Thread: Stanley Bailey No 4 1/2 identification

So the cleanup continues.
This one has a patent date. US PAT APR-19-10
Missing blade assembly.
Frog is different from the others. But is missing the lateral adjustment button.
Cap lever no plating at all and is different construction from others.
Adjustment brass knob is well abused, see the damage from being overtightened probably.
Bulbous front knob, broken rear handle with bent screw (probably when the handle got broken).
Otherwise ok, minimal surface rust, no pitting.
I'll clean up the last one tomorrow.

Struth, the indignities planes have to suffer during their lives!

So, Lyle, from the pics you posted, the plane with the single patent date looks like a type 13 or 14 putting it in the 1925-30 slot for date of manufacture. If it has a 'dished ring' cast on the toe to accept the bottom of the knob, it's a 14; if the casting is flat it's a 13, but it's certainly of an age that deserves more veneration & respect!

It's not uncommon for the washer on the lateral adjuster to go AWOL, but they are easily replaced. Some unfeeling person has pinched the front knob, stud, & brass barrel nut & replaced it with a Beech knob & the chintsy-looking screw from a much later el-cheapo model. Is the rear woodwork Rosewood or something else, & is it repairable? I have spare knobs & totes (not original, but nicer than Beech or [shudder], plastic),and would be happy to donate to the cause. I think I might even have a spare stud & brass nut for the knob, too, so you could make that look a bit more original. I like to see a shiny-topped nut on the front knob, it spells a well-used plane.

I wouldn't worry about the lack of bling on the lever-cap, just buff it up a bit & apply a coat of paste-wax & it'll look quite respectable. A new chromed LC would look way out of place. The LC on my old #5 1/2 was broken when I got it & I had to put up with a new LC until I managed to find a "proper" one. The shiny chromed thing looked so garish.

Late LC.jpg Proper LC.jpg

It looks so much better now, & I swear the plane feels happier & works harder for me..


You still need a chip-breaker - I have a spare #4 size, I think, but that won't help....
Cheers,
Ian

It's a type 14; I can just make out the ring for the front handle, and it still has a patent date so it can't be a type 15. So that narrows it down to a nominal 1929-1930 production date. The SW blade offered by Fergiz01 will therefore be age appropriate! I might have spare cap iron of that vintage as well but I won't know until the weekend. Don't worry about the loss of nickel on the lever cap; just buff the bare iron with a wire buff if you have one or 240 grit W&D if you don't. The japanning on the sole and frog is mostly missing but I wouldn't worry too much; just buff off the rust or dissolve with Evaporust (warning; this stuff is GOOD but bloody expensive...) and brush on a couple of coats of Ferronite rust converter; this will turn the iron a dull, matt black that doesn't look out of place. Or hit it with engine enamel as I posted earlier.

Now; unfortunately the bolt holding the knob is extremely wrong... it looks like it may have been taken from a Stanley Handyman. The big worry are the threads; Stanley originally used a VERY coarse thread; a 7/32" with 20TPI. That screw looks like an M6; which is slightly bigger but has a much finer pitch. There is unfortunately a good chance the thread in the sole my have been damaged. Try fitting the rod from the rear handle and see if you can get it to hold securely; it uses the same thread.

And lastly; never politely knock back an offer of bespoke wooden parts from IanW or you'll be kicking yourself at a later date!

Hi Lyle. CT put me onto the Ferronite stuff and it is great.

Thanks for all the info and offers. You just got to love this forum.
I cleaned up the third 4 1/2. This is what resulted.
Missing cap iron and blade assy.
Frog good, brass adjustment screw ok.
Tote ok, good rod and brass nut.
Handle broken. Unknown wood and unlikely I can repair it.
Base is good. Thick casting compared to others.
I had a mate come over and we discussed a solution.
Handle from one of the others with a good rod and brass nut to replace handle.
Swap frog from the 2nd body (with the patent number) as it seems like the best one. I will replace the lateral adjustment button missing from it.
Swap over any screws etc to be the better ones.
Looking at a suitable "Hock blade and holder".
A good derust and probably paint with black enamel.
Restore handle and tote.

Not a purist plane but open to comments.
Photos of what I'm putting together.

OK so it looks like you are getting close.

Not too sure about your plan to swap the frogs though. Stanley fiddled quite a bit with frogs & the machined area that they sit on over the years & some frog/body combinations are not compatible. So be very certain the frog you intend swapping actually fits the 'new' body...
Cheers,
Ian

What Ian said.

Your trying to match two different designs from two different countries from two different eras. Although the screw holes will line up pretty much ok the bed areas in the frog and receiver won’t.

Pick one body; either the English or the US and keep it’s own frog. The rest of the furniture can be swapped around however you see fit. For the best quality machined components; keep the US model. For heft, keep the English one. I currently have two user 4-1/2’s; a Record with I use on softer timbers and an English Stanley (heavy casting) that I use on cranky timbers; it’s fitted with an HSS blade with a 10 degree back-bevel so it’s a bit of a workout to push it but the extra mass helps keep it moving through tough spots.

Thanks Ian. I'll be sure to check that out regarding the frog fit. The one I'm swapping is a different construction in that it has more flat surface, if that makes sense.

Your opinion on the Hock blades for a replacement blade and holder chipbreaker would be appreciated.
Thanks
Lyle

Lyle, Hock blades are excellent, I have several, bought over the last 25 years, so they've been well-tested in my planes. Hock use O1 steel and their 'secret' is in the temper they achieve, which is bang on, they are easy to sharpen yet hold their edge well (better by a good margin than any original Stanley blade I've met, with the exception of the grafted HSS blades made here in Aus back in the 70s & 80s). There are tougher blades, like Lee Valley's PM-V11, but despite what is claimed, they are not as easily sharpened to a keen edge as O1, I think it is the better choice for someone starting out with planes. But if you can put a good edge on a PM-V11 blade, they are tougher, no question, perhaps the best blade on the market if you work with tough woods. I have a couple of them & while I would not put one on every plane (not least because of the expense!), these are the ones I turn to if planing woods like gidgee or western rosewood....

Just to affirm what CT said, I would strongly recommend you don't swap frogs on the two planes you specified, you have nothing to gain from what I see, and potentially much to lose. If the frog doesn't fit on the body the way it's intended, your plane will be a complete lemon. If you were somewhere close to me I'd be more than happy to help you get both planes with sound bodies working....

Cheers,
Ian

OK, while the metalworks get an overnight soak in Evaporust, I cleaned up the wood bits. Tote and knob...
I have two knobs to choose from. They both fit really well. The light coloured one had mission brown fence paint over it. Used citrus stripper and then metho with oooo steel wool.
The black one resisted both the stripper and metho??
Could it be teak being so dark. Nothing came out in the cleaning, like stain etc.

The tote was a greasy mess. Degreased, stripper and metho, got to rhis point.
I have no idea what the wood is. The tote had a shim of sandpaper on the bottom. Is that an old trick to stop the handle moving??

The other knob and tote a fruit wood?
I like the black knob and will finish it. The tote I'll leave it as it is, still some patina, maybe a shellacking for both.
Are the plane gods gunna strike me down with lightning???

The blade was very rusty, some pitting but not near the cutting edge. I'll try a sharpen and see.
On the lookout for a chip breaker. I was thinking of a "Hock" set but didn't want to remortgage the house just yet.
I feel that I am close to a working plane thanks to all of the info and advice.

If the dark knob came from the US plane then it’s rosewood. The tote that came with it will also be rosewood although you said it had been broken. Please don’t throw it away, if the break has never been bodged and the horn is still intact it would be worth repairing.

OK. I'll not chuck it then.

I'm not a gambling man, but I would take bets on the lighter wood being Beech, I can see the rays on both tote & knob, and if they came off the later model English plane, Beech is a dead cert. As the Chief sez, the dark one will almost certainly be Rosewood.

It's your plane & you should finish the woodwork any way you see fit. The Beech originally would have had a thick varnish stain that was supposed to make it look like Rosewood. It may have convinced Mr. Magoo, but I doubt it ever fooled anyone else. The varnish invariably cracked & flaked after a few years and not only looked scabrous, it didn't feel very pleasant in the hand. There is nothing inherently wrong with Beech, it's a perfectly good handle/knob wood, so there is no need to be ashamed of it & try to disguise it. If the handle/knob were mine, I'd give them a good slather of Danish oil or similar, & when dry, a scrub with 0000 steel wool & wax. That usually gives Beech a good tactile finish...

Cheers,
Ian

Thank. I haven't done danish oil before. Could I do that in a lathe for the knob?
Same for the tote, danish oil and buffed?
Rosewood one, finish? Danish oil and buffed again?