Needs Pictures: 0
Results 196 to 210 of 228
Thread: Brace Fanatics
-
13th June 2021, 02:31 PM #196Senior Member
- Join Date
- Aug 2012
- Location
- Canberra
- Age
- 75
- Posts
- 125
-
13th June 2021 02:31 PM # ADSGoogle Adsense Advertisement
- Join Date
- Always
- Location
- Advertising world
- Age
- 2010
- Posts
- Many
-
13th June 2021, 03:09 PM #197
Hi Graham , understand , not an essential item for me ,Cheers Ross
-
14th June 2021, 03:01 AM #198Senior Member
- Join Date
- Nov 2010
- Location
- Sebastopol, California, USA
- Posts
- 180
ConVAL is probably "Connecticut Valley," the company that made Forstner bits longer than about anybody - and made some of the best Forstner bits. It's gone now, having been purchased in 2011 by Morris Wood Tool company. Morris Wood may be in business still, making specialty bits and probably serving mainly industry, although I noticed its website has what looks like scam links incorporated.
-
14th June 2021, 08:30 AM #199
-
19th September 2022, 09:18 PM #200Try not to be late, but never be early.
- Join Date
- Apr 2011
- Location
- Bakers Hill WA
- Age
- 75
- Posts
- 1,080
Hi all,
I thought it about time I revived this thread, brace talk has been pretty sparse for too long. I wrote an article on W. A. made Tough braces and finally put it up on the HTPSWA website, which is here: Hand Tool Preservation Society
I would appreciate your comments on how hard it is to navigate the site and find the article.
WARNING: if you're not into braces this will BORE you senseless.
Cheers,
Geoff.
-
20th September 2022, 09:11 AM #201
Geoff, the link takes me to the home page ok. I looked under "articles". there are lots there, but couldn't find anything on 'Tough braces'. Maybe the title of your article would help?...
Cheers,
IanIW
-
20th September 2022, 09:38 AM #202Try not to be late, but never be early.
- Join Date
- Apr 2011
- Location
- Bakers Hill WA
- Age
- 75
- Posts
- 1,080
Ian, thanks for taking a look.
Web-confusion is how I describe the site. We had a compulsory upgrade some time back and it left me floundering (more than usual) and I'm still getting my head around how it works.
When you go to articles and hover you'll see at the top there is a heading "Recent" click on there and up come all the articles posted since the upgrade.
But wait, there's more, if you click on the down facing arrow in the box beside "Recent" up comes a solitary article titled "Giant Stanley Plane". This was written at about the time of the upgrade.
Hope this helps.
Cheers,
Geoff.
-
20th September 2022, 10:39 AM #203
Hmmm, I hovered & hovered but the list didn't change in any way. If I click on the triangle arrow at the left top, it just compresses the list to nothing at all. It may be my 'puter, which like its owner, is becoming very slow & creaky....
Can you not open the article at your end & post a direct link to that?
Cheers,
Ian
Woops, stop press! I clicked on the word "recent" itself & up popped your article, so problem solved for me, at least....IW
-
20th September 2022, 11:48 AM #204SENIOR MEMBER
- Join Date
- Sep 2009
- Location
- victor harbor sa
- Posts
- 320
Hi Geoff,
I found your article easily on the clubs web site and found it a very worthwhile read.
Graham.
-
29th November 2022, 03:25 AM #205Member
- Join Date
- Nov 2006
- Location
- Ireland
- Posts
- 84
Stanley 02-740 No 73E
A query for anyone familiar with modern braces.
I bought a short sweep Stanley 2 jaw brace cheap on ebay, a Stanley 02-740 No 73E. Not sure of the age, I think it’s fairly modern because of the 02-740 prefix but current Stanley braces seem to have four jaw chucks.
asbought.jpg 02_740 No73E.jpg
The single listing pic was poor so I was taking a punt but it turned out OK,
a little surface rust which soon cleaned off and the pad, handle and chuck have minimum
wobble.
