Thread: Repair or turf it?

If it's cutting well as it is, then you could move the frog slightly forward so that the cutter doesn't touch the back of the mouth and keep using the plane.

If there's any deflection from the frog pressing down on that area, just sand it off.

That's the least stress you can apply to that area.

Very simple repair job, I have repaired many planes by brazing over the years. My not be cost effected to have it done commercially.

Originally Posted by raffo

If it's cutting well as it is, then you could move the frog slightly forward so that the cutter doesn't touch the back of the mouth and keep using the plane.

If there's any deflection from the frog pressing down on that area, just sand it off.

That's the least stress you can apply to that area.

Raff, the cutter typically doesn't actually touch the sole - the sharpening bevel extends further up than the sole bevel. The frog itself rests on the sole & applies pressure when the screws are tightened, so there is no way to relieve the pressure on a working plane.

These cracks are so common, even on planes that appear to have been handled with care (like yours - it shows no signs of abuse). I reckon it's primarily caused by uneven flow as the metal was poured creating uneven shrinkage in the casting as it cooled rather than pressure from over-tightening the frog, as it's often said to be. Over-tightening may expose an incipient crack, but it was most likely there when it came out of the mould, just too fine for the machinist to spot it. Over time moisture gets in & oxidises the metal so it shows up clearly.

One of my Stanleys has a similar crack, just a bit shorter than the one on your plane. It had it when I got it years ago & I decided to ignore it since it's an old banger I use for rough work. So far, the crack hasn't changed. If you know someone who is a dab-hand at brazing cast objects, it would be worth having it done for peace of mind, but an amateurish job could end up making the situation worse. It's usable now, but a warped body would render it pretty useless!

My 2c
Cheers,

Rather than start another thread and while the Stanley is waiting to be repaired, I'm going to follow on from this thread with some questions about a Record No.3 I've recently acquired.
Picked this up recently and I'm pretty sure the wood is Brazilian Rosewood. It's the first plane I've acquired with this wood and it looks awesome!
The problem is that the tote is broken....
IMG_1926.jpg IMG_1926 (2).jpg

Anyway, I thought I'd ask what the Handle Tool forum's brain trust would suggest.
I found this document and this YouTube clip


So, is this type of repair advisable?
Seems to produce a clean result. The only problem is that I don't have Brazilian Rosewood to glue in between the two parts. I do have some 'rosewood' that I picked up at deceased estate sale. I say 'rosewood' because I have no idea if it is rosewood or not. All I know is that it has 'rosewood' written on it in chalk!
Alternatively, should I just clean and glue the two parts back together as they are? The break is mostly clean, but, when I hold the two pieces together, there is a small hole/gap in the front of the tote at the break line.
I have a Record 4 1/2 with a broken tote which is beech or some other light coloured wood; that will be my practice piece before having a go at this.

Thanks for any advice in advance!

Originally Posted by IanW

Raff, the cutter typically doesn't actually touch the sole...

On some planes, it doesn't. On the one in the picture, it probably touches the sole, except the ramp on those late england or now mexico (or china?) planes is not machined. There are other earlier planes where the ramp was made to touch the bevel. there's usually a flat ledge at the front of the casting making the thickness of the sole a little bit deceptive (thicker than it looks).

No real opinion on the original post other than that I wouldn't pay someone to fix it unless the figure it tiny (like $10) because the plane doesn't really warrant an expensive repair that may fail later, anyway, or fail to be done properly .

If you have a brazing torch, though, fair game - I think you'll eventually want a better model of smoother because the low-side support on those planes probably makes them one of the few that will just work better with a thick iron (which is spending good money on bad).

When a plane is broken like that, I generally would figure it's either been given harsh treatment (dropped, etc) or had a fault from the start.

Most of the better mid-age stanley planes do have a thin casting that the frog feet rest on right at the back of the mouth and the casting ledge shouldn't come into play.

A recent very new stanley jointer that I tarted up for sport still contacts the back of the iron on the sole even with a long 20 degree bevel on the iron - to the point of being detrimental because it was roughly cast and not machined (it can be filed in line with the frog, though). I looked just now at a picture of a later stanley with plastic handles - same design. Terrible place to save 50 cents.

