Thread: A cautionary tale

Nice recovery. I doubt there are all that many others ( readers of this forum excepted ) would be able to bring it back from such a butchered state.

Originally Posted by RayG

Nice recovery. I doubt there are all that many others ( readers of this forum excepted ) would be able to bring it back from such a butchered state.

Ray, I think anyone who has a few basic clues could have got it to work. I was lucky in having a spare cap-iron that fitted, or I would've had to make one, which is a fair bit of work. It would need a bit more fettling to get it to peak performance, but it's quite useable now. I've fixed a couple of lateral adjusters before, but that was just minor stuff like replacing a busted rivet, until today I'd not made the whole thing from scratch. I guess I could've cobbled up something without it, but my little metal lathe sure made that job heaps easier, particularly the disc that engages the blade slot. I was able to turn both a disc of the right size, and the stepped rivet so that the disc still turns easily after the rivet was clenched. If you valued my time, the plane cost a ridiculous amount, but I had a bit of fun rising to a challenge, & te outcome was a half-decent plane, so all's good in shedland tonight......

P.S. I'd like to find a genuine lever cap sometime, I had to take a turn of thread off the screw to get the Sargent cap to lock down sufficiently tightly. This plane is a type 13 (1925-8), & needs a #4 cap with a pear-shaped screw hole, not kidney-shaped.
Cheers,

Ian

I think you are a little more of the plane historian than you have led us to believe. Also, I disagree with you that most people would have recognised the issues with that plane and I strongly disagree than most people would have been able to fix those problems.

In short, you did well on all counts. I hope the daughter appreciates you .

Regards
Paul

Nope, I'm not an authority on the history of Stanley planes by a very long shot, Paul! I knew it was an oldie because there was no ring around the front knob (which I thought meant it was pre-1918 until I looked it up & found I was out by 10 years on that), & the body is a lighter casting than post WW2 models & has a single patent date, which put it into the first quarter of the 20th C. The Rosewood suggested pre-WW2, which was some corroboration, but woodwork is as easily changed as blade assemblies, so that's not to be relied on. I think the rear tote is most likely original, but the knob has been changed, possibly because the original split (which is why Stanley added the ring in the casting). I'd love to know its full story (especially why someone butchered the toe of the frog), but that's highly unlikely. I've ended up with a good plane, but not so good that I'd replace my much later English #4 with it, as I first thought I might......

Cheers,

I'm not a collector, but a user, so whilst walking through a market a few months back I came across a seller of tools. In amongst his offerings were a few older Stanley hand planes, including a #3 & #5 which were in pretty good condition but had some new parts - frog mounting screws etc. So I enquired - "how much for these?" When the reply came back "thirty bucks each mate" I couldn't get my wallet out fast enough.

Everything is there, blades are good, very little corrosion on the sole, they stripped down without any issues at all, so they have led a charmed life. Blade angles were a bit off and had been crudely sharpened. I doubt they would have produced any acceptable performance in that condition. I guess the original owner cared for them well, then they fell into untrained hands for a period. I now have two very nice users and now I have to work on identifying dates etc.

Another "find" on a different occasion looked OK but turned out to have some well hidden issues - like the tote bolt with

an incompatible thread

welded to the body, frog mounting issues etc ….. truly a franken plane but it was very cheap and a source for some parts.

Thirty dollars apiece for a good user 4 & 5 is my kind of price alright, Mt. I'd have dislocated my elbow whipping out the wallet too!

I've seen hopelessly 'sharpened' or abused blades so often in what otherwise seem to be reasonably well cared-for planes, and always wonder what the story is. As you say, such blades cannot have cut wood to a standard even an inexperienced person would tolerate. I think the scenario you proposed for your plane might be a common story - dad or grand-dad's plane goes to someone in the family who knows nothing about tools, they have a few tries at grinding/sharpening the blade, then give up in disgust at the way it works for them.

Blade condition is the least important factor for me when looking at a potential purchase - if it's for me, it'll be wearing a Hock or LV blade in very short order, and if it's for passing on, I have a few spares of 'good' manufacturer's originals I can fit if the existing blade isn't recoverable. The condition of the blade in the one above would be the worst I've ever seen. The multifaceted & severely skewed bevel was a work of art that must've taken a lot of effort to produce, and the badly belled-over & split top spelled someone with no feeling for tools, but with a good-sized hammer! Given the other obvious 'foreign' parts, I have a suspicion this plane was cobbled together from bits & pieces by someone who knew very well what they were doing, and reckoned it'd find a sucker. It did!

As SIL says, "we learn things, don't we?" ...
Cheers,

Originally Posted by IanW

I have a suspicion this plane was cobbled together from bits & pieces by someone who knew very well what they were doing, and reckoned it'd find a sucker. It did!

As SIL says, "we learn things, don't we?" ...
Cheers,

LOL. we all have rose coloured glasses on at times.

After assisting at a manual arts teacher in-service training day organized by a local specialist wood tools supplier I can see how many of these planes get cobbled together. No slight on the individuals involved as many of them are in small schools covering many teaching roles, however this particular group did not have much of a background in wood work or wood turning.

Even hand eye co-ordination was a challenge for a few, and most had little knowledge on the basics such as how to work grain. So it easy to see how a well intentioned teacher stretched for resources with a box full of bits could attempt to add to the worker tools available to students.

After maintaining "community" tools in a woodturning club it is very easy to understand how cutting edges on any tool quickly move away from optimal angles / grinds.

Originally Posted by Mobyturns

...... it is very easy to understand how cutting edges on any tool quickly move away from optimal angles / grinds......

That's a very polite way to describe making an utter mess of things.

'Tis a bit of a worry that modern youngsters seem to have lost the sort of manual dexterity we took for granted 60 years ago. It was a rite of passage to be able to put a good edge on a pocket-knife, for e.g. Nowadays, twenty-somethings can type text with two thumbs at blinding speed, but seem to be mightily challenged by a chisel or knife. The last few years I was teaching veterinary students how to do an autopsy, I was amazed how clumsy & tentative most were with knives. They had no idea how to sharpen one, and even less ability to keep one sharp - I could not convince them that hacking through to the stainless-steel bench-tops was not a good way to keep a knife cutting. Of those who did seem comfortable with sharp edges, most were women. When I complimented them on their skill & asked them about prior experience, some said they enjoyed cooking & had picked up knife skills in the process, or had enjoyed woodwork classes at school. So there's hope.....

Cheers,