Thread: Choosing Bailey type planes

I mean, what use is a no.1 anyway?

When you place the #1 on its velvet cushion atop the pedestal in the middle of your workshop the soothing glow that it emits illuminates your workbench and soothes your soul.
It is written.........

Why does my #5 Turner feel nicer than my #5 Stanley?

Monoman; It would be nice to get some more 'local' opinions on what Baileys are worth buying but right from the start it should be said that Patrick's Blood & Gore (useful as it is) should be taken with a very large grain of salt.

I've thought about this a few times, and I just reckon everyone likes stanley because they came out with most of the designs first; many of which are still being used today. I personally give a lot less credit to any of the other companies, Turner, Carter, LN who used their designs, because all they did was make refinements. Sure, they might perform a bit better, but I just feel like someone out there cheated a bit when I hold one. Might sound silly...

Eldanos

You have to remember that worldwide transport was relatively more expensive in the late C19 and early C20 and Stanley US could not supply the US market on its own (hence Sargent, Millers Falls, Sears etc) let alone the world market. So there were local manufacturers who were usually given Stanley castings to start them off.

Also, imported tools were usually subject to horrifying import tarrifs designed to try to protect local producers. That this was a wrong-headed economic policy was not realised until much later - and some people still don't understand that the tarrif that protects one person's job makes the product more expensive and means that there is not enough money around to buy something else which will give another person a job.

Having said that, in general the Turner, Falcon Pope and Carter planes made in Australia were often better cast and more accurately fitted than the Stanley US, UK and Can competitors, so much so that Stanley Australia was founded to compete with, and ultimately to buy up, the local competitors (and then close down the whole lot).

Originally Posted by seanz

............Patrick's Blood & Gore (useful as it is) should be taken with a very large grain of salt.

Seanz, I think Patrick means us to take a lot of what he's written with several large grains......

As to which Baileys are worth buying, I'd reckon: 'the ones you need for the work you do, that work well, and come at a (to you at least) reasonable cost.' I have about 6 Bailey type bench planes that I use regularly, one Record (#7), the others are either Australian or UK Stanleys. I think the Record is late '40s or early 50's (when did Record stop using Rosewood?) but the rest are all definitely post WW2. They all work well, after varying degrees of fettling. Most have had their wood (or plastic, yuk!) handles replaced with something decent, and all have after-market blades in them (mostly are LV, and 2 Hocks) but that's all - they all still have the stock-standard crappy cap-irons.

My favourite is a #5 Stanley made in Australia, sometime in the early 60's, I presume (my youngest brother bought it while still at school, and gave it to me some years later). I've had it since about 1973. That plane needed little fettling from the start, but has responded to a bit of TLC - I long since chucked the handle & knob that came with it & it has a LV blade in it at the moment, taking over from an Australian-made HSS blade that was coming to the end of its run (which shows how much use it gets). I had a nice Falcon #6 for a while, but swapped it for something else after I got my #7, because I found I was ignoring the #6.

I can compare all these with one Clifton, and a very late model A5 Norris. The reason I have a Clifton is I'd just read a glowing review, & saw them at the woodshow at a pretty good discount. I'd always been attracted to the bedrock frog idea, and had some spare $$s burning a hole in my pocket (a rare event!) so went home with one. It's not a bad plane, though the handle (tote) was as shoddy a piece of work as I've seen on a tool that pretends to be refined - that quickly went in the bin to be replaced by something a bit more respectable!. However, my Australian Stanley is just as nice to use & can take just as fine shavings as the Clifton, from equally mongrel woods. The Norris is slightly superior to both, but such a fussy little beast of a thing to set just so after sharpening (despite all the slop in the Bailey mechanism, it's actually easier to set quickly, once you are used to it, though perhaps it's just lack of practce on the Norris...). Anyway, I tend to use it less than I could, mostly because that sharp edge on the back of the bun is uncomfortable for me on long planing sessions. I'd take a rasp to it, but I'm thinking of selling it, & user modifications might not help the sale price!

I bought a new #4 Australian Stanley a few years after I was given the #5. It was an absolute dog, & even after several attempts to fettle it, I couldn't get it to work worth a damn - that was early in my plane-fettling career, and I may be able to figure out what the underlying problem was, now, if I hadn't long since gotten rid of it.

