# Tool restoration; how far should we go?



## memzey (31 Jan 2016)

Hi everyone,

Please let me start by saying a couple of things - firstly I'm an amateur woodworker looking to develop his skills. I am not a collector by any means however I do have a preference for vintage tools. This is partially down to economics but also because I have found in my limited experience that old tools tend to be very well made and that most new "innovations" are a bit gimmicky as opposed to actually useful. Secondly I have never bothered to tend to the aesthetics of any of my tools. My MO is to sharpen, fettle when needed then use. That's it. I don't really want to waste too much time on looks (my wife sees evidence of this every time I get dressed ) or obsessing over flatness or whatever. I have recently had a tool come into my possession however that has made me reconsider this stance if only just for this particular piece:





This enormous slab of rust is an early (possibly type 6) Stanley No. 8. It is of the vintage that I like as the frog is fixed and the machined mating areas between the casting and the frog are large. It has a low knob and tote that are both rosewood. Now this plane came to me very cheaply so it doesn't really owe me anything but before I could put it to use I had to address the rust on the top of the casting. The sole by comparison is remarkably sound. In so doing I discovered that almost all of the japaning had gone leaving little to protect the plane from another attack by the rust monster:





Here you can see what I mean:




The lever cap and cap iron also need a lot of work:




The toe of the plane is also in a bad way but the knob is not too bad:




Now I have never taken paint or any other kind of finish to a tool before but I am currently giving serious consideration to completely stripping the remaining black from this plane and applying something like rustoleum to help protect it from more brown crusty stuff forming. I know this will deminish its historical value and that many people think doing so would be the wrong thing to do (I might get kicked out of TATHS for this) but from my perspective I don't think an old No. 8 that is falling to bits with rust has much inherent interest and at least by treating it in this way it will be kept usable to me and hopefully others in future. I have seen many others on this site bring old tools back to life and just wanted to see your thoughts were before taking that step. 

Thanks for reading and sorry it was such a long post (memzey=windbag)!


----------



## worn thumbs (31 Jan 2016)

This could be an interesting discussion.My choice,which I would not attempt to force onto anybody else,would be to clean and wax the sole and to do the bare minimum of cleaning to the cap iron.Then sharpen it and look for a job to do with it.

I have known a man who stripped the wooden infill of a Norris A5 and re-varnished with melamine lacquer.In my eyes it was vandalism and to him it was making the plane smarter looking.Take your choice,but originality is a one time thing.


----------



## RogerP (31 Jan 2016)

It depends whether your aim is to have a workshop or a museum. 

I can understand conserving a very old and rare item with the minimum of work to preserve it from further decay and for future generations. But a Number 8 Stanley plane is not such an item - thousands were made and many are still in use.

I'd repaint, re-varnish, clean up nicks and dents and return it back to its former glory and then enjoy using it.


----------



## MIGNAL (31 Jan 2016)

i suppose there are two extremes. Leave as is or go the whole way and make it appear virtually new looking. There are many shades between those two. 
Do what you wish! Your plane and as Roger P stated, if it isn't rare or very valuable does it really matter?


----------



## n0legs (31 Jan 2016)

I found your musings on this subject interesting.
The way I think with these old tools is they deserve a second chance. Some of mine have arrived in such a state I've watched for the odd looks from the good lady when I've unpacked them.

Where as some say about the history or patina of/on the tool, I consider most of the times what I'm seeing is neglect. I was taught during my apprenticeship to look after my tools and many of mine are as good today as when they were first bought. I don't get how some people just don't bother, considering the wages of old and the cost of these tools even way back then. Didn't anyone take some pride or care?
My inherited tools are pretty much the way Grandfather left them, they are pretty decent and have been left alone.

My number 3, 7 and 8 have all been stripped down, cleaned, prepped and repainted. Their knobs and handles have been sanded, stained where necessary and lacquered. The soles and sides are sanded and lapped and all the other parts treated to some tlc, then it's all put back together. I want them to look good, work well and remain useful without too much future bothering with.
The refurbishment part is easy for me, family in certain trades etc, so it doesn't seem like a big issue for me. My attitude might be slightly different if I didn't have such easy access to the necessary tools and materials, but I'd still make a good job of tidying them up.

