Thread: Giant Stanley plane.

Originally Posted by old workshop

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

Martin
I wish I could be as sure about this as Patrick apparently is.

Stanley didn't start making hand planes in the UK till 1936 or 37 when they bought a controlling interest in JA Chapman, Sheffield and started cranking out planes. Though some or perhaps many of their planes undoubtedly made it across the pond well before 1930.

But it still begs the question; why was Stanley, in about 1880, branding a "bullnose plane" as a Stanley #11, when at the same time Stanley was making and selling a #11 belt makers plane?
And why is the "Stanley #11 bullnose plane" found only in the UK and some of its colonies? Note that as far as Patrick can discern, the "bullnose #11", was never offered for sale in North America.

Attached thumbnail image of the #11 bullnose plane ©David Stanley Auctions - March 1996, lot 26




A possible alternate explanation is that the "Stanley bullnose #11" is an example of accidental deception.
It's hard to imagine that in 1880, the "Stanley" name would have been so well associated, in the UK at least, with cast metal planes that branding a plane as a "Stanley" would guarantee any plane would become a "best seller". So I'm inclined to the "accidental" explanation. Perhaps there was for a short period a UK based plane maker with the same last name as Mr Stanley?

Hi Ian,

Jim Bodes tools says the No 11 Bullnose was
not offered in any Stanley catalogues but was offered
for sale in two English catalogues in 1885. As for the
Stanley 28", maybe someone made it because other
companies were making longer jointers such as Speirs
made a 26" jointer. Norris made all their Jointer planes
with a half inch longer. Did they make it 28" long so as
not to infringe any copy rights.

Martin.

Originally Posted by old workshop

Hi Ian,
As for the Stanley 28", maybe someone made it because other companies were making longer jointers such as Speirs made a 26" jointer.
Norris made all their Jointer planes with a half inch longer.
Did they make it 28" long so as not to infringe any copy rights.

Martin.

I think Patrick of Blood and Gore infamy, has got it.
Gerry's 28" long "Stanley" is an owner made plane fitted with Stanley parts.
As far as those with much better knowledge than me can tell, it is the only 28" long plane (27% longer than a regular Stanley #7) fitted with Stanley #7 sized parts in existence.

For me the only "oddity" is why the patternmaker (I'm assuming Gerry's plane was made by a patternmaker because matching an extant Stanley #7 frog, blade, tote and knob without patternmaking skills would really be challenging) would have determined they needed deliberately such a long plane -- after all it's 6" longer than a #7.


As far as I can tell, 28" long jointer planes made by Spiers and/or Norris were dovetailed, not made with cast iron.

This kind of thing would be relatively easy for any patternmaker to make if they had access to a casting service or local group that could do castings and machining. The inside of a stanley plane (if you hook the frog from something else) is pretty simple and there's not much to it. The outside machine is also routine.

My guess (which is no better than anyone else's) would be that someone inside a factory wanted a longer casting to play with or pitch to someone, or a patternmaker or someone else really wanted a 28" long plane made and made or had made a pattern and had it casted and finished.

As you say, making the pattern wouldn't challenge a competent patternmaker too much, but whoever did the casting must've known what they were about. Successfully casting a long, thin object like that & have it come out in one piece without warping or cracking gets my utmost respect!

In cast iron, it's definitely not something for a backyard caster or someone who likes to make paperweights. It'd be a little less suspicious if it was bronze.

It's an interesting length because that was common for wooden jointers (28) and if it's early, there may have been folks who didn't think that 22 was long enough as it was more typical for a try plane.

It hasn’t been said by the owner of this plane what the frog is.
Is it type 4 or 5 ? This would be a start to dating it.
I’d be interested to know what thread the frog hold down screws are?
Are they the odd Stanley thread or UNC which was known as USS which was proposed about 1864 so one would assume this was used if not made in the Stanley model shop.

There are people in the States who spend their retirement doing research on this sort of stuff.
A quick google on the Mid West Tool Collectors Association or Early American Industries Association brings up interesting stuff about Stanley prototypes etc they have researched.
I think I probably met one of these guys John Wells, back around Xmas 1983 in San Fransisco when visiting Dave Paling after the San Diego tool swap in the car park of the local tool shop, ‘The Cutting Edge’.

