Thread: Stanley #29 Transitional Plane

Interesting, Bill - now you've raised it, I remember coming across the Gage planes in a book, a long time ago. There can't have been too many reached our shores, I've certainly not seen one here. Someone from the hand tool groups in Melbourne or Sydney might have come across one if any did make it.

There's always someone trying to make a better mousetrap, and the N.E. US seems to have been a hive of feverish "invention" during the latter half of the 19th C. What were they putting in the water in those parts?

Without ever having one in my hands I reckon I can see at least one reason why they didn't take the woodworking fraternity by storm - it looks like they are more fiddly to set up properly despite this bit "The Gage “self-setting” design eliminated the need for a lateral adjustment feature, which eliminated slop in the blade movement." I think that alone would be the death-knell for any plane used in a busy shop or building site. It would require that the blade was always sharpened dead-square, which is possible, of course, but not practical. Even a practised hand-sharpener would have to take a fair bit of extra time & effort to keep the edge dead square. Just a couple of thou skew & your plane becomes useless for fine work, though it may be ok for roughing. Whether done with a hammer or a lever, some sort of lateral adjustment saves more time than a locked-in blade would create!

There must be half a dozen "aids" to resetting plane blades that have come & gone. I admit the side screws that Veritas adopted serve a useful function by creating a fulcrum that makes lateral adjustment more controllable (Norris pre-empted them by 80 years or so by fixing domed discs each side of the mouth to create a snug fit for the toe-end of the blade & creating the same effect). Record's "stay-set" cap-iron springs to mind as one of the less-successful. IMO it was pure gimmick, besides the very real risk of losing that damned little end-piece in the shavings (nearly happened to me more than once!), you simply cannot put the blade assembly back in a Bailey type plane & expect it to have the same set as when you removed it because the cam in the depth adjuster slot has too much slop (which it has to have to prevent it from binding, it's a round(ed) peg in a square hole!). I guess there was a time when replacing the blade assembly & re-setting the cut was something that concerned me, but it was a very long time ago. It really isn't that much of a chore & any apprentice worth his salt would be doing it efficiently by the end of his first year.

Apart from Stanley's predatory commercial practices, the one single thing that stood by them was the simplicity & effectiveness of Bailey's design. I used to think they were a pretty crude lot (& they are, in some ways), but it's hard to deny the darned things just work exceptionally well, all things considered, and can be persuaded to perform as well as any other plane ever made - even my own infills

Originally Posted by Bill Houghton

....Interestingly, the Gage plane lives again, kind of, in the Veritas Inset Plane from Lee Valley....

That's drawing a long bow, Bill...

I guess I can see the connection (metal guts plus wood sole), but the LV 'inset' looks like a violin plane that came out of the mould a bit rough on the outside. It certainly doesn't pretend to the sophisticated engineering of the Gage design - but it looks like it does allow some lateral adjustment (with a hammer).....

Cheers,
Ian

I think for an experienced user, keeping the blade square would be pretty easy, especially with a few thousandths of camber. it's literally a matter of consciously rubbing just a little more on any side that needs more as sharpening for an experienced user should be routine and from what I gather looking under the scope, it's only about a thousandth of an inch o do a routine sharpening.

However, gage was already peeing into the breeze against stanley, just like everyone else. they were definitely common near NJ, especially in transitionals.

Someone could read further, but my recollection from more than a decade ago was that the company was bought either to eliminate it as competition or as an alternative to an autoset or something, and then shut down later. Not that such a thing either way is uncommon for corporate actions. Buy a company to get the company's market and then shut them down, or buy a company to take someone else's market and then shut that down.



People using guides now may also find having lateral touch while honing troublesome, but freehanding it isn't a problem, thus leading to freehanding a moving fillister iron - as easy as any other plane, the sole tells you whether or not it's getting out of whack laterally. it might be nice with a tighter fit as the lateral slop in the iron tang can be a bit slow to warn and the corrections large.

Originally Posted by D.W.

I've never been to california...maybe I just described why people like coastal california.

Our ocean is colder and wilder than the Atlantic (the "wilder" has to do, I think, with the direction the Earth is turning). But it is cooler than inland, and (for those who surf) the surfing's better than in New Jersey. Much of the year, there's fog offshore that comes in at night. We live about ten miles in from the coast, and we are grateful in the summers when the fog decides to come all the way to us; moderates the day's temps quite effectively, even if it burns off in the morning.