The thing is, there are so many about it's not like they're super special or rare. They certainly won't be treated to some kind of museum life while they're with me, they all get used. 
In summary I suppose it's a case of each to their own. I certainly don't criticize those who decide not to refurbish as I do and leave a tool as they find it, but I think some tools are worthy of a little bit of love.


----------



## JimB (31 Jan 2016)

Whatever you do, it's not as if you've found a Leonard sketchpad and intend using it for shopping lists.
Being lazy I'd do the minimum and in this case it includes a protective coat against further rust. I like the look of the knobs but don't know if they would be uncomfortable.
Use it and enjoy it.


----------



## Vann (1 Feb 2016)

Nice plane!


memzey":1kf2s0x1 said:


> Now I have never taken paint or any other kind of finish to a tool before but I am currently giving serious consideration to completely stripping the remaining black from this plane and applying something like rustoleum to help protect it from more brown crusty stuff forming. I know this will deminish its historical value and that many people think doing so would be the wrong thing to do (I might get kicked out of TATHS for this) but from my perspective I don't think an old No. 8 that is falling to bits with rust has much inherent interest and at least by treating it in this way it will be kept usable to me and hopefully others in future. I have seen many others on this site bring old tools back to life and just wanted to see your thoughts were before taking that step.


In the end, it's your plane. I too would be torn between a minimalist approach and a full refurbish. 

Just a suggestion - if all you want to do is to stop the rust, a coat of boiled linseed oil over the previously painted ironwork should do the job.

Cheers, Vann.


----------



## toolsntat (1 Feb 2016)

Is that the one you got off Tim?
He said you had a jointer, but USA low knob 8 =D> 
Wish I had looked at it :wink: 
I'll give you a call later 8) 

Andy


----------



## MCB (1 Feb 2016)

If it was mine, I'd remove the rust using Shield Technology's RESTORE and repaint the painted bits. Then enjoy using it.

Tilgear (at Standon on the A10 just north of Ware) stock Shield Technology products

MCB


----------



## D_W (1 Feb 2016)

On a plane that's in very good shape with significant value, I wouldn't do more than get it in user shape (sharpen it mostly, and prepare the business end of the cap iron). 

On an older plane that's rough like that one (though can't tell about the parts that count by looking at it), trend over here is a cleaned up plane is worth more money. five decades from now will it be? Who knows. the original condition planes may be rare enough by then ...

....but we'll probably be able to print an antique by then. 

I hope we can print nice wood, too.


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (1 Feb 2016)

If a plane is very rare, condition may be secondary to its rarity. It is then one for a collector, and should not be used, and restoration may take the form of cleaning off gunk but otherwise leaving as is.

Stanley made millions of common bench planes. The only collector ones are those in pristine condition and rare (earliest made). All the rest are users. Saving the battered condition of a common plane for the future? Nah.

If this #8 was mine, and I planned to use it, because it is in such a sad state, I would strip away the remaining paint (because you cannot paint over chipped paint - it looks terrible), and paint it with something that resembles the original. I have gone so far as re-japanning some planes (an easy formula is marine varnish mixed with asphaltum - leave to cure for a couple of weeks in a warm area). 

I have old Stanleys that remain unrestored, but generally they have most of their original finish and wear any battle scars proudly. I think that there is such a wide range of what most here would consider to be their preference, that the rule is There is no Rule.

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## Phil Pascoe (1 Feb 2016)

JimB":3jnhtmkk said:


> Whatever you do, it's not as if you've found a Leonard sketchpad and intend using it for shopping lists.
> Being lazy I'd do the minimum and in this case it includes a protective coat against further rust. I like the look of the knobs but don't know if they would be uncomfortable.
> Use it and enjoy it.


What's a Leonard sketchpad?


----------



## undergroundhunter (1 Feb 2016)

I always to the minimum to get the tool to work well, usually this is a clean, oil the wooden bits and sharpen. I'm not one for repainting as I think it removes the working past of the tool but horses for courses. I have a couple of low knob stanleys a 7 and a 4, the sides of the 4 are brown/black from years worth or tarnishing it doesn't stop the tool from working and I quite like it.

Matt


----------



## JimB (1 Feb 2016)

phil.p":1ljl0z2a said:


> JimB":1ljl0z2a said:
> 
> 
> > Whatever you do, it's not as if you've found a Leonard sketchpad and intend using it for shopping lists.
> ...