So what I'm tryng to say, in a long-winded way, is that there are plenty of Australian-made Bailey type planes out there, that are either working just fine or could be made to do so pretty easily. Let them keep a reputation for inferiority, I say - it keeeps the prices down for people starting out......

Cheers,

Don't forget - the US market that Patrick is really writing about never saw any of our stuff! The tarrif walls were aup there too. The inferior brands in US eyes were the Sargents, Millers Falls etc

That saved a lot of typing, most baily style planes with a little TLC are great users. I don't like the late model pressed metal frogs and adjusters. I eliminate most of my bailey slop in the adjuster with a shim over the adjuster/cap iron connection. That only leaves the slop in the knob and yoke which is minimal usually. I have a No5 footprint which is lovely to use, a Carter No4 that my 14yr old son did up that is a great plane as well as the usual aray of stanleys, yes the Noris A2 is a large step above but they are priced the same, the thick blade, weight and quality is hard to beat.

I've got a US Stanley 6 and an Australian Stanley 6. The US one is a lighter casting and an easier plane to wield. I've got quite a few Falcons and I think they are as good as the Stanleys. Of course, they all need fettling, as do Stanleys. I've been attracted to Turners. I understand that when Pope stopped making planes they sold the castings on to Turners, but the Turners I've seen seem to be slightly finer castings. I don't have any Turners to compare though.

[QUOTE=IanW;1001917]Seanz, I think Patrick means us to take a lot of what he's written with several large grains...... QUOTE]

Reading it can make you thirsty.........

I do like how he calls transitional planes 'flamable' but what I meant was he is very US orientated, not suprising and fair enough too, and so doesn't give the other countries of manufacture much of a mention.


Interesting to read the reason why my Turner feels nicer than my Stanley....tariffs aren't all bad.

Originally Posted by seanz

....... but what I meant was he is very US orientated, not suprising....

Well, he is a Septic, after all, and 99% of 'em don't seem to think anything made outside of the Mainland States is worth bothering about.

Some of the older Stanleys have lighter castings, too. I have a nice 5 1/2 that was my old man's - dates from the '30s, and its casting is much lighter than more recent ones. It's had a hard life, but has stood up well, nevertheless.

Cheers,
IW

Originally Posted by jmk89

Eldanos

You have to remember that worldwide transport was relatively more expensive in the late C19 and early C20 and Stanley US could not supply the US market on its own (hence Sargent, Millers Falls, Sears etc) let alone the world market. So there were local manufacturers who were usually given Stanley castings to start them off.

Also, imported tools were usually subject to horrifying import tarrifs designed to try to protect local producers. That this was a wrong-headed economic policy was not realised until much later - and some people still don't understand that the tarrif that protects one person's job makes the product more expensive and means that there is not enough money around to buy something else which will give another person a job.

Having said that, in general the Turner, Falcon Pope and Carter planes made in Australia were often better cast and more accurately fitted than the Stanley US, UK and Can competitors, so much so that Stanley Australia was founded to compete with, and ultimately to buy up, the local competitors (and then close down the whole lot).

Well, Can't argue with any of that jmk89! Very good points that I was a little too ignorant to take into consideration.

Slightly off topic now; anyone have any idea why my Carter no78 doesn't have a nicker like a stanley??

Originally Posted by Eldanos of KDM

I've thought about this a few times, and I just reckon everyone likes stanley because they came out with most of the designs first; many of which are still being used today. I personally give a lot less credit to any of the other companies, Turner, Carter, LN who used their designs, because all they did was make refinements. Sure, they might perform a bit better, but I just feel like someone out there cheated a bit when I hold one. Might sound silly...

As a collector of early Stanley Planes, the additional enjoyment comes from identifying the manufacture date (type study). Blood & Gore doesn't give enough details to do a proper evaluation. The best source for any serious collector of Stanley Manufactured Tools is John Walters book Stanley Tools - Guide to Identify & Value (885 pages). In general terms, the condition, the vintage, & market demand determine the $$$$ value of Stanley tools.

planemaker.

Originally Posted by IanW

So what I'm tryng to say, in a long-winded way, is that there are plenty of Australian-made Bailey type planes out there, that are either working just fine or could be made to do so pretty easily. Let them keep a reputation for inferiority, I say - it keeeps the prices down for people starting out.

I have three Pope/Falcon planes now and any of them does an infinitely better job that the new Stanley #4 I bought first up, for a lot less foldy stuff. I couldn't agree more.