Originally Posted by Bill Houghton

Our ocean is colder and wilder than the Atlantic (the "wilder" has to do, I think, with the direction the Earth is turning). But it is cooler than inland, and (for those who surf) the surfing's better than in New Jersey. Much of the year, there's fog offshore that comes in at night. We live about ten miles in from the coast, and we are grateful in the summers when the fog decides to come all the way to us; moderates the day's temps quite effectively, even if it burns off in the morning.

In our geography classes here, I recall something about churning and water temperatures in the 50s (60s here early summer and 70s late - so comfortable getting in the water). The waves here wouldn't be waves there and the fact that people even get on a surf board here and there after hours here is a little bit visually confusing because the waves are not bigger than waist height even with a breeze pushing them in further.

Originally Posted by IanW

- it looks like they are more fiddly to set up properly despite this bit "The Gage “self-setting” design eliminated the need for a lateral adjustment feature, which eliminated slop in the blade movement." I think that alone would be the death-knell for any plane used in a busy shop or building site. It would require that the blade was always sharpened dead-square, which is possible, of course, but not practical. Even a practised hand-sharpener would have to take a fair bit of extra time & effort to keep the edge dead square. Just a couple of thou skew & your plane becomes useless for fine work, though it may be ok for roughing. Whether done with a hammer or a lever, some sort of lateral adjustment saves more time than a locked-in blade would create!

There must be half a dozen "aids" to resetting plane blades that have come & gone. I admit the side screws that Veritas adopted serve a useful function by creating a fulcrum that makes lateral adjustment more controllable (Norris pre-empted them by 80 years or so by fixing domed discs each side of the mouth to create a snug fit for the toe-end of the blade & creating the same effect). Record's "stay-set" cap-iron springs to mind as one of the less-successful. IMO it was pure gimmick, besides the very real risk of losing that damned little end-piece in the shavings (nearly happened to me more than once!), you simply cannot put the blade assembly back in a Bailey type plane & expect it to have the same set as when you removed it because the cam in the depth adjuster slot has too much slop (which it has to have to prevent it from binding, it's a round(ed) peg in a square hole!). I guess there was a time when replacing the blade assembly & re-setting the cut was something that concerned me, but it was a very long time ago. It really isn't that much of a chore & any apprentice worth his salt would be doing it efficiently by the end of his first year.

Apart from Stanley's predatory commercial practices, the one single thing that stood by them was the simplicity & effectiveness of Bailey's design. I used to think they were a pretty crude lot (& they are, in some ways), but it's hard to deny the darned things just work exceptionally well, all things considered, and can be persuaded to perform as well as any other plane ever made - even my own infills



That's drawing a long bow, Bill...

I guess I can see the connection (metal guts plus wood sole), but the LV 'inset' looks like a violin plane that came out of the mould a bit rough on the outside. It certainly doesn't pretend to the sophisticated engineering of the Gage design - but it looks like it does allow some lateral adjustment (with a hammer).....

Cheers,
Ian

I've seen them on eBay, and they look quite interesting (why would they attach the totes the way they do?), but they're nowhere as abundant as the Bailey Transitionals and I thought there must have been a reason why. Now I know. Thanks Ian. I may still get one just for a bit of a play and perhaps restore. It does look gimmicky and probably more difficult to restore. Cheers.

Originally Posted by Bill Houghton

The "transitional" planes - which were made by other manufacturers, too, not just Stanley - weren't the only designs to attempt to combine the virtues of wood and cast iron in a plane. There's also the Gage planes: Stanley Gage Planes – History and Type Study | Virginia Toolworks. I recently acquired one of those (with the intent to sell it on), and it's an interesting design.

Interestingly, the Gage plane lives again, kind of, in the Veritas Inset Plane from Lee Valley: Veritas Inset Plane - Lee Valley Tools

Derek pointed out earlier in the thread that the HNT Gordon planes (A55 series) were pretty much the modern equivalent of the transitional planes. I have to try one now!! I blame him for me enquiring about a custom Ringed Gidgee Jack. There's nothing quite like that feeling of wood on wood (sounds kinda dirty!!)

I have a HNT Gordon A55 trying plane in ebony... it's my single greatest treasure!

Even that large plane really just flies around. It is perfect for really large panels where you're only wanting to take a whisker off, and don't want to risk tearout.

Originally Posted by Cgcc

I have a HNT Gordon A55 trying plane in ebony... it's my single greatest treasure!

Even that large plane really just flies around. It is perfect for really large panels where you're only wanting to take a whisker off, and don't want to risk tearout.

Mate, you're like that little horny red man that sits on my left shoulder.