Just logged in and noticed the typo. Must have been thinking of my cousin. Meant to be Leonardo as you will have realised.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (1 Feb 2016)

Yes. I thought you might be another one having trouble with predictive text.


----------



## bugbear (1 Feb 2016)

memzey":2pq00ugn said:


> I have seen many others on this site bring old tools back to life and just wanted to see your thoughts were before taking that step.



I think the principles (and a few side issues....) were aired fairly well in this recent thread:

preservation-or-utilisation-antique-tools-t94470.html

My view is that truly rare tools should be preserved as records of history,
and the less-rare should be used, after conservation or renovation as suits.

BugBear


----------



## JimB (1 Feb 2016)

Now a Leonard Bailey sketchbook would be something surpassing Leonardo. 8)


----------



## ED65 (1 Feb 2016)

My view on restoration is summed up by _as little as you can get away with/as much as you're comfortable doing_. This covers a wide range of appearances: at one extreme the tool could be dark with patina and at the other would be in like-new condition, actually it would look better than new in many cases. 

This is with user tools, where I think you can feel free to do what you want with it. With something too rare or valuable to use then this sort of question becomes irrelevant. 

Even with users there can be an interesting slippery slope when it comes to the issue of what's okay to do to an old tool. Previous owners might not have given a moment's thought to drilling a hanging hole through the sole if that's the way they wanted to store their planes, but a lot of us would consider doing that to an antique plane today to be vandalism. But does it actually matter when the hole was drilled? I don't know.


----------



## ED65 (1 Feb 2016)

memzey":rk6z29m7 said:


> Now I have never taken paint or any other kind of finish to a tool before but I am currently giving serious consideration to completely stripping the remaining black from this plane and applying something like rustoleum to help protect it from more brown crusty stuff forming.


Unless your workshop conditions are very challenging a thorough waxing should do enough to prevent further rust development. but if you'd like to treat it with something that doesn't need the occasional top up then I would suggest you give it a couple of light coats of shellac. As long as you've thoroughly degreased first the shellac will stick to the remaining japanning and the bare metal equally well and as shellac is an excellent barrier to water vapour it will do a lot to halt any further formation of rust. 

This should be more reliable and more easily reversible than wiping on a coat of linseed oil.


----------



## Jacob (1 Feb 2016)

Doesn't look that rusty to me I've seen worse. I'd just sharpen it and start using it. Flooding it with raw linseed half n half with turps will stop any further rust and polish up with use.
I've bought quite a few old tools over the years but the "restored" ones are the ones I like least. A bit like over restored furniture or buildings - you start wishing you could see it as it was and wonder why anybody bothered.

PS if you can see that an item has been "restored", as distinct from repaired or maintained, then it's not been done well.


----------



## MCB (1 Feb 2016)

phil.p":3s92byyg said:


> JimB":3s92byyg said:
> 
> 
> > Whatever you do, it's not as if you've found a Leonard sketchpad and intend using it for shopping lists.
> ...


I think Phil was making a subtle reference to Leonardo da Vinci - a forward thinking engineer in Italy who also did a bit of painting.

I remember as a lad going to see the famous CARTOON (probably in the National Gallery) and thinking that it wasn't a proper cartoon because there were no speech bubbles!

There are a number of Leonardo's notebooks in the British Library - one can look at them on a computer screen which turns the pages.

MCB


----------



## pitch pine (1 Feb 2016)

I thought this Rapier 400 plane was junk when I picked it up. The sole looked corroded beyond repair. It had been fished out of the scrap metal at a local tip. I took pity on it (I live fairly close to Gateshead where it was made) and it is now a really nice plane. It looks to be of a better quality than some of the newer Stanleys etc. I did the "clean and fettle till it works" technique, and I like the look that comes with that. It was so filthy I thought the handles were tufnol, but I found wood under the grime. The surreal colours were added by my camera free of charge.


----------



## Corneel (1 Feb 2016)

Jacob":124nmu7t said:


> PS if you can see that an item has been "restored", as distinct from repaired or maintained, then it's not been done well.



This!

