 3 or maybe 4 sizes I would use every day, or almost every day, and they are all I 'need'. I could get by with fewer if I had to, & if I was a pro like Rob, I would probably have quite a few more, but one good plane of each of the sizes I use regularly is plenty for an amateur like myself. I make an exception with smoothers, however - I have 3 of them, each set up for particular finishing jobs. That's wasteful luxury, I'll admit, but since I made two of the three, I don't feel too guilty....

Cheers,

They’re both post war English models so the US type system doesn’t really apply; beyond changing the frog receiver cast rib to a “Y” shape around the same time the two companies essentially did their own thing after that. The newer one with plastic handles and bed ribs is from after 1985 and is likely to be the most annoying with regard to sloppy clearances; however the pressed steel yoke on the adjuster does allow it to be bent to take up backlash.

The older model is likely 1965-1972 (ish), it still has the fabricated lateral lever and the cast yoke; coupled with the timber handles it should “feel” more pleasant to use. Based purely on the pictures my preference would be the early model…

BUT…

Sharpen up a blade, clean up and set the cap iron and adjust the frogs to be flush with the mouths, then swap the blade assembly between them and see which one you prefer. Once you’ve think you’ve picked one try moving the frogs to close the mouths and see if that changes your opinion.

Originally Posted by mic-d

I'd keep the older one, likely a type 19, maybe a 20

I think it's "Made in England" - in which case the type studies are not applicable.

Cheers, Vann.

Originally Posted by Chief Tiff

Sharpen up a blade, clean up and set the cap iron and adjust the frogs to be flush with the mouths, then swap the blade assembly between them and see which one you prefer. Once you’ve think you’ve picked one try moving the frogs to close the mouths and see if that changes your opinion.

Thanks Chief.
Based on your and other similar comments that is a perfectly logical approach. I now have a project for post-Christmas

Originally Posted by IanW

I thought I had to have every size of bench plane plane from 1 to 8 (why else would Mr. Stanley make so many?

You have confused me, Ian. Mr Stanley's number system goes higher than 8, much higher. Did you miss out on a few?

Originally Posted by GraemeCook

You have confused me, Ian. Mr Stanley's number system goes higher than 8, much higher. Did you miss out on a few?

No Graeme, I am well aware that Stanley's numbers run into the hundreds, I was just referring to the 'bench' planes. Thinking I needed all eight of those was silly enough (in retrospect), and though I lusted after many of the "specialty" planes, I had sufficient nous to realise at least some of them were not essential for a happy life. I've come a long, long way since those days; I hit peak plane ownership around 1996, I think, & ok, I still have a few more planes than absolutely necessary, but I've got it under control now.

(I think..)


Cheers,