Thread: Why are my No 7 Stanley Bailey planes different?

Originally Posted by Blackout

...I'd like to understand why they are so different?...

Stanley planes evolved over the many years of production. The ribs came quite late (maybe 1970s on?). In my opinion earlier planes are better - I say that because quality control was better earlier (before the accountants took over).

Stanley didn't start making planes in Australia until (without checking references) about the mid 1960s.

I have no knowledge of the quality of Aussie made Stanley planes. You'll just have to use them both for similar jobs and let us know which can do finer work.

Cheers, Vann.

The bottom one is a model made in England; the strengthening ribs were added in the 70’s to reduce the length of time required for the castings to settle before machining. The upper one was made in Australia around the same time but the Hobart factory didn’t sink that low.

Thank you I would never have thought of that.

To add a little bit more to what's already been said; Stanley planes were made in at least 4 countries last century, so not only are there "local" variations in the casting patterns between localities, there was also variation in the castings from each site over the years. Australian-made Stanleys had a very short production period, approximately 20 years, from early 60s to the early 80s (or thereabouts). The Australian made versions have a reputation for being of very variable quality, deserved or not. I had a #5 from the eraly production period (bought in the mid 60s) and it was a very good plane. On the strength of that I bought a #4 in 1981; it was a lemon. I got it to work after a fashion, but I didn't know much about what makes a plane really tick in those days, so it was never a good user for me. I could probably get the thing to function reasonably well now, but I got rid of it ages ago, so I'll never know for sure.....

Cheers,

Originally Posted by IanW

To add a little bit more to what's already been said; Stanley planes were made in at least 4 countries last century, so not only are there "local" variations in the casting patterns between localities, there was also variation in the castings from each site over the years. Australian-made Stanleys had a very short production period, approximately 20 years, from early 60s to the early 80s (or thereabouts). The Australian made versions have a reputation for being of very variable quality, deserved or not. I had a #5 from the eraly production period (bought in the mid 60s) and it was a very good plane. On the strength of that I bought a #4 in 1981; it was a lemon. I got it to work after a fashion, but I didn't know much about what makes a plane really tick in those days, so it was never a good user for me. I could probably get the thing to function reasonably well now, but I got rid of it ages ago, so I'll never know for sure.....

Cheers,

This the is the sort of history I really appreciate. I too thought I had things that were not so great in the early days but now understand I just hadn't learnt enough to properly form an opinion. I have more planes but gave up on waiting for a damaged 4 1/2 plane for parts so just stripped the one I had.
Cheers

Originally Posted by IanW

Stanley planes were made in at least 4 countries last century, so not only are there "local" variations in the casting patterns between localities, there was also variation in the castings from each site over the years...

And to add a bit more: Stanley planes started in USA (in 1869?). There's lots of information about the variations in USA Stanleys ("Types"). Less so of the products of other Stanley manufacturing sites. I believe Canadian Stanley planes may have closely followed their USA cousins. In December 1936 Stanley bought JA Chapman in UK and began manufacturing Stanley planes there. The first UK Stanleys had all the features of the 1936 USA planes (type 16), but then Stanley UK went off and did their own thing.

Stanley USA ceased making No.7 planes in 1970. I believe they continued making them in UK until the late 1990s or even early 2000s before moving production to the east (India?). With Stanley Australia starting production in 1960s (1964?) it would be interesting to see if they based their planes on the USA or UK version of the time.

As such, I would be keen to see photos of this Stanley No.7 in parts, in order to see detail of many of the components (but as you've now got it up and running... maybe not).

Cheers, Vann.

Vann, it would be interesting to know jf there were any obvious variations in the Australian-made Stanleys during their production run here. I suspect the period was too brief for much variation to creep in. The two planes I had from each end of the period were very recognisable as siblings, though it's been a while since I last saw either so I can't be sure of the finer details. IIRC, the earlier plane had wood knob & tote & the late-period example had plastic, but I'm not absolutely sure my memory is correct..

The #5 I had was my young brother's, he bought it new about 1965/6 and gave it to me to "look after" in the early 70s when he lost interest in woodworking. More than 30 years later, his interest revived, & though he didn't ask for it back, I felt obliged to return it. I'd formed a pretty strong bond with it by then and fettled it into a very nice working plane, but I'd inherited our father's old #5.5 so it would've been very crass to hang onto the 5. I don't know where dad got the 5.5 from, he didn't have it when I left home in about 64, and I suspect he found it at a farm sale or somewhere at a bargain price. It is a type 11 (from the 19-"teens") and suffered from neglect & abuse before being rescued. Its lever cap had gone missing so the old pot had cobbled up a crude replacement which sort of did the job but was quite unsatisfactory & he obviously didn't use the thing for fine work, in fact judging by the rust pattern, I don't think he used it much at all.

I ordered a new lever-cap from Stanley through the local hardware store (remember the days of independent hardware stores when the proprietor would hail you by name & would go out of his way to help you with even minor things? ), not knowing at that point that Stanley had changed the width of the 5 1/2 to match their other 'wide' planes in 1935. Fortunately, the new cap fitted (just) but a new blade needed a wee bit ground off each side to fit through the mouth. The woodwork was in a most forlorn state, but that's the easiest of problems to deal with. The sole is not super-flat but it's close enough that the plane can manage consistent full-width 2 thou shavings, which is as fine as I ever need a jack plane to produce. I now find the 5.5 suits me even better than the #5 as my everyday jack plane; it has become the main workhorse in my shed & hardly a day goes by without it seeing use.