Originally Posted by johknee

Rather than start another thread and while the Stanley is waiting to be repaired, I'm going to follow on from this thread with some questions about a Record No.3 I've recently acquired.
Picked this up recently and I'm pretty sure the wood is Brazilian Rosewood. It's the first plane I've acquired with this wood and it looks awesome!
The problem is that the tote is broken....
IMG_1926.jpg IMG_1926 (2).jpg

Anyway, I thought I'd ask what the Handle Tool forum's brain trust would suggest.
I found this document and this YouTube clip


So, is this type of repair advisable?
Seems to produce a clean repair. The only problem is that I don't have Brazilian Rosewood to glue in between the two parts. I do have some 'rosewood' that I picked up at deceased estate sale. I say 'rosewood' because I have no idea if it is rosewood or not. All I know is that it has 'rosewood' written on it in chalk!
Alternatively, should I just clean and glue the two parts back together as they are? The break is mostly clean, but, when I hold the two pieces together, there is a small hole/gap in the front of the tote at the break line.
I have another Record 4 1/2 with a broken tote; that will be my practice piece before having a go at this.

Thanks for any advice in advance!

Glue the handle and then make sure the rod through it is always screwed down tight, and you won't have a problem. You can use hide glue or something of that sort if you're worried about repairing it again later. if the broken gap has been exposed to air for a long time, clean it off or buff it a little bit with steel wool to remove the oxidized layer of wood on the surface - that won't adhere to glue that well - not like changing the shape of anything, just cleaning off the surface.

Fill the small hole with anything you can find that matches.

I wouldn't bother using other wood. Indian rosewood can look a lot like brazilian, but even two pieces of brazilian may not match each other. Rosewood has a pretty broad variety of colors (light browns, to dark browns, to purples to black).

You have little to lose & much to gain by repairing that tote - the old rosewood totes feel much nicer in the hand as well as looking more elegant, so I try hard to preserve them where I can. (Though I don't hesitate to make a new one if the old one seems beyond reasonable repair.. )

As DW said, clean the surfaces of the break as well as you can. My choice is an old toothbrush dipped in metho, a very useful solvent that can dissolve a wide range of materials & leaves little or no residue & the tooth-brush won't damage the broken wood any further.

You can often clamp it while the glue cures by simply putting it on the plane & tightening the nut a little, but wax the stud thoroughly so you don't end up with squeeze-out sticking the thing permanently on the stud. Sometimes that's inconvenient or won't pull the break together straight & I use a bit of all-thread with a shaped block of scrap top & bottom as a clamp.

I've found Araldite to be the most reliable glue, which is irreversible of course, but seems to get a better grip on an old break than hide glue which can be very hit & miss in this sort of situation. If the glue repair fails (likely, if the break is old & contaminated with oil as they too-often are), the alternative is to cut above & below the break & scab in a piece. As DW says, good luck getting a perfect match, even when you are sure you are using the "correct" rosewood & selecting for best colour & grain match. I thought I had this one perfect until I put a bit of finish on it!
Repaired R'wood tote.jpg

But time & grime make repairs less obvious...

Sometimes the break isn't clean enough for a simple repair, especially if it's been present a long time & the plane used regardless. On this one, there was a chunk missing from each side of the break, so after it was glued tother I cut a clean V-shaped trench & glued in a patch:
7b Crack repair 1.jpg

The repair isn't invisible, but it's certainly not obvious:
7c Cracks filled.jpg

And also as DW said, make sure the stud is always firmly tightened & even a half-decent repair will usually hold up....

Cheers,
Ian

Thank you for the advice, Ian and DW.

I'll attempt to repair the tote as per your advice and see how I fare. I'll be happy if mine turns out like yours, Ian.

The tote currently looks like this...

IMG_1930.jpg

Hopefully it'll go together smoothly. If not, I have these pieces of rosewood..
IMG_1928.jpg

I'll update with pictures when I'm done, as long as I deem the tote to be 'photogenic'. If not, this thread will fade into oblivion!

Originally Posted by D.W.

......I think you'll eventually want a better model of smoother because the low-side support on those planes probably makes them one of the few that will just work better with a thick iron (which is spending good money on bad).

Hi DW, what model/s smoother is better suited with the original/thin irons?