I have meddled a bit in antique motorbikes. Usually the bikes I got were just too far gone and needed a complete overhaul, including striping paint etc. Somehow the end result never quite spoke to me as when I saw someone dragging an old bike from a barn and carefully repairing it, leaving the age and wear intact as much as possible. That's a tactic I use now with old tools. Luckily old tools in usefull condition are not very rare. This #8 plane I would carefully repair too. Scrub of the rust, leave the japanning as is, protect with linseed oil.


----------



## D_W (1 Feb 2016)

Since other people have shared their favorite minimalist methods, here's mine. 

* deactivate any rust inside the casting with phosphoric acid (usually not necessary). 
* Wash inside of casting with hot water and soap, dry thoroughly
* spray shellac (in a can) the inside of the casting and the outside of the frog
* oil the wood parts thoroughly to freshen them up and then wax them
* minimal cleaning to the sole and sides (only as necessary), sharpen the iron and go

The plane will look halfway , or three quarters, but if you ever decide you don't like your restore job, the shellac can be taken off with alcohol. 

And it's quick.


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (1 Feb 2016)

> * oil the wood parts thoroughly to freshen them up and then wax them



Be cautious here, if this is used in the context of handles. Any oil on Rosewood will cause it to darken (near black) and lose all wood grain. You cannot undo this.

Just wax alone is sufficient to clean and preserve.

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## AndyT (1 Feb 2016)

On the specific topic of painting planes, I would never recommend it, and would always advise_ halting the aging process_ rather than _trying to reverse_ it. With a neglected tool I ask myself what things a careful owner would have done at the end of the working day. I think it would be little more than removing any stray rust, keeping moving parts free, removing dirt, sharpening cutting edges and possibly oiling or waxing wooden parts. 

I think that if an iron plane has lost its black finish, it should just stay looking old, not be made to look like a new one, just as I don't dye my grey hair or add a toupee to cover up the thin spot. Why make a plane from the 1880s look like one from the 1980s?

Another reason to leave well alone is that on most metal planes, as far as I know, the finish was not paint and cannot be matched by anything brushed on readymade from a tin. As Derek says, the original "japanning" can be more nearly matched with a mixture of asphaltum and varnish if you really want to, and have access to hot sunshine to cure it.

Also, for anything other than black, repainting brings the extra problem of matching the colour. Record, for example, used several different shades of blue at different periods. Which one should you choose? 

These generalisations don't fit so well in the case of a common tool of no historical interest which has been rescued from severe neglect so that it can be put to use. But deciding what is of no historical interest is difficult - the only accurate test cannot be made until a future time, looking back.


----------



## D_W (1 Feb 2016)

There are high solids paints sold over here that look pretty good when they go on planes, but the biggest problem I've had with them is that without anything over them, if a stray iron corner hits them, it chews the paint right off. 

If I should ever run into a plane again that needs more than shellac (needs being an interesting word), I will probably paint it an odd color of high solids paint and then spray shellac on top of it to give it depth and some additional durability. 

If something is like "75%" japanning, though, spraying on spray can shellac goes a long way in making it look better and preventing future rust.

That was something I saw (the shellac tip) on an old vhs video that ernie conover put together. On planes that never lay on their side, a very thin coat of padded shellac on fresh cheeks (if it's necessary to lap them to remove rust) also goes a long way toward limiting maintenance and nuisance rust. I never want a fresh metal surface on any plane, except for on the sole, unless I can't help it. It's a rust magnet, and time spent chasing rust on tools is a complete waste.


----------



## shed9 (1 Feb 2016)

Not sure that No 8 is a Stanley.


----------



## D_W (1 Feb 2016)

Looks like an early type stanley with a replacement iron. The adjuster looks stanley. 

Of all of the planes that end up with oddball parts, probably the 2 1/4" size 5 1/2s and the #8s are at the top of the list (at least here in the states).


----------



## Bod (1 Feb 2016)

shed9":3fhmkdp7 said:


> Not sure that No 8 is a Stanley.



Interesting comment.
I have a No.6, identical to what you would expect from an early Stanley, except "Stanley" is not marked anywhere.
Mine has no makers mark anywhere. Though to be maybe Swedish or German copy of a pre 1930 Stanley.

Bod


----------



## ED65 (1 Feb 2016)

Going back to _if you can see something is restored it's not done well _ briefly, we should be careful about applying a standard from another area to tools. 

