Thread: Giant Stanley plane.

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.

Given that it’s narrower than a No 8, perhaps it should be a No 9 1/4?

I don’t think it can be stated with any authority that it ISN’T a Stanley going by the lack of a maker’s mark; from memory the first time the name Stanley appeared anywhere on the plane (other than the blade) was on the type 5 which introduced the lateral lever. The article states the frog, receiver and brass adjuster is the type 4 so only the adjuster would be stamped with Baileys patent date.

I would agree that it was a prototype, or possibly even a custom order around the early 1880’s. The patent for the lateral lever wasn’t granted until 1884 but they would have researched and trialled it well before then.

It should have gone into production! I like the 9-1/4 designation; I think a 28” jointer with the 2-3/8” iron would have been a winner! I don’t think it would have weighed much more than an 8 and although I like the length and heft an 8 gives me I don’t have have much use for the extra width.

Thanks for sharing this interesting anomaly!

Stanley couldn’t have called it a #9 as this # was already in use in 1870 for the Cabinetmakers block plane.
Out of interest does the blade adjusting wheel have a left or right hand thread?
If type 4 or 5 it should be right hand ie rotate to left to advance blade.
It was type 6 where they changed it to the more intuitive left hand ie rotate right to advance.
There was a Stanley collectors newsletter of which I subscribed to for a year back in the 90s after seeing it at a Mid West Tool Collectors Sale in Springfield Mi.
A mate in Albury kept getting it but I’ve lost contact with him.
In this news letter researchers like Roger K Smith would report or comment on these sort of odd Stanley planes as they were found.
This would be the place to put this plane or contact Roger himself.
These guys are very approachable and interested in what turns up.
We had a few give talks for the Sydney tool club in the early daze before the current pres took over.
H.

Originally Posted by Colin62

Given that it’s narrower than a No 8, perhaps it should be a No 9 1/4?

That should make it an 8 1/4 by Stanley convention; 5 1/4 being slightly smaller than the 5.
But it's also longer than an 8, so perhaps it should be a 7 1/2, given that it's the width of a 7 but longer...
But the 1/2 numbers are wider than the whole number while retaining the length...

At any rate, I'm not entirely convinced that the conclusion of "Outcome, definitely is a Stanley" is warranted IMHO. Maybe it's a Stanley prototype, maybe someone who worked at an unrelated foundry had a request from the pattern shop for a longer 7, so they simply made a longer pattern? With only one picture given, I don't think we can really make a definitive call here.

What an interesting creation - Stanley or not.
Stanley did actually make a longer and wider plane than this - the Stanley 34 - which was 30 inches long with a 2-5/8" blade
Of course it wasn't all metal but the largest of the so-called transitional planes.
This one seems to be unique, whoever made it
Tom

I've seen some long woodies with fairly narrow cutting irons (blades), something that makes perfect sense if most of your work is not much more than 1-1/2" thick.

Originally Posted by elanjacobs

......But the 1/2 numbers are wider than the whole number while retaining the length....

Nope, elan, the 10 & 10 1/2 are the same width and the 10 1/2 is the shortie. The fractional numbering system is all over the place & has no logical progression that I can discern (I seem to remember Patrick making that observation particularly with respect to block plane numbering - f'rinstance, the "9" designation got used for their "box mitre" and for a block plane (9 1/2) that has nothing in common with the 9 mitre plane other than a BU blade).

The only thing consistent with Stanley's numbering system is its inconsistency, so any number you gave the mystery plane would be in keeping with Stanley's random numbering 'system'...

Originally Posted by elanjacobs

...... maybe someone who worked at an unrelated foundry had a request from the pattern shop for a longer 7, so they simply made a longer pattern? With only one picture given, I don't think we can really make a definitive call here....

I reckon that's a useful working hypothesis, but whio knows? There were 'experimental' prototypes made & sent out in very small numbers for evaluation, I've read, and you'd expect these to be unbranded for "commercial in confidence" reasons (even though the term wasn't invented for another 100 plus years ), so it's feasible that it's a ridgy-didge Stanley. The "bitser" construction could fit with either a prototype or a one-off foundry worker product, so that doesn't pin anything down.