Hi JK. One advantage you have is that the handle has an obvious grain pattern. If the repair runs roughly parallel to the grain it should look just like another grain line.

Yes, that is true. Perhaps the repair won't be too obvious, but the plane will be a user, so I'm most concerned about strength and hope it remains intact post-repair.

Originally Posted by johknee

Hi DW, what model/s smoother is better suited with the original/thin irons?

(the bold part is the important bit - the pictures and then the rest describing what happens with bad bedding even beyond ugly shavings and getting less done is just support for the statement bolded black, so if it's TMI, you can ignore it).

Just about any of them that have constant support all the way to where the frog meets the sole of the plane. here are three pictures - I think what's at the bottom of each frog is the key - it isn't the frog itself, which is often misattributed as a performance indicator. The first is a mex stanley - notice the casting, gap and then frog. The casting, I had to file. Stanley didn't intend for it to support an iron, but the top of the bevel will touch it. It is OK with a heavier iron because the stiffness makes up for the lack of support, but a heavier iron is counterproductive if you are a heavy user of planes).

https://i.imgur.com/bVWrA1m.png

Sorry the picture is a bit blurry - I stole it from some guy's video, he won't mind - notice the gap. On the late english planes and the now mex made, that's what the plane looks like and you can confirm that by photoing yours.

This is a type 20 7, considered to be an undesirable type because stanley cut corners that didn't matter. They didn't cut corners that do at this point. Notice how the frog extends all the way down to the casting and the iron probably will not touch the casting on this plane. Even if it did, it wouldn't matter.

https://i.imgur.com/F09KcTU.png

And this is an earlier sorby plane with a fully machined frog. Which looks great, but doesn't actually improve plane function.

notice the casting is thick, and this plane was machined neatly all the way to the sole so that the iron will intentionally rest on the casting. Realistically, the iron will contact with pressure on the casting and the top at the frog. The machining in the middle provides a pretty surface, but no functional improvement and there is some chance that if it does contact the iron, it increases adjuster resistance. Bed resistance doesn't actually hold the iron in place, the adjuster pawl does, so nothing is gained. I have a record that is cleanly made and it just has a death grip on the iron and is harder to adjust despite the complete lack of burrs or anything.

What I learned (obviously, I still the pictures from my own video) that I didn't state in the video at least when talking about this critical point of the frog is that not only will stability improve heavy cuts, but it has a pretty drastic effect on taking very fine shavings evenly.

This type 20 "undesirable" plane with an undesirable later plane iron off of routine sharpening inexpensive stones and a quick buff (and after I flattened the sole) will make continuous shavings that are probably about 3 ten thousandths of an inch thick in cherry.

https://i.imgur.com/3XT58dp.png

I enjoy figuring out what actually makes a difference - I know other folks tend to find it a bit overbearing and sometimes "too much sugar poured on a piece of cake that's already iced", but the bit about this last area at the casting/mouth up to where the frog starts to contact the iron is important.

you will find some older planes that don't do it well, and now stanley does a very poor take at it. I'm inclined to make a metal filled epoxy for the gap - I have a smoother of this poor type, too, and it works fine - the jointer showed more fault in use, but it may have more to offer than I thought.

Here's another little side thought. This poor bedding allows the iron to vibrate just a little and make a lower pitch noise. That actually allows the iron edge to damage itself in use and the plane gets dull very quickly. One would assume that stanley is using an odd steel or something really cheap that can be manufactured at the lowest cost, but it's actually a consequence of the poor fit. And the iron itself is fine.

That allows me to solve another mystery that I sometimes bash people over - "the boutique irons last so much longer than stock irons" (when the alloy being compared is similar). i think it may just be that people are covering up plane fitting issues with a very thick iron that has to do the job of the iron and frog by itself.

This is the edge of an iron on this type of frog after not much planing.

https://i.imgur.com/kizi9Xg.jpg

Those little dings are about as wide as the thickness of a sheet of paper. When there are more than half a dozen or so of them, the iron starts to not want to enter a cut because you're trying to push blunt areas through something that likes thin edges.

This is the exact same iron after fixing the bedding of the plane and with a much larger amount of wood through it.

https://i.imgur.com/MXeYwRm.jpg

The smudgy look is actually a divot of wear on the iron down to the edge. notice that the edge is just worn, no divots. Same wood (much more of it), same plane, same iron. Just one with the iron bedding as the plane was delivered, and one resting on the newly filed casting so that the iron can't chatter.