Obviously tools are a very different thing, but even in the antiques world there is no one set level of acceptable restoration. What's not generally desirable with furniture is not only okay in ceramics, it's actively desired. Same story with European swords versus Japanese swords where restoration kills value in the one case but maintains or greatly enhances value in the other.


----------



## ED65 (1 Feb 2016)

D_W":16twby56 said:


> Wash inside of casting with hot water and soap, dry thoroughly


That's nearly the first time I've read of someone washing an old tool which is something I've started to do. Rinsing in mineral spirits/white spirit seems to be the default recommendation these days and it's smelly, oily work and at the end of the day much less effective if the goal is thorough degreasing.



D_W":16twby56 said:


> There are high solids paints sold over here that look pretty good when they go on planes, but the biggest problem I've had with them is that without anything over them, if a stray iron corner hits them, it chews the paint right off.


Is this even with curing them hard by baking in a warm oven?


----------



## AndyT (1 Feb 2016)

ED65":2r1xrn6j said:


> Going back to _if you can see something is restored it's not done well _ briefly, we should be careful about applying a standard from another area to tools.
> 
> Obviously tools are a very different thing, but even in the antiques world there is no one set level of acceptable restoration. What's not generally desirable with furniture is not only okay in ceramics, it's actively desired. Same story with European swords versus Japanese swords where restoration kills value in the one case but maintains or greatly enhances value in the other.



And for another extreme case - there are people doing "restoration projects" on historic wooden boats - in which they replace every rotten plank! The only original parts are some iron fittings. Ok, each new plank is cut to match the one it is replacing, but none of the original surface - which is what anyone sees when viewing the finished job - is actually original.

I don't think we can apply that thinking to tools...


----------



## ED65 (1 Feb 2016)

That's the "Ship of Theseus" paradox, and yes I don't think we can apply that to tools!


----------



## Jacob (1 Feb 2016)

AndyT":u5muy124 said:


> ED65":u5muy124 said:
> 
> 
> > Going back to _if you can see something is restored it's not done well _ briefly, we should be careful about applying a standard from another area to tools.
> ...


Yebbut replacing rotten planks is necessary maintenance or it'd sink, even if the whole thing is replaced bit by bit.
How do you "restore" ceramics other than by mending; gluing together broken pots?


----------



## D_W (1 Feb 2016)

ED65":3akbcmoc said:


> D_W":3akbcmoc said:
> 
> 
> > Wash inside of casting with hot water and soap, dry thoroughly
> ...



the high solids paints that I've used don't require anything other than time to cure in a dry area. The issue has been that they have dried too hard, as opposed to too soft. 

It probably varies by paint, as I've heard other folks say they've had good experience with paint and didn't notice it to be fragile.


----------



## shed9 (1 Feb 2016)

D_W":2ccv8vmp said:


> Looks like an early type stanley with a replacement iron. The adjuster looks stanley.
> 
> Of all of the planes that end up with oddball parts, probably the 2 1/4" size 5 1/2s and the #8s are at the top of the list (at least here in the states).



I concede it may be a Stanley, but I didn't think Stanley cast 8's with the number on the toe.



Bod":2ccv8vmp said:


> Though to be maybe Swedish or German copy of a pre 1930 Stanley.



I think it's a copy myself not it would detract in any shape or form from the plane if were not a Stanley. I love the low knob varieties whatever the flavour.

In regards to the original query on what to do with it, personally I would remove any rust, rub a protector on it, check it is actually flat (and remedy if not) then put a modern thick blade in it - something like a Hock.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (1 Feb 2016)

ED65":35u7ui9d said:


> That's the "Ship of Theseus" paradox, and yes I don't think we can apply that to tools!


Or commonly "Trigger's broom"


----------



## Jacob (1 Feb 2016)

ED65":8tpym6kb said:


> That's the "Ship of Theseus" paradox, and yes I don't think we can apply that to tools!


I've had old woodies where the blade, cap iron, half the body, have all been replaced. Not much original except the handles and the wedge. Not restoration just maintenance.


----------



## D_W (1 Feb 2016)

shed9":v6eq6kvk said:


> D_W":v6eq6kvk said:
> 
> 
> > Looks like an early type stanley with a replacement iron. The adjuster looks stanley.
> ...



