Thread: SIEGLEY ADJUSTABLE PLANES (a slight obsession)

Originally Posted by Repliconics

I started collecting planes a few years ago,.................

In the end if I am obsessed, I'm enjoying it.
Have fun with everthing you do.
Trevor.

Trevor,
I think sometimes I have it pretty bad...the "slight" obsession thing

That is a magnificent display!
Do you have any of the early adjustable mouth Siegley bench planes?
I had one of them a few years back, but sold it to fund one of the other "slight" obsessions.

Regards,
Peter

Originally Posted by lightwood

Do you have any of the early adjustable mouth Siegley bench planes?

Hey Peter,
This is my earliest Siegley bench plane.
A No.3 type 7 it's the smallest of Siegley bench planes, and the
second last of the adjustable mouth models made around 1897.

IMG_0795.jpg IMG_0799.jpg IMG_0800.jpg IMG_0801.jpg

Cheers.

Wow, a magnificent collection Trevor,
Thanks for showing us. You'd better show us the rest now

Go on get carried away,you can't leave it at half a really excellent collection you owe it to all those homeless hand planes out there

That #3 is simply stunning!

What is also particularly interesting about it is that it is a single iron plane with an adjustable mouth. At the time Bailey/Stanley were building planes with double irons.

The relevance of this is that there has been much discussion over the past year about the lost art of setting the chip breaker (in a double iron) for interlocked grain when smoothing. This is done in combination with a larger-than-average mouth (otherwise the shavings will jam it). It is a method that works very well.

Here we have a single iron plane (i.e. no chip breaker) that instead uses the mouth size to control tear out. Incidentally, what is the angle of the frog on the Siegley? I suspect that it is 45 degrees (common angle).

The issue is that the "lost art of the chip breaker" argues that this information faded into the background only fairly recently, somewhere in the last 20 or 30 years. There are many who were trained to use the chip breaker before this time, but almost all of the leading educationalists (video and books) in modern times only referred to the size of the mouth or the cutting angle as methods for controlling tear out. This method also works very well.

Now the Siegley plane represents a design that precedes these years, is smack in the middle of the Stanley chip breaker period, and yet is not following that theory/method. What is suggests is that there have always been two schools of thought for controlling tear out, contrary to some who argue that the single iron design was largely a recent phenomenon only.

Regards from Perth

Derek

Hi Derek,
Glad you like the plane it's one of my fav's.
The blade is set at 48 degrees.
It's a great little plane to use, and works really well.
Adding to the point you made about the two trains of thought regarding the chip breaker.
It's interesting to note that when Stanley bought out Siegley in 1901.
They renamed it the Siegley Tool Company, and continued to make planes with single irons.
It makes you wonder if Stanley thought both ways worked just as well?
Cheers.

Beautiful collection Trevor, one to cherish and show others thank you.
Having had a few old and new single iron planes, adjustable mouths and chip breaker style planes it really just confirms there is more than one way to skin a cat. I don't think one is any better than the other really other than some minor brand style changes that might work a bit better than others. I think any good quality plane that has been made and tuned well will most likely do the job well.
Thanks again for the tool ####.

Oh come on thats not a dirty word

Originally Posted by Claw Hama

I think any good quality plane that has been made and tuned well will most likely do the job well.

I couldn't agree more mate!
Although I'd add the hand guiding it, has a lot to do with the outcome.

Cheers.

I take back what I said about the absence of a chip breaker on that plane. It has an adjustable, built-in one. Here is a link to the patent:

No. 510,096 - Bench-Plane (Jacob Siegley) (1893) - Handplane Patents Database

Regards from Perth

Derek

Derek,
I was having a look at Siegley's patent, and I couldn't see any reference to the cap being utilised as a chip breaker.

Siegley's Patent

510096-1.jpg 510096-2.jpg 510096-3.jpg

Originally Posted by Repliconics

Hi Derek,
Glad you like the plane it's one of my fav's.
The blade is set at 48 degrees.
It's a great little plane to use, and works really well.
Adding to the point you made about the two trains of thought regarding the chip breaker.
It's interesting to note that when Stanley bought out Siegley in 1901.
They renamed it the Siegley Tool Company, and continued to make planes with single irons.
It makes you wonder if Stanley thought both ways worked just as well?
Cheers.

Trevor,
are you measuring the blade angle from the vertical or horizontal?
I sold the early adjustable mouth Siegley planes, but I knew the later ones were / are low angle and bevel down blades. I measured the one last body I have left last night, and got 40 deg from the base.
regards,

Peter

Hi Peter,
You got me.
I looked at the outside ring and didn't make the adjustment for the fact that I had the thing upside down.
Still I'm consistant, this time I get 42 degrees.
At least the total added up to 90, so I take some solace in that.
By the way I'd love to know your take on the chip breaker.
The Siegley Patent seems to be talking more about the position of the leading edge of the cap, as regards it's support of the blade at the mouth of plane.
Rather than it deing utilised as a chip breaker.

Trevor

Originally Posted by Repliconics

Hi Peter,
You got me.
I looked at the outside ring and didn't make the adjustment for the fact that I had the thing upside down.
Still I'm consistant, this time I get 42 degrees.
At least the total added up to 90, so I take some solace in that.
By the way I'd love to know your take on the chip breaker.
The Siegley Patent seems to be talking more about the position of the leading edge of the cap, as regards it's support of the blade at the mouth of plane.
Rather than it deing utilised as a chip breaker.

Trevor

Trevor,
what aspect of the "chip breaker" are you wanting an opinion?
On the Siegley plane in particular, speculate on the reasoning for his design...maybe???

Regards,
Peter

Hi Peter,
What I was after is whether or not the Siegley Patent in question, in any way making reference to the cap being utilised as a chip breaker.
Derek's first thought was that my No.3 Siegley had no chip breaker, then after seeing the patent he was thinking that the chip breaker
was some how biult in too the cap.
But looking at the patent I can't see Siegley making any reference to the cap working as a breaker.
I was just wondering how you read the patent?

Trevor.