Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 31 to 42 of 42
  1. #31
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Perth, Australia
    Posts
    1,813

    Default

    Think it's actually post-war, Type 19. Still absurdly clean for its age though, it's at least 50+ years old.

  2. # ADS
    Google Adsense Advertisement
    Join Date
    Always
    Location
    Advertising world
    Posts
    Many





     
  3. #32
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Perth, Australia
    Posts
    1,813

    Default

    And I completely agree with you Ian, there's something incredibly satisfying about finally getting a good shaving out of these things. I actually had a bit of an epiphany over the weekend, I tend to get a bit burned out in the shop after an hour or two these days and couldn't figure out why.

    Last Monday I got into the shop and immediately started testing out some planes I'd tuned up the night before. And just like that an hour had gone by without me noticing. Think I'm starting to realise I'm more interested in the long way round, get so much more joy out of using a hand plane than I do from using my machines. So going to try and dedicate a little time each day I'm in there to hand tools and see where that takes me.

  4. #33
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Bundaberg
    Age
    54
    Posts
    3,402

    Default

    Sorry to disappoint you but that plane was made in the early 80's at the very, very earliest. Although it has 4-1/2 on the toe, behind the frog it has a G12-045 model number. This series of planes replaced the normal range; they were designed to be even cheaper to make than the leave-no-corner-uncut type 20+ models. Look at how little metal there is to touch on the frog receiver; eight tiny spots!

    The handle looks like it is made of purple plastic? Although it is hinting at a really deeply stained hardwood I can make out flashing running down the centre line. Not sure of the knob though; it looks more like hardwood; can you confirm what these are made of? Plastic came in around 1985.

    I'd take a stab at this being a late 80's/early 90's model going by the dot matrix printing on the box.
    Nothing succeeds like a budgie without a beak.

  5. #34
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Brisbane (western suburbs)
    Age
    77
    Posts
    12,094

    Default

    While I think the chief is, as usual, spot on with the ageing, don't despair! You may be lucky & have a plane that works well out of the box, but even if it doesn't, a bit of a lick here & a nudge there, & you could get a decent user out of it. The Australian-made Stanleys had an even worse reputation for quality, but I once had a Stanley Aust. #5 that was a very good plane from new, & with a bit of fettling and an after-market blade it became an excellent plane.....

    Cheers,
    IW

  6. #35
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Brisbane (western suburbs)
    Age
    77
    Posts
    12,094

    Default

    While I think the chief is, as usual, spot on with the ageing, don't despair! You may be lucky & have a plane that works well out of the box, but even if it doesn't, a bit of a lick here & a nudge there, & you could get a decent user out of it. The Australian-made Stanleys had an even worse reputation for quality, but I once had a Stanley Aust. #5 that was a very good plane from new, & with a bit of fettling and an after-market blade it became an excellent plane.....

    Cheers,
    IW

  7. #36
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Perth, Australia
    Posts
    1,813

    Default

    You're right! I knew something seemed off about it, there's so much different about it compares to others I've seen. The handles should have been a dead giveaway too but I thought it was a really thick lacquer [emoji23]

    Seems I need some help using the Stanley plane dating site [emoji19]

    *Edit* oh it looks like the site doesn't cover this era. Helpful!

  8. #37
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Bundaberg
    Age
    54
    Posts
    3,402

    Default

    Although there is plenty of info around on the US Stanleys; English and Aussie plane dating is rather hit and miss but in general if it has wooden handles then it will be “ok”. Personally I just stick with pre-33 US Stanleys and pre-57 Records. I do have some younger planes; my very first was a 1974 ex-WD Record 4, I have an early-ish English 4-1/2 and a very rusty and beaten up Aussie 4C that is going to be a scrub.

    As Ian says, you may be lucky and find it works well out the box but almost ANY Stanley can be made to take wispy thin shavings that leaves a polished surface behind. Some of them might take a lot of fettling but they’ll come good eventually. The reason why I go for the early US models and similar Records is simple, they hold their settings better. I have two Record 4-1/2’s as well as the Stanley; I find that when I take their blades out for sharpening the Records only need a few seconds of fiddling to be cutting well again whereas I’ll spend at least twice as long fiddling with the depth and lateral adjusters, often having to release the lever cap and nudge the whole blade and cap iron assembly over to one side. My 1911 Stanley 5 needs even less playing with before the iron is in exactly the right position.
    Nothing succeeds like a budgie without a beak.

  9. #38
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Perth, Australia
    Posts
    1,813

    Default

    Thanks Chief! I'm going to give it a go this weekend and see if it's a user otherwise I'll put it back on eBay.