Or p'raps some chap in the Stanley works thought he'd have a bit of fun a la the Lee Valley annual April 1st spoofs? Though tradition has it that the Yankees were a rather serious lot not given to such frivolity...

Whatever it is & wherever it originated, that plane presents a mystery that I'd be wanting to pursue if I were a plane historian (which I'm most definitely not!). It's worth having simply as a talking point, and may even be very useful if you need to joint very long, thin boards..

Cheers,

Thanks guys, your comments are quite encouraging. I'll draw Gerry's attention to this thread.

Cheers,
Geoff.

Originally Posted by IanW

Nope, elan, the 10 & 10 1/2 are the same width and the 10 1/2 is the shortie. The fractional numbering system is all over the place & has no logical progression that I can discern (I seem to remember Patrick making that observation particularly with respect to block plane numbering - f'rinstance, the "9" designation got used for their "box mitre" and for a block plane (9 1/2) that has nothing in common with the 9 mitre plane other than a BU blade).

The only thing consistent with Stanley's numbering system is its inconsistency, so any number you gave the mystery plane would be in keeping with Stanley's random numbering 'system'...



I reckon that's a useful working hypothesis, but whio knows? There were 'experimental' prototypes made & sent out in very small numbers for evaluation, I've read, and you'd expect these to be unbranded for "commercial in confidence" reasons (even though the term wasn't invented for another 100 plus years ), so it's feasible that it's a ridgy-didge Stanley. The "bitser" construction could fit with either a prototype or a one-off foundry worker product, so that doesn't pin anything down.

Or p'raps some chap in the Stanley works thought he'd have a bit of fun a la the Lee Valley annual April 1st spoofs? Though tradition has it that the Yankees were a rather serious lot not given to such frivolity...

Whatever it is & wherever it originated, that plane presents a mystery that I'd be wanting to pursue if I were a plane historian (which I'm most definitely not!). It's worth having simply as a talking point, and may even be very useful if you need to joint very long, thin boards..

Cheers,

Yes - a definite possibility.
On the other hand, could it have been a lunchtime project from the back shed at Stanley foundry.
Here is an example - when is a Stanley not a Stanley..........
I was given a box of rusty tools by an old gent last year.
This was in the bottom.
It is brass

TS_210912_002.jpgTS_210912_001.jpg

Originally Posted by IanW

Nope, elan, the 10 & 10 1/2 are the same width and the 10 1/2 is the shortie. The fractional numbering system is all over the place & has no logical progression that I can discern (I seem to remember Patrick making that observation particularly with respect to block plane numbering - f'rinstance, the "9" designation got used for their "box mitre" and for a block plane (9 1/2) that has nothing in common with the 9 mitre plane other than a BU blade).

Ah. I was just going by the standard bench planes, 4 1/2 and 5 1/2 being wider but the same length.

Originally Posted by GraemeCook

... 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. ...

Originally Posted by IanW

... The only thing consistent with Stanley's numbering system is its inconsistency, so any number you gave the mystery plane would be in keeping with Stanley's random numbering 'system'... ...

Thanks for confirming the accuracy of my numbering, Ian.

Originally Posted by Boringgeoff

Hi, hand plane aficionados.

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.
I have taken the liberty of posting it here in the hope that some of you who take Stanley plane research seriously may be able to air your views on the subject.
Hand Tool Preservation Society - Giant Stanley Plane


Cheers,
Geoff.

My view Geoff is We would all like a better view .

More pictures if you can.

From what I can see from that bad picture is.

1 . The sole looks thicker .
2. The sides of the body don't slope down towards the ends .
There is more cast iron in what is a longer plane so to me it has the look of the late modern Stanley's . Heavy and ugly.

3. The paint reflects light like a re painted or New paint job not like an older Stanley Japanned finish .
4. The ends of brass screws look bright and new or over restored .

So I'd be betting if I walked up and picked it up I would see a body casting showing small differences compared to Stanley patterns. And differences in machining and fitting practice compared to vintage Stanley planes.

It would interesting to test out such a plane . Jointing on some long table top boards to see what difference that extra length made.



Rob

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

UH-OH !