My query is about the chuck. This is the first enclosed ratchet I’ve owned. Any other ratchet brace I’ve ever used has had an oil hole at the chuck for lubrication. This one has no visible oil holes but there is a plug at the rear of the chuck with a screwdriver slot.
chuck.jpg chuckrearscrew.jpg
Is this to replace the grease? I don’t want to open it up until I know what I’m doing in case there are ball bearings falling out everywhere.
My query is just for interest, I don’t need to open it for repairs. I’ve dribbled some oil in at the ratchet pawls and it’s all working very smoothly.
All of my other worker braces have exposed ratchet cogs.
workers.jpg
-
29th November 2022, 10:51 AM #206Try not to be late, but never be early.
- Join Date
- Apr 2011
- Location
- Bakers Hill WA
- Age
- 75
- Posts
- 1,080
Jimhanna, this is very interesting. That is the first British Stanley with the enclosed ratchet that I've ever seen, although Stanley USA did make enclosed ratchet models.
In the case of your other examples there is a pin through the ratchet wheel and the chuck shaft that retains the shaft in the frame, driving that pin out would allow you to dissemble the chuck from the frame. With your 73E the ratchet teeth are machined as part of the chuck shaft and the screw in the rear is how the chuck is retained in the frame. Removing the screw would allow you to remove the chuck shaft and I would doubt there are any ball bearings in there.
For normal lubricating in working conditions, a drop of oil where the shaft enters the frame and give it a good spin and then another drop of oil with the retaining screw upward and some more spinning should suffice.
One thing that I've noticed is the screw seems to protrude out more than what I would consider normal. As I've said, I've not seen a British Stanley of this style but the US Stanley's with enclosed ratchets the face of the screw tends to be flush with the body.
Cheers,
Geoff.
-
29th November 2022, 11:49 AM #207Member
- Join Date
- Nov 2006
- Location
- Ireland
- Posts
- 84
02-742 tag.jpg
Geoff
The Mk 5 73 models made in England all seem to have the enclosed ratchet.
I came across the one above on the US ebay site but it does say Made in England.
The model numbers seem to be
02-740 No 73E a 6" sweep (mine)
02-741 No73-8 is an 8" sweep (on US ebay)
02-742 No73-10 is a 10" sweep (US ebay) Tag says 73 Mk V, my 73-10 open ratchet is a MK3
02-743 No73-12 is a 12" sweep (US ebay)
Regards Jim
-
29th November 2022, 01:28 PM #208Try not to be late, but never be early.
- Join Date
- Apr 2011
- Location
- Bakers Hill WA
- Age
- 75
- Posts
- 1,080
Thanks for this info' Jim,
I do have a No 73 E - Mk 4 ( in photo) so yours, a Mk 5 makes sense, also the one you've shown has a protruding chuck retaining screw like yours so must be correct. I believe the "E" in the model No stands for "electrician" but am happy to be corrected on this assumption.
The only UK Stanley I have with the original tag is this No 144 - 10 IN. No144's were their base model and in the attached photo this is obvious with the plastic ratchet selector.
Cheers,
Geoff.
-
17th December 2022, 10:07 AM #209Member
- Join Date
- Nov 2006
- Location
- Ireland
- Posts
- 84
Repairing a Stanley 928(sic) brace part 1
I bought a cheap brace on ebay, very cheap because it had a missing back pad.Early Stanley US catalogs from the 20s and 30s had a bewildering array of braces which I won’t even attempt to describe.
I was about to skim past the listing but a couple of things made me pause, first because the listing said Stanley 928 brace and I couldn’t remember seeing that number in any of the Stanley catalogues and secondly it looked like an enclosed box ratchet.
The damaged Stanley was bundled together with an unbranded rusty brace, the sort which often doesn’t attract any bids.
listingpic.JPG listing2.jpg
Looking closer at the other pics in the listing I could see that the stamping on the frame didn’t say Stanley 928, instead it was a 923 with a 12” swing.
listing3.jpg
I tried a search on Stanley 928 to see if 928 was an actual part number and got a few hits, both on ebay and from dealers. In all cases the item looked identical to a closed box 923 with the slotted nut behind the chuck. Where there was a close up of the frame stamping it always turned out to be a 923 misidentified as a 928.
I don’t have a 12” brace and sometimes when using a large auger bit with a 10” I had considered looking for a bigger swing brace but price and availability always stopped me.