They look deceptively much bigger online. I was just looking at the specs and I was surprised the A55 Trying Plane is actually shorter than my #29 (460mm vs 505mm).

Originally Posted by D.W.

...that people even get on a surf board...is a little bit visually confusing because the waves are not bigger than waist height even with a breeze pushing them in further.

Yes, but surfing is so cool/nifty/whatever the current term is.

I grew up in the San Francisco Bay Area (Oakland, for those who know the Bay Area's geography) in the mid-60s. At that time, the surfers were a distinct subculture, generally looked down on by the rest of us (for one thing, their music, though catchy, was pretty primitive as music). When I went off to college, it was to St. Paul, Minnesota, a state some distance from the good surfing, or any surfing, really. Some of my new classmates, when they found out I was from California, got all thrilled, told me they just LOVED the Beach Boys, and did I surf? My honest reaction (a polite version of "Gawd no!") probably closed me off from some romantic opportunities, but I could never in good conscience have lied.

Times have changed, and surfing is more respectable now. I still don't surf.

Originally Posted by KahoyKutter

I've seen them on eBay, and they look quite interesting (why would they attach the totes the way they do?), but they're nowhere as abundant as the Bailey Transitionals and I thought there must have been a reason why. Now I know. Thanks Ian. I may still get one just for a bit of a play and perhaps restore. It does look gimmicky and probably more difficult to restore. Cheers.

Mike, so long as you have the time & can afford it, just follow your whims & have fun. Some whims will come up empty, others may lead on to all sorts of discoveries - c'est la vie

Cgcc, do you have "ordinary" 45* planes, & do you notice much difference in sharpening intervals with your HNT plane? The first infill I made ended up with a blade bed a bit over 55*, for a couple of reasons, one of which was that I was building from scratch with just a few rough dimensions taken from a Norris A5. I found when I came to fit the rear stuffing that a regular handle, with a forward-leaning grip would not fit within the chassis (I'd stupidly overlooked the fact that Norris allows the bottom of the tote to stick out close to 30mm from the end of the sole. After some sitting & pondering, I decided teh simple solution was to raise the bed angle, allowing more room to keep the stuffing within the chassis. I was dealing with some pretty gnarly woods at the time & I reckoned I'd tame them with a higher angle plane, so why not?

Well, it was partly successful, but came at the cost of rapid blade wear, despite the fact that this plane has an Academy Saw-works cryo-treated M2 blade (I think that is what it is) that is the hardest blade in my shed to put an edge on. Without starting a discussion of the difference between hardness & toughness, I get noticeably shorter edge life with PM-V11 at that pitch, and an old-style 'soft' Stanley blade lasts about 2 swipes. I'm talking of planing Gidgee & Bull-oak (which, for D.W., make the toughest Cocobolo I've ever met feel like a doddle), so it's a pretty severe test for any blade. So I only reach for the high-angle job when my 45* planes fail, which is pretty rarely. I've thought about trying D.W.'s unicorn edge treatment, but from what he wrote recently in this thread (or was it another? I can't look back without losing this page), it loses effectiveness at higher pitch (& I guess I can visualise why that may be if my understanding of plane geometry is anywhere near accurate). So, given the blade is a bear to re-sharpen (takes ~ 4x the effort of say agood Hock blade) that plane sees use only when all else fails (& sometimes even it fails to deliver). It's ok on "sensible" woods where edge-wear becomes much less of an issue, but then such woods don't need a high angle and the higher resistance of the steep cutting angle makes it less appealing to push around than the alternatives I have. I keep it because it's the first infill I made & I have a bit of a sentimental attachment, and because a couple of times a year it really comes through with the goods.

D.W., if you can keep a blade edge perfectly square when hand-sharpening,you have my utmost respect. I've been hand-sharpening & doing a fair amount of fitting for over 60 years & I could not guarantee to keep an edge to within less than a couple of thou of square across a 2" edge without going to extraordinary lengths. If one side is out by 2 thou (very easy to achieve!) then at standard pitch, one side is going to stick out 1.2 thou before the other side appears. I can't even see that, sighting along the sole, the best naked-eye resolution is ~.1mm or 4 thou which is a good deal more (& many of us can barely resolve twice that amount) but I can see the difference in a shaving that is 1.5 thou thick on one side & zero on the other. I set the blade as square as I can from sighting along the sole, then watch the shaving emerge a few times & make lateral adjustments until they are consistently even. It would be very annoying to me if I had no means of lateral adjustment! Lateral adjustment is a feature of every successful design I've encountered. It's hardly a difficult feature to build into most designs....