Originally Posted by D.W.

.......Same wood (much more of it), same plane, same iron. Just one with the iron bedding as the plane was delivered, and one resting on the newly filed casting so that the iron can't chatter....

David, I don't question your results, but I do wonder if your explanation is the full one. I made this crude diagram to use in another thread on another forum where a certain person we both know (who often has very strong opinions unsupported by any documentable evidence ) was holding forth. The discussion was actually about whether you could set the frog back a little to accommodate a thicker after-market blade (usually around 3mm thick). I said you can (based on several planes & many thick blades I've used over the years), but our friend was arguing that the frog must ALWAYS be set so it is co-planar with the sole bevel. He was insisting the back of the blade has to rest on the sole bevel, and I was saying it usually can't because the grinding bevel takes the blade back above the sole. Things were going from bad to worse so I decided to butt out of the discussion & didn't use my diagram, but I think it might be useful after all.

I measured the sole thickness of the machined flats that receive the toe of the frog on the several Stanleys & Records I own (all pre-1970, so may not be relevant to later models) and they were a bit variable, but none was over 3mm & they were mostly a smidgin less. I calculated the vertical length of blade taken up by a grind angle of 25* for both thick & thin blades. With the thin blade, the bevel ends slightly above the sole and for a thicker blade well above - you could set the frog back quite a ways and it will still clear the sole: Here are the figures on a diagram (not to scale!):

Blade frog sole geom b.jpg

From the figures, it's obvious that with a thicker blade, the back is never going to touch the sole bevel unless you go for an absurdly-steep grind angle so the point of last contact is always going to be on the the frog unless there is a gap of more than a mm between frog & sole. I think the fact your frog was cantilevered was the main problem & filling the gap with metal paste was a crude but effective way of simulating a "proper" machined fit of the frog toe & the sole...

Many years ago, I bought a cheap Stanley from one of the large Canadian franchises. Well, it had a sticker on the lever cap that claimed it was by "Stanley", the fact it only had a sticker & wasn't stamped should have raised suspicions, however, although I had been using planes for many years, I was still blissfully ignorant of what makes them function at that stage. I sharpened 'er up & went at a bit of pine with a couple of small knots in it. Every time my plane hit one of the knots it chattered like the proverbial fishwife , in fact, it would chatter even on the softer plain wood if I attempted to take thicker shavings, which I needed to do to get the thing to cut at all & which I eventually worked out was due to a concave sole!

Anyway, the relevant point here is that once I started investigating the thing & comparing it with a friends genuine old Stanley, I discovered that the frog sat on a single machined surface under the screws, the bottom of the frog was comfortably clear of the sole (the gap was even bigger than that on your plane, iirc). As you have adequately demonstrated, a cantilevered frog just doesn't do the job, unless you only ever intend making very thin shavings on soft & straight-grained woods.

That plane turned out to be useful, I put quite a bit of time into it and it taught me a lot about what a plane needs to work properly, but eventually realised that fixing that frog was beyond my means & skills at the time. I gave it to my 10yr old son who ended up leaving it out in the rain for a couple of months 'til it rusted solid. He obviously knew the best thing for it....

Cheers,
Ian

Originally Posted by D.W.

.........
Just about any of them that have constant support all the way to where the frog meets the sole of the plane. here are three pictures - I think what's at the bottom of each frog is the key - it isn't the frog itself, which is often misattributed as a performance indicator. The first is a mex stanley - notice the casting, gap and then frog. The casting, I had to file. Stanley didn't intend for it to support an iron, but the top of the bevel will touch it. It is OK with a heavier iron because the stiffness makes up for the lack of support, but a heavier iron is counterproductive if you are a heavy user of planes)........

Thank you, David.
This gives me more to check when setting up my planes. I hadn't taken much notice of this area on my Stanley No.3. I think the frog and bevel are continuous (i.e. no gaps) on the Record No.3. I'll double check and get a photo.
You mentioned a Sorby in your post has it has a full machined frog. I can't see a photo or link for it?
Also, I've been watching your videos on the No.7s. Love the detail you go into. Keep up the great content!