12” or larger swing braces are common on the US or Australian ebay sites (where the postage prices put them way out of my reach) but very uncommon (especially in my price range) on the UK site.
The 923 series are not as desirable as the 2100 series braces but they were one of Stanley’s better offerings.
A quick summary of my Stanley catalogue scans on the archive.org site. Not meant to be comprehensive, just showing where the 923 series sits in the product line hierarchy.
In the 1961 catalog there were 8 different product lines
10”price comparison
Yankee $16.40
813 $13.95
923 $12.95
917 $ 9.30
945 $ 7.95
H1250 $ 6.49
965 $ 5.40
H1253 $ 4.49
The Stanley catalog 1971/72 still had the 2100 Yankee (aka Bell or North Bros.) type fully enclosed brace as the top of the range, but this had gone in 1973. In the 1973/74 US Stanley catalog No 34 there were three types of braces, H1253A labelled good, 945A labelled better and 923 labelled best.
goodbetterbest.JPG
UK catalogues had the same sort of brace hierarchy for UK made braces with a 73 better than a 78 better than a 144
The early US catalogs also have some useful information amongst the sales blurb, schematic cutaway diagrams of the 923 showing the chuck and pad handle details. The 923 chuck had a cotter pin in a slotted nut at the rear which could be rotated to take up wear in the chuck and the pad quill had a bronze bushing.
923 schematic.JPG chuck adjustment.JPG
Later 923s have a different arrangement, the cotter pin lock seems to have disappeared, the rear of the chuck has a screw like a UK made 73Mk V and the ratchet selector is plastic. (pic from US ebay)
later 02-923.jpg
The listing pics of the damaged brace seemed to suggest that the pad ball races were present but the top race had moved up so the ball bearings were probably AWOL, however the quill shaft bushing seemed to be still in place.
From the listing I couldn’t be sure if the quill disk had been removed or broken off. I couldn’t see how the pad could be damaged in normal use. Either dropped from a great height onto concrete or being left on the garage floor and run over by a car seemed a possible scenario for a missing rear pad. If the brace was warped and I couldn’t realign it with a bit of heat and pipe wrench leverage (or a large hammer) then it would be only fit for parts.
At 99p starting price it seemed worth a punt for a repair attempt. I wouldn’t repair it to the same quality as the Stanley original but turning some sort of pad to make it useable might be possible. I knew cutting wood threads to fit the threads on the original bushing if I used it might be a problem.
Of course the fact that no-one else bid on my damaged 923 12” suggested that repairs might not be so easy after all.
-
17th December 2022, 10:33 AM #210Member
- Join Date
- Nov 2006
- Location
- Ireland
- Posts
- 84
Repairing a Stanley 928(sic) brace part 2
After languishing in courier limbo for a couple of weeks I finally received my purchase.From one a few years ago I now have five users on a rack near my bench(braces not dogs) and another five in various stages of repair tucked away in a box.
Turned out I wasn’t buying a damaged 12” 923 and an old rusted 10”. The second brace is a functional 8” swing, not the best quality because it has no bearings in the pad swivel but useable in a pinch.
Braces are a bit like dogs (or planes), one minute you have one and then you suddenly realise you've acquired lots without meaning to or being quite sure just how it happened.
Looking over the 923 12” on arrival I focused first of all on “Was it warped”. If whatever trauma happened to the pad had caused the brace to be warped and I couldn’t realign it then it would be only fit for parts. It seemed perfect, shining a laser along it in both planes it was ramrod straight from the tip of an inserted bit along the chuck to the pad post at the rear.
Then I checked for chuck wobble and if it could it be dialled out with the 923 adjustment. Again failure would mean it’s for parts but it was fine, no adjustment required.
The jaws looked good as well although no jaws would not have been a deal breaker since universal type G jaws from a 73 would be a possible fix.