    Hadn't thought to look for Record planes, odd because I have a few of their shoulder planes and really like them. Will do a bit of looking around, thanks!

  10. #39
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Brisbane (western suburbs)
    Age
    77
    Posts
    12,094

    Default

    I reckon if you are going to buy a post WW2 plane as a user, Record is actually a better bet for someone not well versed in the arcane world of Bailey planes. The Records of the 50s & 60s are usually pretty good, and at least their frogs were more thoroughly machined up until recent times. I've got a pre-WW2 Record #7 (or possibly immediately post-WW2; no-one seems to be sure about when they last put Rosewood handles on their planes) which is a beauty, and a much younger (60s? 70s?) #5 which is not brilliant, but a very decent user. You'll read advice that recommends giving the last 30-40 years or so of Records a miss too - their quality control went south along with the rest in the brave new Thatcher/Reagan world when greed became good & all other matters secondary...

    IMO you do need to be a bit fussy when selecting a smoother - there is such a big difference in the quality of work produced & the satisfaction in use of a really good one. Size & heft are very important, but we all have our own preferences, and mine leans toward the narrower-bodied smothers. I never got on with the 4 1/2, I found them clumsy things, though there are lots of perfectly fine & upstanding citizens who opt for the 4 1/2 over the 4. I gravitated to a 4 early on in my career, possibly heavily influenced by using them in our 'manual training' classes in grades 7 & 8.

    Just a couple of years ago, I made myself an infill based around a 1 3/4" blade (#3 size), and have come to like that very much for fine finishing, though I still keep my workhorse Bailey #4 primed & ready for action at all times. I suspect part of the reason for turning to the smaller planes is driven by my ageing muscles not wanting to push around any more metal than absolutely necessary, but I will say, the smaller size of a 3 makes for a little less work when fettling it - the wider the blade & sole, the more fuss it takes to get everything absolutely straight & flat. The #3 was never anywhere near as popular as 4s, & you don't come across a decent oldie very often, which is one reason I ended up rolling my own.....

    Cheers,
    IW

  11. #40
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Location
    Dandenong Ranges
    Posts
    1,866

    Default

    Interesting you should mention the #4 Ian. I have a #4C in my ute which comes out regularly as required and is used for all jobs on site. In the workshop I have a #604 that I inherited from my Grandad (via my Dad) but it's not quite at smoother status yet. It was the 1st plane I fixed up and is responsible for the path I find myself now on. I know this is probably sacrilegious but I find the shape of the body uncomfortable to use for long periods, much preferring the rounder profile. Any tips Ian for fettling a smoother?

  12. #41
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Victoria
    Posts
    731

    Default

    The 4 1/2 box has mm marked on it too.
    You boys like Mexico ?

  13. #42
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Brisbane (western suburbs)
    Age
    77
    Posts
    12,094

    Default

    I'm no guru on plane fettling, MA, I just follow the recommendations of others (at least the ones that seem reasonable). I'd say the main things to look for are a clean, flat blade bed, a decent blade (preferably one of the good quality modern ones that are a bit thicker than the originals, and hold an edge better - much better in some cases!).

    Perhaps the one thing that I really fuss over is the cap-iron, making sure the toe meets the blade in a truly water-tight, sharp line and polishing the top from the tip to the top of the hump. When I "sharpen" & straighten the toe of the cap-iron, I make sure there is a 'back-bevel' underneath the front edge so that when the lever-cap presses down on it, the tip remains firmly in contact with the blade. The semi-circular 'hump' on the thin Stanley cap-irons compresses easily under the pressure of the lever-cap, pushing the toe forward a bit, and if there isn't a bit of clearance behind the tip so the pressure is concentrated along a thin line, the front could lift ever so slightly. It takes only the merest whiff of a gap to let shavings under if you adopt the very close-set cap-iron configuration for controlling cranky grain, and as I'm sure you are well aware, the performance goes downhill very promptly when that happens. I'd venture to suggest that most of the difference between a top-performing smoother and an also-ran boils down to how well the cap-iron fits....

    Cheers,
    IW

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Similar Threads

  1. VICTORIA A Selection of Tassie woods
    By Euge in forum TIMBER SALES (and MILLING EQUIPMENT)
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 22nd March 2019, 10:05 AM
  2. Australian Woods
    By gtwilkins in forum WOODTURNING - GENERAL
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 18th September 2010, 01:45 PM
  3. australian woods for bridges
    By reeves in forum MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 24th December 2006, 02:49 PM
  4. Australian Woods?
    By Orphan in forum TIMBER
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 4th February 2006, 07:56 AM
  5. Help on Australian woods
    By La truciolara in forum WOODTURNING - GENERAL
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 8th June 2005, 09:37 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •