Thread: Stanley #29 Transitional Plane

Originally Posted by derekcohen

...I’ve not used one, and would appreciate comments on the frog and blade adjustment - how similar is it to modern Stanley/Bailey versions?

Derek, please keep in mind my inexperience when reading my following reply.

I only have a LN 5 1/2 to compare it to and to me they are very similar. I am aware that the frogs are not interchangeable between the transitional planes and their iron counterparts, but the user adjustment feels the same to me. The only difference I can think of are very minor ones:

1) To advance the frog on the Bedrock type planes is more "refined" because you turn a screw/bolt. There is no such screw or bolt with the transitional plane. You loosen the 2 wood screws that attaches the frog to the wooden base and manually move the frog and then re-tighten the screws. Apparently this made these transitional planes susceptible to the holes being stripped out from frequent adjustment and Stanley after 1912 used machine screws threaded into brass inserts to secure the frogs. I guess that's another way to narrow down the age of these planes.

2) The brass blade adjustment knob on my #29 is smaller than my LN 5 1/2 so it's a bit harder to advance or retract the blade but I only notice it upon direct comparison. It wasn't something I noticed when using the #29 in isolation. I've no idea if the adjustment knob is the same size on the Stanley metal-bodied planes.


I'll check out HNT Gordon's offering.


Cheers,
Mike

Originally Posted by KahoyKutter

Derek, please keep in mind my inexperience when reading my following reply.

I only have a LN 5 1/2 to compare it to and to me they are very similar. I am aware that the frogs are not interchangeable between the transitional planes and their iron counterparts, but the user adjustment feels the same to me. The only difference I can think of are very minor ones:

1) To advance the frog on the Bedrock type planes is more "refined" because you turn a screw/bolt. There is no such screw or bolt with the transitional plane. You loosen the 2 wood screws that attaches the frog to the wooden base and manually move the frog and then re-tighten the screws. Apparently this made these transitional planes susceptible to the holes being stripped out from frequent adjustment and Stanley after 1912 used machine screws threaded into brass inserts to secure the frogs. I guess that's another way to narrow down the age of these planes.

2) The brass blade adjustment knob on my #29 is smaller than my LN 5 1/2 so it's a bit harder to advance or retract the blade but I only notice it upon direct comparison. It wasn't something I noticed when using the #29 in isolation. I've no idea if the adjustment knob is the same size on the Stanley metal-bodied planes.


I'll check out HNT Gordon's offering.


Cheers,
Mike

Hi, I don't think item 1) works that way on a transitional. At least not on mine. Because the lower 2" of the blade is only supported by the bed in the wooden part of the body, the frog can only sit in one particular position to form one continuous bed. Moving the frog forward to close the mouth would mean the 2" behind the cutting edge are not supported. The lever cap would then try to bend the blade down. I would believe that would result in a lot of chatter. I think the elongated holes for the frog screws are only there to align the metal cast frog with the wooden bed.



In order to close the mouth I think one can only put an insert in the sole.

But I do agree that these planes are probably underrated and your thread motivated me to further tune mine. I am still struggling getting the CI fitted well to the blade. Especially on the corners.

Yours looks really good.

Sent from my SM-G781B using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by Cklett

Hi, I don't think item 1) works that way on a transitional. At least not on mine. Because the lower 2" of the blade is only supported by the bed in the wooden part of the body, the frog can only sit in one particular position to form one continuous bed. Moving the frog forward to close the mouth would mean the 2" behind the cutting edge are not supported. The lever cap would then try to bend the blade down. I would believe that would result in a lot of chatter. I think the elongated holes for the frog screws are only there to align the metal cast frog with the wooden bed.



In order to close the mouth I think one can only put an insert in the sole.

But I do agree that these planes are probably underrated and your thread motivated me to further tune mine. I am still struggling getting the CI fitted well to the blade. Especially on the corners.

Yours looks really good.

Sent from my SM-G781B using Tapatalk

Yes, in my experience this is correct.
The frog is effectively "fixed" for all intents and purposes.
As the sole wears in use, or is flattened by users to eliminate gouges and chips, the mouth becomes wider.
A transitional in good order is a joy to use, although someone used to using cast iron planes may find that the thickness of the sole feels strange - when the left hand holds the sole and runs it alongside boards being jointed.
The smoothers feel the same in use and glide over the surface.
I always felt a little anxiety for the sole of the transitional jack when smoothing rough timber, as damage was more likely in this instance
Tom

Originally Posted by Cklett

Hi, I don't think item 1) works that way on a transitional. At least not on mine. Because the lower 2" of the blade is only supported by the bed in the wooden part of the body, the frog can only sit in one particular position to form one continuous bed. Moving the frog forward to close the mouth would mean the 2" behind the cutting edge are not supported. The lever cap would then try to bend the blade down. I would believe that would result in a lot of chatter. I think the elongated holes for the frog screws are only there to align the metal cast frog with the wooden bed.



In order to close the mouth I think one can only put an insert in the sole.

But I do agree that these planes are probably underrated and your thread motivated me to further tune mine. I am still struggling getting the CI fitted well to the blade. Especially on the corners.

Yours looks really good.

Sent from my SM-G781B using Tapatalk

Thanks mate.

I believe the adjustment of the frog on transitional planes is more to compensate for the enlargement of the mouth due to subsequent sole re-flattenings. I read somewhere during my research that Stanley recommended packing the wooden bed with shims/veneer to make sure it remained co-planar with the frog and supported the business end of the blade assembly. As you correctly pointed out, the functionality is not strictly the same as on the metal-bodied planes. Cheers.



p.s. Your transitional looks to be a very early example given that it doesn't have a lateral adjuster and the lever cap isn't stippled. And it looks to be in great condition and is obviously well-maintained. Nice !!

Originally Posted by KahoyKutter

.....IMHO, calling these planes "transitional" is giving them a negative connotation. It's almost as if they're a beta version leading up to the final and better product....

Well, I suppose they have to have a name of some sort - "transitional" doesn't have any negative connotations to me and it sort of indicates they are somewhere between the all-metal Baileys & the old woodies. It would actually make sense if they had been made before the all-iron models, but Stanley only started making them the year after they began producing the all-iron jobs.

As I said, I really can't fathom why Mr. Leach takes such a dim view of them. His write-up on the transitionals seems somewhat self-contradictory, to me. Near the beginning he says:

"Judging by the numbers still out there, these were very popular planes, so popular that many of Stanley's competitors decided to make their versions of wood bottom planes (makers such as Sargent, Union, Birmingham, Siegley, etc.). When sold originally, they were at a price somewhat less than their iron counterparts making it possible for the average Joe Meatball of the day to afford a plane that came equipped with the Bailey patented features."

He then goes on to deride them, but apart from the adjuster wheel being a bit hard to get your fingers on down in the frame, he doesn't give any convincing reasons for why he thinks them so inferior as to be only useful for firewood. His messages are somewhat mixed:

"There really isn't too much that can go wrong with these planes other than the fact that they usually look like what you'd expect a plane to look like after leaving it on your local Interstate or railroad tracks and letting it suffer the ravages of heavy traffic flow. They are rugged guys that served their owners well. Other than the obvious casting breaks about the frog or the frame itself, the most common problem with these planes is their soles. Through repeated use, they become sole shot. You'll often find examples that list to one side, have been re-soled over their entire length, have a length of metal screwed into the sole, or have a piece let into their soles to close their mouths".

Not exactly a damming list of 'faults'. In fact he makes no case for these not being perfectly good planes & as long as the metal frame isn't busted, they should be just as good performers as their all-metal siblings. You've whetted my curiosity and I almost wish I hadn't given away the ones I had in Canada now. (But I had to keep the weight down, I had several equivalent all-metal Baileys & the transitionals did need some TLC so it was they wot got the chop).

You might have started a trend here, Mike, next thing you know folks will be scouring ebay for transitionals & the price will skyrocket, so you better grab a couple more quick, before you're being out-bid....

Cheers,
Ian

Yes, packing would work. Didn't think of it.

Mine is actually a Siegley. I think they were bought by Stanley and then produced a few still under their own name. But also had some interesting designs themselves.

Mine used to have a lateral adjuster. That one was already missing when it came to me. But the rivet is still there. I just didn't get around to fit a new one. A little tap with a small hammer left or right works as well.

Sent from my SM-G781B using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by KahoyKutter

....p.s. Your transitional looks to be a very early example given that it doesn't have a lateral adjuster and the lever cap isn't stippled. And it looks to be in great condition and is obviously well-maintained. Nice !!

Actually, I suspect Ck's plane isn't a Stanley - is there a name on it anywhere? Patrick lists 4 other makers and finishes with "etc." implying there were even more. Even the earliest Stanleys appear to have had the cross-hatched lever-caps (I wonder if that's so they didn't get muddled up in the factory??)

If Ck's is a Stanley, then the cup-head screws wood screws holding the frog are consistent with an early model. The wood screws went into the wood (of course) but in 1915 this was changed to machine screws which went into threaded brass inserts in the body. That's a handy bit of info, methinks, If you have a choice, the later models are probably preferable. If the plane hasn't been abused, wood-thread retaining screws should hold well enough, though probably not as well as the brass bushes (Patrick says the bushes were 'pinned' which should add a bit of extramechanical soundness)..
Cheers,

Edit: OK, thanks Ck, you posted while I was typing..

When I think of transitional planes, I think of the work of Brian Buckner. Brian made some of the most stunning infills and thumb planes ... this was about 20 or 30 years ago. He also made a few transitional plane "restorations", which are quite wonderful. This kindled a desire on my part to do the same. One day ... I have too many planes at this time.

