Thread: Giant Stanley plane.

Originally Posted by GraemeCook

Interesting article and conundrum, Geoff.

About the only thing we can say for certain is that the so-called "Stanley expert" is absolutely wrong when he dismisses it as a counterfeit. The plane is not branded and therefore does not pretend to be a Stanley. It is not a counterfeit.

Did Stanley produce any products that were not prominently branded with their name? I have never seen any.

But then, many planes look like Stanleys - LN, LV, WR, Luban; the list is long.

Following Stanley's progression in sizes from the No 1 through No 8, then an extra 100 mm would logically make it a No 9. That's it - a Non-Stanley No 9.

Hi Graeme,
Stanley (and before them Bailey) made a #9 plane -- described as a cabinet maker's block plane. I have the LN version, which was replaced (sort of) by LN's #51 Shute board plane. Unlike this one being sold by Jim Bode, my LN#9 has cherry knobs rather than Cocobolo ones. (Photo credit Jim Bode tools)



so Gerry's plane is definitely not a "Stanley #9", or a Lie Nielsen #9.

Originally Posted by Boringgeoff

A fellow member of the Hand Tool Preservation Society of WA, Gerry, does extensive research on Stanley planes and recently posted this article on our website. He has received limited feedback on the subject, with one well known US based Stanley expert brushing it off as a counterfeit.

Originally Posted by GraemeCook

About the only thing we can say for certain is that the so-called "Stanley expert" is absolutely wrong when he dismisses it as a counterfeit. The plane is not branded and therefore does not pretend to be a Stanley. It is not a counterfeit.

But the plane was listed as a "Stanley" leading credence to the "counterfeit" response.

By looking at the list of Types vs parts, the plane might better be described as a "Frankenplane".


but what really gets me is the plane's unusual length. Someone has had the skill to make a wooden (I presume wood would have been used) pattern 6" (150 mm) longer than a regular Stanley #7. But the width and other critical dimensions indicate that the plane was deliberately manufactured and not made as a "lunch time" or "Friday arvo special order". ("Friday arvo special orders" almost invariably used an existing plane body as the pattern for the casting, resulting in a slightly undersize finished plane.)



Certainly worth investing some more time into the quest.

I alerted Gerry to this discussion but haven't heard back from him yet.

Cheers,
Geoff.

Looking at the giant plan image. It just looks like a longer jointer plane.
I just press the power button on my stationary electric jointer planer and get the job done.
When I feel like having fun I use my Makita hand held power planer.
I probably hybrid wood worker. I enjoy using both electric power tools and non electric hand tools.
Who made what where and when and this looks almost like that.
As long as a product is made quality materials and
The WR appearance, comfort, quality, machining and functionality for the price is more than good enough for me. Photos of #91 and #92 shoulder planes.
Oh yes. I forgot to mention the attractive textured areas making it easy to grip.

Originally Posted by ian

Hi Graeme,
Stanley (and before them Bailey) made a #9 plane -- described as a cabinet maker's block plane. ...

So Gerry's plane is definitely not a "Stanley #9", or a Lie Nielsen #9.

Absolutely agree, that is why I described it as a Non-Stanley No 9".

... But the plane was listed as a "Stanley" leading credence to the "counterfeit" response.

By looking at the list of Types vs parts, the plane might better be described as a "Frankenplane".

I am not so sure on this, Ian. The original maker did not brand the plane as a Stanley, there is no evidence whatsoever that he attempted to pass it off as a Stanley, or any other proprietary product. Just an artisan produced plane, by an anonymous artisan. Or perhaps a prototype?

Gery G in the attachment to the OP may have been guilty of some sloppy wording when he used the Stanley moniker. But I read it more as an appeal for help; "I have something interesting here, does anyone know what it is. It has some resemblences to a Stanley and some variances. He was careful to note the absense of Stanley branding."

Perhaps - Non-Stanley Frankenplane No 9 (or 9¼).

Originally Posted by woodhog

The WR appearance, comfort, quality, machining and functionality for the price is more than good enough for me. Photos of #91 and #92 shoulder planes.

Curious that Wood River are branding their version of the Record #041 and #042 (which themselves are copies of earlier Preston designs)
Preston #1368



and are still being made by Lie Nielsen who adopted the Record numbering schema
Lie Nielsen #042



are being sold by Wood River with the Stanley numbering schema. But the Stanley shoulder planes have a totally different appearance.
Stanley #92

Try searching the 1367 shoulder plane then select images and compare.