Cheers,

I think you're overthinking squareness quite a bit here.

there is a great difference between holding a blade perfectly square, removing a whole bunch of metal and coming up with something that matches an engineer's square. That's not what you're doing - you walk into the scenario as such - you have a blade with a mild amount of camber, and you're the plane user. If the blade is cutting evenly, you hone an even amount off when establishing the burr. This is easy to do freehand, maybe not as easy with a jig, but there's no good long term reason to use a jig and if one does, no gage plane.

If the plane is cutting with a bias slightly to the right, you raise a slightly larger burr on the right than the left side of the blade when you sharpen the next time.

it's not possible for the blade to get out of square far enough to matter unless you intentionally ignore what the plane is doing. if you hone slightly unevenly, you will see a small bias in the blade while using the plane, but it won't be enough to affect use. The fix for honing slightly unevenly is already mentioned above.

David Charlesworth used to tell me all of the things he hadn't seen in 45 years. I would make a video and then he would say it's interesting that he'd never seen it and he would go try it, whatever "it" is. It seemed like the next time I mentioned something he hadn't seen, he would again tell me he's been using hand tools for 45 years and how many students he's had, how it wasn't a reasonably correct statement, and then I would demonstrate.

I think the second error here in your thinking is you're imagining a blade that's out of square - a condition that won't be allowed to happen because the honing routine wouldn't permit it to occur, and imagining how you wouldn't be able to correct it in a gage. It wouldn't exist.

You mentioned that you can see minor differences in shaving thickness. That's all you need to correct the edge - the correcting isn't tedium, either - it's a bias in how big the burr is - just part of honing. this is routine honing any plane that doesn't have a specific angle and guide or whatever - it's easier to address this by hand than imagine some precise way to do it with jigging or setup or marking. When using a moving fillister, we also don't make drastic corrections. When the iron is getting off center in lateral adjustment, then we do this same biasing a little at a time, just as part of routine honing.

it's kind of a disappointment to me that the forums generally result in a bunch of cant's. but I also realize that we've had our share of residents in the past who claimed to do and don't.

I'm not in that group - I have no idea how to solve the issue politely, though. In the end, Charlesworth didn't like me because I told him that at some point when he was disagreeing with me that he needed to admit he knew less about it. I didn't say that right away. I fully understand why he was upset by that, but his 45 years with planes don't match my much more thorough grasp of them in 10.

if I listed the things that I've done that people claim aren't doable either freehand or reasonably consistently, it would look rude. I learned few of them from other people, but I could teach someone to do all of them - none are that difficult.

Hi Ian

If you mean non-HNT, yes, the full complement of Bailey-patterns from No 3 to a 5.5 and a 7 all at 45 degrees.

I've also got a HNT smoother at 60 degrees, in addition to the A55 trying plane.

I couldn't claim huge experience as it's very skewed because I only take out my nice HNT planes for particular situations. In particular where the wood is clean but a challenge. The 60 degrees also creates quite a lot of effort (and unlike a metal plane won't really get momentum). The 55 degrees, less so, but still noticeably tougher. Also with the ebony A55, I just don't use it as a workhorse but a bit of a treat. Because you need to sharpen with a jig I also tend to only use when I have to.

I think I can say the edge retention is worse. That is no criticism of the planes. That is the outcome of them being put to work in the worst woods and at a tougher angle.

It's also not really a big deal. In reality, the final smoothing of a piece or finished product does not involve a lot of shavings.

Originally Posted by IanW

Mike, so long as you have the time & can afford it, just follow your whims & have fun. Some whims will come up empty, others may lead on to all sorts of discoveries - c'est la vie

Cgcc, do you have "ordinary" 45* planes, & do you notice much difference in sharpening intervals with your HNT plane? The first infill I made ended up with a blade bed a bit over 55*, for a couple of reasons, one of which was that I was building from scratch with just a few rough dimensions taken from a Norris A5. I found when I came to fit the rear stuffing that a regular handle, with a forward-leaning grip would not fit within the chassis (I'd stupidly overlooked the fact that Norris allows the bottom of the tote to stick out close to 30mm from the end of the sole. After some sitting & pondering, I decided teh simple solution was to raise the bed angle, allowing more room to keep the stuffing within the chassis. I was dealing with some pretty gnarly woods at the time & I reckoned I'd tame them with a higher angle plane, so why not?
Cheers,

I came across this tea caddy built by Garrett Hack, using a Stanley transitional plane, and thought it may be appreciated in this thread ...


5 Takes on the Tea Box - FineWoodworking

Regards from Perth

Derek