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

Originally Posted by IanW

but I've got it under control now.

Originally Posted by Vann

Well actually Ian, even by a conservative count that's ten eleven bench planes - #1, #2, #3, #4, #4.5, #5, #5.25, #5.5, #6, #7 and #8.

until Thomas Lie-Nielsen came on the scene, and later Veritas, these planes all had 45 degree frogs.

Originally Posted by Vann

If you add the "10s" - #10, #10.25 and # 10.5 (the latter 3 possibly not considered "bench" planes)

agree the #10s series are rebate planes, not bench planes

Originally Posted by Vann

Then there's the #9.

that's an interesting consideration. I have the LN #9 -- described, by Mr Stanley and Tom L-N, as a Cabinet Makers Block Plane, and can unequivocally state it is not a bench plane. The blade is bedded bevel-up, the same as a block lane.
In reality, it's just a very big block plane

Originally Posted by ian

..... I have the LN #9 -- described, by Mr Stanley and Tom L-N, as a Cabinet Makers Block Plane, and can unequivocally state it is not a bench plane. ....... it's just a very big block plane

Ian, afaik, there is no clear and universally accepted definition of what makes a "bench" plane. There seems to be a vague consensus that the term covers bevel-down planes with blades set somewhere around 45 degrees or higher, with or without a chip-breaker. I can't see any logical argument that would exclude the #10 or 10 1/2 from the company of the 1-8 series, they are pretty standard Bailey types that happen to have the blade sticking out each side.

Granted, the 10 and 10 1/2 do not make great 'bench' planes thanks to those unsupported outer blade edges making the corners a bit unstable and given to chattering at the slightest provocation. Years ago, in one of my many attempts at rationalising my plane collection, I bought a 10 1/2 thinking I'd have a small smoother as well as a rebate that could plane against the grain because of its chipbreaker, but try as I might, I could not get it to work as a general smoother anywhere near as well as my #4.

In similar vein, what, exactly is a "block" plane? Metal block planes are almost exclusively (I say "almost" because if I said "exclusively" some bright spark will find an exception or two!), low-angle bevel-up jobs, but there are small wooden planes with ~45* bevel-down blades that are called "block" planes. Many folks don't include the #9 in any list of block planes, but I agree with you that it's nothing more than an overgrown block plane with a body shape borrowed from English "mitre" planes, whose only distinction from the latter is a screw adjuster (a distinction it shares with Norris's late model A11).

The #9 is an intriguing thing - apparently made as a direct competitor to the English mitre planes, which by that time were pretty much confined to piano & organ builders (according to this bloke - lots & lots of stuff on mitre planes & other types if you have the time to read it all!). It was apparently made in reasonable numbers, but precious few survive & circulate on the market. Mitres were originally large, bulky things in the main, but even early on some were made in sizes that match metal block planes. Since they are low-angle & BU, at what point does a small mitre become a block??

Plane terminology is a bit of a muddle, imo. The point that I was making earlier on was simply that in my early years, when I was even more ignorant of the vast number & variety of planes that exist or have existed, I felt I needed an example of every type to be a 'proper' woodworker. That would've been a lifelong task of itself!

Cheers,

Too many responses to read through so I may be repeating what others have said...

I wouldn't do any thing about unloading either for a while. Only way you'll know for sure which, if any to keep, is to use them. And use them a fair bit... One will eventually stand out if you find you like using them.

The big if, is if you like using them. I've been at it since I was 12, I'm 59 now. I have never liked anything longer than a bedrock 605, which has been my go to plane for at least 35 years. I've been loaned a couple try planes over the decades and have a beach one right now. They, without exception, always end up back on the shelf. I simply don't like hefting them around, and I certainly have the arm strength to push them. It's just they don't do anything my 605 can't do just as good. But hey! You might like them and only time with them will tell you that.

Originally Posted by D.W.

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.

It's made in England, but if it was a US plane wouldn't it need to be Blue in colour for it to be a Type 20?