The pattern faker probably made it 28” long because he could.
Same as my English wheel is Aluminium rather than cast iron like the production ones.
Here’s a florin from an old tool box.
Hardly passable in Al but just because. It just happens to be my birthdate.
I did cast some 604s in bronze at the TAFE in the ‘Gong back in the ‘90s whilst doing the hobby Foundry course.
Could have been Iron as we had an electric furnace and could cast what two guys could lift.
I choose bronze for the bling factor.
I had picked up a 604 with a cheek busted off.
Quick fix with ply super glued on plus a bit on the other cheek and sole for machining and bog fillets and hole fillers.
They came out shorter as I didn’t worry about contraction (shrinkage) on the length.
I did get some type 3 frogs done in iron for the 51s and hold downs for the 52.
These came out hard as, must have chilled.
All before the amazing internet so only a few rough snaps at the time which aren’t worth putting up here.
H.

Originally Posted by IanW

As you say, making the pattern wouldn't challenge a competent patternmaker too much, but whoever did the casting must've known what they were about. Successfully casting a long, thin object like that & have it come out in one piece without warping or cracking gets my utmost respect!

back in my far distant past, I did contemplate a career as a patternmaker. I'm not entirely sure why I was thinking that way in my early teens, perhaps because I knew that if I didn't snag a scholarship of some sort studying engineering at Uni (my first choice) would place a massive strain on my parent's finances.

What little I remember from that time, and a subsequent hands on Uni course delivered by the Sydney Technology College, is that the skill in casting long thin objects (or even fat ones) is entirely down to the skill of the person making the pattern.

Not to be picky but I think the moulders and other Foundry riff raff might disagree with that statement Ian.
They are the ones who control the ramming, runners, risers’ metal etc etc.

Off course if the casting turns out a sh!tter the patternmaker is always to blame.
Dont ask me how I know.

Anyhu to get further off track with the op here’s a photo of the bodged up 604 being moulded.

To muddy the waters more a few planes a patternmaker made back in the late 80s up in Brisbane.
Same bloke who did that Norris style kit Ian bought.
He was scared off by a high profile woody re his ‘Bowsaw Tool Co’ logo.
Theres something to digress this post further DW, trade mark recognition
H.

Originally Posted by clear out

Off course if the casting turns out a sh!tter the patternmaker is always to blame.
Don't ask me how I know.

I have an idea of your employment history so I won't.

In the Attachment to the OP Gerry G dated the vaious components of the mystery plane to a ranges of dates in the last quarter of the 1800's. No doubt Gerry's datings have been accepted as accurate.

But there is no way of dating the plane body casting. Is it possible that it is a more modern casting from, say, pre-war or post-war era, that has then been fitted out from the "these might be useful" box of parts?

Scenario: A trainee patternmaker or foundryman as an apprenticeship project makes a generic plane body a little longer and narrower than a standard #8, and then fits it out with cheaply available second hand components. A design paramenter was that those components had to fit. He was unlikely to be able to afford the prices of new components.

Is there any way we can begin to date the plane body casting, alone?

Originally Posted by clear out

......To muddy the waters more a few planes a patternmaker made back in the late 80s up in Brisbane.
Same bloke who did that Norris style kit Ian bought.
He was scared off by a high profile woody re his ‘Bowsaw Tool Co’ logo.
Theres something to digress this post further DW, trade mark recognition
H.....

Aha - I finally understand Henry - I did think you must have made up those kits for a certain retail mob in Sydney, so I guess they had a point! The "logo" your mate chose is a bit close to the mark.

Here is the plane in question: Logo.jpg

And this is the logo (looks a bit more refined than the ones above - better patternmaker?? ) Logo 2.jpg

On the other hand, if they'd registered their business as "Bowsaw Tools", why can't they have a picture of a bowsaw? A bowsaw is a bowsaw & with minor variations have been around since becfore any such tools existed in Australia - you can also find illustrations of turning saws in old Marples catalogues that are nearly identical, & they would pre-date said Sydney mob by a good many years. So I think they were resorting to a certain amount of bluff, I reckon a half-decent Silk could've blown their case out of the courtroom in jig time..

This is in keeping with the OP, btw since we are talking about odd planes that crop up. There must be scads of them out there, some that look a lot like factory made jobs with minor tweaks (if you call 150mm minor )

I came across this rusting hulk in a junk shop in Toowoomba and gave it a new lease of life: shavings.jpg

Although it has no markings whatever, it's clearly modelled after Spiers or Norris, but the casting is a bit more amateurish than any Spiers or Norris I've sen. Unfortunately, the person selling it had no information on its provenance so I'll never know if it was a local foundry job or it came from afar....
Cheers,
Ian

Grahame I think possibly a tradesman gave an apprentice a broken #7 and he then made the pattern.
Why longer ? Why not ? Like my Al Ewheel because you can. You also leave a conundrum for people to puzzle over.
Re identifying a casting unless you leave your moniker and a date good luck.
I was given a Stanley #8 first job out of my time so it did happen.
H.