Early types with the low knob like that one had the number cast in the toe.


----------



## shed9 (1 Feb 2016)

D_W":3sayd96q said:


> Early types with the low knob like that one had the number cast in the toe.



I thought that was only true for sizes up to a number 4 and 5 and above numbered on the heel for that era of plane.


----------



## D_W (1 Feb 2016)

shed9":y0tz0koq said:


> D_W":y0tz0koq said:
> 
> 
> > Early types with the low knob like that one had the number cast in the toe.
> ...



Sorry, early types of the no 8 - i just don't know when they changed and went to the back of the plane. Maybe type 10 or 11? I'm no fanatical stanley historian, I only care that a stanley plane isn't broken if I'm in need of one.


----------



## memzey (1 Feb 2016)

Hi everyone. Thanks for all your comments so far which I have been reading with great interest. First off I'd like to say it is definitely a Stanley albeit a very early one; type 6 or so I'd say which puts it in the mid-1880's or thereabouts. I do understand the confusion given the lack of obvious markings. There are markings however which do establish its provenance:
Under the tote:




On the lever cap:




On the frog:




In fact I think everything on it is original bar the iron which is made in England and probably from the 60's. 

A number of people have hit on one of the main points of clarification for me and that is this; as we partly determine the extent of restoration that is appropriate for an item by its rarity, how rare should we consider a ~130 year old No. 8 to be? I've not seen too many No. 8s of any age before let alone one of this age so I'm not going to be much help in that I'm afraid. Can I put that one out there for your thoughts as well please?


----------



## shed9 (1 Feb 2016)

memzey, with the S foundry stamp it is likely to be a type 7 which would place between 1893 and 1899. 

That's rarer than most low knob 8's but not so rare that anyone is going to berate you should you decide a full restore or none at all. Personally unless a full restore is spot on, it will in my opinion lose it's character.


----------



## memzey (1 Feb 2016)

Oh and a bit of progress to report as well; I attacked the the knob with some microcrystalline wax as per the good professors' recommendation:




I think it has really brought out the figure and patina in the wood, not to mention a few battle scars to boot. I couldn't do the tote as I was gluing it up tonight - it was cracked into two.


----------



## memzey (2 Feb 2016)

shed9":ewyrwjpa said:


> memzey, with the S foundry stamp it is likely to be a type 7 which would place between 1893 and 1899.
> 
> That's rarer than most low knob 8's but not so rare that anyone is going to berate you should you decide a full restore or none at all. Personally unless a full restore is spot on, it will in my opinion lose it's character.


Thanks Shed. I think you are right - it is probably a type 7 given the foundry castings and other details. I am leaning towards some kind of sympathetic paint job that won't look out of place on a tool of this age. I don't want it to look like new just well cared for - and most all I want it to stop depositing crusty detritus on my hands every time I touch it!


----------



## ED65 (2 Feb 2016)

Jacob":12g0xw8l said:


> How do you "restore" ceramics other than by mending; gluing together broken pots?


Dredging my memory a bit here but one methodology is replacement of voids or missing pieces with epoxy, repainting of missing decoration with oil paints or alkyds, re-glazing any areas that need it with "cold glaze" set using a UV light. 

The desired effect in some cases is a like-new condition where no signs of damage or ageing are seen any longer. And if done right the piece keeps the 'ring' of an unbroken piece so it hides that a repair was done in that way too.


----------



## ED65 (2 Feb 2016)

D_W":3slfttox said:


> the high solids paints that I've used don't require anything other than time to cure in a dry area. The issue has been that they have dried too hard, as opposed to too soft.


Thanks for the clarification, I was assuming you meant it was too soft not too hard. Obviously there's a middle ground between those, tough, and the best modern paints (requiring baking on not) apparently get the balance just right as they are as durable as one would hope for.


----------



## AndyT (2 Feb 2016)

So, summarising so far, I think the position is this:

The plane is early - well over a century old - and not common. No 8s are an unusual choice at any period.
Number 8s in general are not super-rare, so they generally sell as a user-tool for a discerning user, looking for something cheaper than a new number 8 - a LN - is currently £366 at Axminster. (Looking at old (but not early) No 8s, I see that OldTools have a Record No 8 at £130 and a StaySet at £220 - obviously both newer than yours but cosmetically nicer).