I eventually found a "proper" type 11 lever cap with the straight keyhole and none of the garish chrome plating of the replacement (it wasn't cheap, though!), and it now looks like a respectable elder. This plane is amongst my most prized tools, both for its provenance & its usefulness:
Proper LC.jpg

The irony is that had I acquired this old wreck in my earlier days, I think I'd have had a very hard time getting much joy out of it, but fortunately by the time it fell into my hands I had learnt a little bit about planes in general and could tweak the parts that matter and not just do a cosmetic job. I guess the moral of the story is that you should not give up too easily on a plane that looks like it might have reached the end of its days, as long as the fundamentals are still more or less there, most can be brought back to good or even very good working condition.

Cheers,

Really nice story, Ian.

Originally Posted by IannW

... The irony is that had I acquired this old wreck in my earlier days, I think I'd have had a very hard time getting much joy out of it, but fortunately by the time it fell into my hands I had learnt a little bit about planes in general and could tweak the parts that matter and not just do a cosmetic job. I guess the moral of the story is that you should not give up too easily on a plane that looks like it might have reached the end of its days, as long as the fundamentals are still more or less there, most can be brought back to good or even very good working condition.

Another intrepretation of your accumulated experience could be:

Inexperienced people need good tools,

But experienced people have more options:

• They have the technique to make poor tools work adequately, and
• They can fettle poor tools to become superior tools, and
• They know when its not worth persevering with a rubbish tool.

The Oz Stanley planes were just a continuation of Turners products which were a continuation of the Pope/Falcon range including the infamous die-cast pot metal frogs.
The frogs bend away from overtightning of the Lever cap.
The lateral adjustment then doesn’t work.
Very common complaint from Schools and TAFE colleges when I was education officer for the NSW Stanley office.
I used to carry a pocketful of ‘Y’ levers and lateral levers and when the teacher holding up a bitzer Stanley,Pope,Turner I’d would pull out a handful and ask him how many do you need?
Usually shut them up and got me into the store to remove older unused combo planes, Shute boards and other junk for the Stanley collection in Melbourne head office.
H.

Originally Posted by clear out

The Oz Stanley planes were just a continuation of Turners products which were a continuation of the Pope/Falcon range including the infamous die-cast pot metal frogs....

Henry, who actually started making alloy frogs, was it Falcon or Pope or Turner? I ask because I had a Falcon which I bought at a farm clearing sale (in Canada, of all places, & for the princely sum of $7.0!). It had an iron frog & was actually quite a decent plane. I'd still be using it but I acquired a very nice Record 07 & the Falcon saw so little use after that I swapped it for a beautiful D8 Disston in near-mint condition.

I've never had the misfortune to tangle with an Al-frogged plane & from what you tell us & what I've read elsewhere, I don't think I ever want to....

Cheers,
Ian

Ian,
To the best of my knowledge Falco and Pope where the same company.
The die cast frogs started with that company.
There were also iron frogs about as well.
My father bought me a new local #5 in 1964 when I started my Patternmaking apprenticeship and it had an iron frog,my bro had it at his place but when I cleared out his stash I couldn’t find it.
Stanley bought out Turner after they fell over after the Holt jolt credit squeeze in 1960.

Back when I was working for Stanley in 1981 I collected the #4 frogs from each of the 3 companies and they were obviously out of the same die.
Probably have a few black and white photos somewhere.
My boss in Melbourne was in denial about them.

I always thought it was only the #4 and #5 frogs but thru the forum I’ve become aware that the larger #4 1/2 thru #7 size frogs where also die cast.
Ive since found one at the now TTTG sale here in Sydney.
But up til then I had handled heaps of local planes of those sizes without ever bothering to look closely at the frog material.
H

OK, thanks H. I had the (wrong) impression that it was only Turners that had the die-cast frogs, so I'm glad you straightened me out on that score.

So the moral is, if you want a user, look carefully at the frog material on any old plane of those brands before parting with your hard-earned, eh?

Cheers,
Ian

Originally Posted by clear out

...To the best of my knowledge Falcon and Pope where the same company.
The die cast frogs started with that company.
There were also iron frogs about as well...

I think Pope was the company and Falcon was the brand. The early Falcon-Popes had cast iron frogs (1955 to early 1960s?). Later Falcon-Pope changed to die-cast - at least in the 2 3/8" planes.

I have two Falcon-Pope No.F4 1/2 planes (one complete and one for parts) that I have never used, and a very nice Turner No.5 1/2 that's also never used.


FPT.jpg

Both the Falcons have iron frogs, while the Turner has a die-cast frog. If I ever press the Turner into service I'll probably change out the frog with the spare Falcon.

Cheers, Vann.

I believe J A Chapman were making Acorn planes prior to Stanley buying in, did these planes continue under Stanley?

Cheers,
Geoff.