After aquiring an old Stanley #36 transitional plane with a shot sole I decided to make something a little nicer than "OEM". The sole, knob and tote were made of cocobola.



Another Stanley "transitional" re-made using rosewood. This one has a removable fence for shooting square edges.



And yet another "transitional" smoother done in rosewood.



And this is for Ian ...

Infill Thumb Plane







The thumb plane measures 1 11/16" wide, 5 1/2" long (sole length of which the rear "lip" extends 5/16" out from the rear of the plane body). The iron is 1 1/2" wide. The adjuster is 40 tpi making it very sensitive (same as a micrometer thread). The body is made of navel brass and the sole is of coarse steel. The wood infill, wedge and bun is Kingswood. The plane weighs 1.5 lbs. It certainly has "authority" when planing nasty grain!




Regards from Perth

Derek

Originally Posted by IanW

.......but Stanley only started making them the year after they began producing the all-iron jobs.



You might have started a trend here, Mike, next thing you know folks will be scouring ebay for transitionals & the price will skyrocket, so you better grab a couple more quick, before you're being out-bid....

Cheers,
Ian

At the very least "transitional" is an inaccurate moniker given they were made after the all iron planes, but I'll concede that it's more marketable than what I propose - Goldilocks Planes .


And me, a trendsetter ?!?! That'd be a first. I must admit I didn't think of the possible negative implications of my review and I'm glad that I've found the Sargent 3412 before the potential price hike! Now I just need a jointer and a Jack.

Thanks for sharing your transitionals, Derek. Replacing the wood base on some of the transitionals I'm considering bidding on is something I'm considering as well, but I'm not sure if my skills are quite up to it at this stage. I do have some NG Rosewood blanks that would probably do the job....but I reckon a Purpleheart #36 or custom Jack would be something else to behold. And attaching a fence has given me some food for thought as well. I may end up stealing your idea. Cheers, Mike.

Oh dang; now I want some too !

Originally Posted by Chief Tiff

Oh dang; now I want some too !

Derek's posts tend to have that effect

I think the term "transitional" is an after-the-fact invention. Stanley (and presumably the other manufacturers) didn't call them that: The Superior Works - Patrick's Blood & Gore: Planes #21 -
#37. Perhaps - perhaps - they were transitional in the sense that they helped workers used to the classic wood-bodied plane get used to the benefits of metal planes. But more likely, they were, as Patrick Leach's quote suggests, offered for rough work; and they were certainly cheaper to considerably cheaper than an all-metal plane.

Patrick Leach says, based on catalog listings I believe, that the metal bench planes and the "transitionals" started in production about the same time. So, not a transition from mainly wood to mainly metal.

As to the smaller adjusting wheel: it's my impression that earlier Bailey and related planes had smaller wheels. One of the type studies suggests that the larger wheel was introduced about 1920. Also note, while we're here, that the thread on the adjusting nut is variously right- and left-handed, depending on year of production. Confusing if you're switching back and forth from one plane to another, but it's not hard to learn to watch the iron for movement and correct your turning direction.

Originally Posted by Bill Houghton

..... Perhaps - perhaps - they were transitional in the sense that they helped workers used to the classic wood-bodied plane get used to the benefits of metal planes....

Bill, I knew the term didn't originate with Stanley, but I don't know who coined it or when. I first saw them referred to as transitionals quite a while ago (at least 40 years) so you'd need to go back at least to the 60s or 70s to find the source, I think..

As to whether they help "transition", it may be so, they have a feel more like a woodie, with your hands up higher. They felt a bit odd to me, being rusted on to the metal types with their lower centre of gravity, but I'm sure you would soon get over that, particularly if you felt there were benefits..

Originally Posted by Bill Houghton

..... As to the smaller adjusting wheel: it's my impression that earlier Bailey and related planes had smaller wheels. One of the type studies suggests that the larger wheel was introduced about 1920...

Yes, I have two type 11s (1910-1918 or thereabouts), which have the smaller thumbwheel, the next iteration (type 12) got the larger wheel. The smaller wheel can be a bit harder to manage if things are a bit stiff, especially when the knurling is almost completely worn off like it was on my #5 1/2. I "fixed" that by carefully filing what grooves I could still see with a needle file. They looked a bit sharp & artificial at first, but have now worn enough to not look too out of place. Cleaning the stud thread thoroughly and adding some dry lube helped, but adjusting the pressure of the lever cap made a difference too.

I saw somewhere when the thread was switched from RH to LH to make the depth adjustment more "intuitive". It was very early on, I once had a pre-lateral-adjuster model (so before 1885) & it had the LH thread. I think you're right, it takes all of about 2 seconds to figure out which way to spin the thumbwheel to achieve the desired effect.

Cheers,
Ian