Originally Posted by clear out

Stanley couldn’t have called it a #9 as this # was already in use in 1870 for the Cabinetmakers block plane.

I don't think you can discount a No.9 on the basis that another plane was already designated that number. While Stanley planes are not my area, I would point to other manufacturers, such as Disston, who had no compunction whatsoever about doubling up on models using the same number .However, having read this thread, I doubt it was ever officially called a No.9 and there is likely another explanation such as a special order.

Regards
Paul

Originally Posted by GraemeCook

Absolutely agree, that is why I described it as a Non-Stanley No 9".

snip

Perhaps - Non-Stanley Frankenplane No 9 (or 9¼).

Graeme, for what follows I'm drawing on Patrick's Blood and Gore descriptions

Stanley #7 -- bench plane, 22" long, 2-3/8" wide, weight 8-1/8 lbs, "wuzzy" brother to

Stanley #8 -- bench plane, 24" long, 2-5/8" wide, weight 9.75 lbs

Stanley #9 -- Cabinet makers block plane, 10" long (8-1/4" 1936 onwards), 2" wide, 4.5 lbs

Stanley #9-1/4 -- Block plane, 6" long, 1-5/8" wide, weight 1.25 lbs

Stanley #9-1/2 -- block plane, 6" long, 1-3/4" wide (1-5/8" from 1909), weight 1-1/2 lbs

Stanley #9-3/4 -- block plane, 6" long, 1-3/4" wide (1-5/8" 1909 onwards), weight 1.625 lbs. This plane has a handle like that on the Cabinet makers block plane

Stanley #10 -- Carriage makers rabbet plane, 14" long (13" after 1887), 2-1/8" wide, 4-1/4 lbs

Stanley #10-1/4 -- carriage makers rabbet plane

Stanley #10-1/2 -- carriage makers rabbet plane

Stanley #11 -- belt makers plane



that's all the Stanley numbers, including the -1/4s and -1/2s and -3/4s between #7 and #11.


if anything, Gerry's "unknown plane" at 28" long, might be designated as a #7-3/4 (in the Stanley numbering schema) on the basis that a #7-1/4 would be shorter than a standard #7, a #7-1/2 would be the same width as a #8, but still shorter than an #8, leaving the "unused" #7-3/4 as a possible descriptor for Gerry's plane





I'll go back to my box now ...

Originally Posted by Ian

... I'll go back to my box now ...

Me, too.

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

I don't think you can discount a No.9 on the basis that another plane was already designated that number. While Stanley planes are not my area, I would point to other manufacturers, such as Disston, who had no compunction whatsoever about doubling up on models using the same number. However, having read this thread, I doubt it was ever officially called a No.9 and there is likely another explanation such as a special order.

As far as Patrick (the author of Blood and Gore) knows, there is only a single example of Stanley duplicating their plane numbering.
The example is #11, and, again based on Patrick's expertise with Stanley planes, the #11 bull nose plane was only ever offered for sale in the UK.

Hypothesis: someone who worked at a foundry, maybe a pattern maker, broke the sole of their number 7 and decided to make a new one, but instead of copying the design of their type 5, they went for the easier type 4 instead. And just for kicks they made the sole longer because they could. Once the new sole was cast they fitted their type 5 frog and handles to it and left everyone else a mystery. Cheers, Zac

Sent from my SM-A115F using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by Fergiz01

Hypothesis: someone who worked at a foundry, maybe a pattern maker, broke the sole of their number 7 and decided to make a new one, but instead of copying the design of their type 5, they went for the easier type 4 instead. And just for kicks they made the sole longer because they could. Once the new sole was cast they fitted their type 5 frog and handles to it and left everyone else a mystery. Cheers, Zac

Sent from my SM-A115F using Tapatalk

Hi Ian,
Stanley made a No 11 Belt makers plane and also
repeated the no 11 with a Bullnose 11.

Martin.

Originally Posted by ian

As far as Patrick (the author of Blood and Gore) knows, there is only a single example of Stanley duplicating their plane numbering.

Thought I'd shoot him an email about this, given that he is generally regarded as an authority on Stanley planes (not necessarily THE authority, but certainly an authority) and got the following response:

Not Stanley.


They never made a plane that long.


It's owner made with Stanley parts on it.

Make of that what you will.