With the alignment and chuck perfect there were no obvious signs of damage so I wondered could the pad and quill disk have been deliberately removed. One possibility might be trying to drill square holes close to a vertical surface where the pad diameter would push the top of the brace out off square.
square drill scenario.JPG
An auger bit with a snail doesn’t need a lot of pressure once the thread engages so the loss of the pad wouldn’t stop it drilling. Why not just use a longer bit, perhaps there was restricted height. Where would you be drilling lots of holes in a restricted space. Maybe it’s no coincidence that the seller describes themselves as a tool seller and "an engineering workshop making and fixing parts mainly for the marine trade."
I know nothing about boatbuilding so have no idea how often you might be drilling below deck with restricted height and needing the pad removed to get the brace square.
If this was the case then the ratchet would have been in constant use. Is the ratchet still working as it should?
A broken spring on the pawls wouldn’t be a problem, I’ve fixed those before (on a Chapman 8”). Just drift out the pawl retaining pin and buy a pack of suitably sized springs on ebay.
broken pawl spring repair.jpg
A worn pawl would be a different matter. Awkward to make but possible. Rounded over or damaged cog teeth on the chuck body would be beyond my repair. However the ratchet was silky smooth, working perfectly.
The handle on the swing arm turned freely. It’s wood and there’s one small gouge in it which I’ll be able to fill.
The quill bearing was present and the threads on the end were 13/16” 12tpi, a standard BSF (British Standard Fine) thread. Taps are available for this thread but expensive for a one off job.
There were no ball bearings in the race.
Not many 923s come up on UK ebay but looking on ebay in the US the pad handle does look very similar to a Stanley 73.
Captureof923 handle.JPG
I wondered if a rusty cheap 73 might donate a pad and ball bearings and maybe a suitable circlip. If the 923 and a donor 73 had the same diameter post, then I might be able to transfer the whole quill pad assembly for a hybrid 923 front, 73 rear.
I took off the pad on my 73-10 Mk 3 just to see how it was fixed and measure the post diameter. I was expecting to have to unscrew the pad after removing the screws. Got out my padded pliers in preparation and then found that the pad just fell off, the 73 was a very simple construction. No threaded wood pad, no circlip at the top, just a crimped on washer to hold the quill and just the three screws holding on the wood pad. I didn’t want to disturb the crimp washer on a working brace so any comparison would have to wait until I found a cheap possible donor.
stanley 73-10 mk3 pad wood fixing.jpg stanley 73-10 mk3 pad crimp washer.jpg
Rarer sizes of brace get a premium on UK ebay, 10” braces are numerous and can sell for very little so buying a 10” donor to repair the 923 12” might be cheap and easy. After a few mistries where the seller expected a premium price for a rust bucket I found a 10” swing 73 donor cheap on ebay.
First step was to remove the pad handle from the donor, the screws on the underside were removed and the pad fell off, not threaded to the quill. If I use it the pad will have to be sanded and re finished, it’s wood and the finish was flaking off.
The donor, a 73 Mk1, had a proper lock washer holding on the quill.
Comparison between the donor and the 923.
923anddonor73.jpg
The 923 has a more flared quill base but the ball race top washer is the same size on both.
The 73 has a separate bottom ball race on the post, the 923 has the bottom race fixed to the shaft.
But they have the same diameter post, and the 73 quill is the same depth from ball race to lock washer as the 923. Could I just transfer the whole quill pad assembly.
Turns out I couldn’t use the 73 bearings. The donor 73 has larger ball bearings, either 5/32” (3.96mm) or 4mm according to my vernier but too big for the 923.
Luckily I had the top ball race cover from the 923 and 1/8” ball bearings are cheap and easy to source on ebay.
The 73 quill on top of the 923
923with73quill.jpg
It’s a bit of a frankenbrace with a 923 chuck and a 73 quill and pad but it gives me a 12” swing brace very cheaply.
Similar Threads
-
Will weatherboards brace enough?
By glenn k in forum FURNITURE, JOINERY, CABINETMAKING - formerly BIG STUFFReplies: 26Last Post: 9th December 2009, 09:40 AM -
Derek's Brace
By yowie in forum WOODWORK - GENERALReplies: 9Last Post: 23rd June 2009, 06:27 PM -
Fickle fingered frothing Festool Fanatics.
By John Saxton in forum FESTOOL FORUMReplies: 1Last Post: 9th February 2009, 02:20 PM