Thread: Stanley NO.78

Saw one recently at a Sunday Market without fence for $45 if that's any help.
It was in good order with plenty of blade and about 80% japaning

John

They are still available, they are listed in the latest Timbecon cattledog for $135.00

I paid $35 for a mint one on ebay a couple of years ago. Ive since fitted a Lie Nielsen blade on it and it works like a dream. Given the choice of using it or setting up a router, Id go with the 78. Theyre a joy to use. Just remember to keep it square to the stock or you could end up with a "slope-ey" rabbet which is surprisingly difficult to correct.

I paid $47 for one from the states (plus postage). Just derusted it with electrolysis and am ready to start flattening it. I didn't realise LN sold blades for this as well as bench planes. Excellent.

Yeah Ive got quite a few LN planes and the non LN's Ive bought new LN blades and LN cap irons for. My dads old No. 7 plays like new plane now!

Forgive my ignorance, but what are people's opinions of the Stanley 78 (current version) compared to the current Irwin 778? I get the impression that Irwin are producing reasonable tools (if not outstanding) at a reasonable price, but I suspect I don't know enough to know I'm wrong. Thoughts on poeple's experiences?

Cheers,

I have a 78, and a Woden 078, which is similar to the Record 778 but has a knob which is attached to the plane with the forward cutter mounting screw.

See Alf's comments here http://www.geocities.com/plybench/record.html#778

As she says

When a #78 is used in "sash fillister" mode, i.e. the fence far away on the opposite side of the workpiece to the rebate being cut (as illustrated), the fence is able to spin on the single rod that holds it. Many #78 fence retaining screws bear the signs of users trying (in vain) to apply sufficient tension to stop this. Of course, all plough planes (that I know of) use twin fence rods to avoid this. But only Record (O.K. and "Woden") applied this idea to metal rebate planes.

The twin fence screws would presumably assist in using the plane as a jointer for thin boards, as suggested here:

https://www.woodworkforums.com/f152/stanley-78s-nicely-little-jointers-30426

As far as I can tell the front knob is a good idea, although you see on the linked thread that other users on these forums prefer being able to place their fingers directly on the sole.

At some stage I am planning to experiment with a right-angle style grip, like on an angle grinder.

the single rod ones can be made to work. But I notice an improvement with the double rods. Basic problem with the single rods is the rod flexes a bit during use, taking it out of parallel with the side of the plane.

I'd ditch convention and do your best to get the thing working, or else you'll be dithering about forever. You have to think about a suitable way gripping your work as well, so the timber doesn't slip. Or seriously just go buy a router.

I'd ditch ever attempting using the star like spurs that comes with them. Its not depth adjustable. Its hard to sharpen. I was stubborn with it for quite a while, but its not worth the effort in any 78. I think those who think their ok, are kidding themselves.

And I'd drill a couple of holes in the fence if I was you and screw on a deep woodern face, to give you better control. Far more accurate. ...shim this face to bring it square with the sole. I just used cardboard.

Birminghams are another version of the 778. Which are the ones I have.

Originally Posted by SilverSniper

See Alf's comments here http://www.geocities.com/plybench/record.html#778

Hiya. Just to clarify that's my chum BugBear's site and comments - not that I disagree with them ('cept I'd have out WS Manufacturing in those brackets with Woden, but I pick nits). Anyway, for the sake of accuracy them's the facts.

Cheers, Alf

Originally Posted by UKalf

Hiya. Just to clarify that's my chum BugBear's site and comments - not that I disagree with them ('cept I'd have out WS Manufacturing in those brackets with Woden, but I pick nits). Anyway, for the sake of accuracy them's the facts.

Cheers, Alf

FWIW I agree with Jake, Bugbear and Alf - the twin rods are definitely an improvement worth having.

I also prefer having the option of the forward knob. It is very useful for keeping everything square and straight when rebating tough Aussie hardwood, which always seems determined to push the plane out of alignment.

And if the job is one where a sole grip is preferable, all I have to do is unscrew the knob....

Originally Posted by jmk89

FWIW I agree with Jake, Bugbear and Alf - the twin rods are definitely an improvement worth having.

And if the job is one where a sole grip is preferable, all I have to do is unscrew the knob....

I should mention that although it would be difficult to retro-fit twin rods to a Stanley #78, the knob itself is very simple and it would be easy to make one for a Stanley - another thing I'm planning on doing one day.....

Originally Posted by UKalf

Hiya. Just to clarify that's my chum BugBear's site and comments - not that I disagree with them ('cept I'd have out WS Manufacturing in those brackets with Woden, but I pick nits). Anyway, for the sake of accuracy them's the facts.

Cheers, Alf

I notice that The Old Tool Shop have a Marples #78 which also has twin rods and the forward handle. Never knew that Marples made that....