However, I am in no way an expert on the huge, complicated world of Stanley collecting - there may be something special about yours which makes it worth three times as much, for all I know. (I'm too tight even to buy the big fat John Walker book for Stanley obsessives which lists all the variant details and gives values!)

So, if you did do a radical renovation (including repainting) there is a risk that you could hugely reduce the possible value of your plane. That's the value to someone else, but judging from your post here maybe the value to you too - your old No 7 looks to be in lovely, aged condition - 







and I guess you'd like your No 8 to look similar? I think it's what you should aim for!

The main problem with the plane is that you say the finish is flaking off and it is "depositing crusty detritus" on your hands. So, the least invasive route is to stop the flaking. As D_W has said, shellac will stick to what is there, stop the flaking, leave the appearance little altered and be reversible.
Or as Jacob suggests, thinned boiled linseed oil will do the same, though it will be a bit harder to reverse. [I've used linseed oil myself with great success on my old lathe and drilling machine and like the look it produces.]

You probably need to scrub off any really loose bits with an old toothbrush first, and just accept their loss. It's hard to see if there is any rust to speak of on the black parts, but if there is, then a gentle rub with very fine wire wool will get enough of it off to allow the shellac or oil to stick. Alternatively, Garryflex blocks are good - you will probably need to cut one into little bits to get into the corners.

How bad is the finish really?


----------



## Bod (2 Feb 2016)

Maybe an e-mail to Patrick Leach [[email protected]] asking how common these No8's are, and what would kill the value for resale.
Don't expect him to give a value though, he's based in America.

Bod


----------



## D_W (2 Feb 2016)

They're plenty common in the states, and one that was refurbished reasonably well would bring a lot more money than an original in the states. 

the big threat with a #8 at this point is they are no more capable than a #7 BUT if you get one with a broken frog, a broken lever cap, or an unexpectedly bad iron and cap iron, it is much harder to find the parts for a reasonable amount of money.

And the fact that they really aren't worth that much unless they're in top shape makes it undesirable to spend the money to make a mediocre plane still look mediocre but work OK. 

Same goes for 5 1/2s that have the 2 1/4" iron. They're not worth any more, but they are a lot more trouble to find parts for.


----------



## memzey (2 Feb 2016)

Proff; you are spot on. The kind of finish that the No.7 has is exactly what I'd like to achieve here (I'm almost embarrassed to mention that plane as it begs the obvious question "why do you need a No.8 if you alrea have a No.7" to which I have no sensible answer).

Bod: I was with Patrick last week - I should have asked him really. Maybe I should send him a link to this thread to solicit his opinion. Not that the opinions of those here are in anyway undervalued it's just that Patrick is a bit of a guru on these things!


----------



## shed9 (2 Feb 2016)

D_W":1s4oj03k said:


> They're plenty common in the states, and one that was refurbished reasonably well would bring a lot more money than an original in the states.
> 
> the big threat with a #8 at this point is they are no more capable than a #7 ...



Agree D_W, I see plenty of 8's on US Ebay although mostly corrugated bases. Never used a corrugated base myself - does it offer any real advantage?

As for any advantage an 8 will have over a 7, I totally agree that you can pretty much achieve the same with either tool. The difference however is preference - some people prefer the extra size and mass of the 8 over an 7.


----------



## D_W (2 Feb 2016)

No, no real advantage (the corrugated). I'd rather have a plane without it - it's less common for a reason. 

The biggest advantage in making a plane easier to push is paraffin wax. it does 20 to 1 what any corrugations would ever do. 

At one point, I had ....3 8s (two stanleys and a lie nielsen). I recall the interest in them back then was just that they were bigger, and I think that's why most people prefer them. It's another instance where the collector and amateur market gets fascinated with tools for a different reason than professionals did. 

But as hobbyists or professionals these days where power tools rule most of the work, extra weight is not so much of a detriment and whatever pleases us is what we should get.


----------



## Benchwayze (3 Feb 2016)

If I am going to restore a tool, I like to get it into at least a usable condition, to see if it's worth the whole hog. Like the Record five-and-a-half I have, which is in need of attention. (it's been painted green for a start) It looks like it will be worth it. Now I must find the time and inclination to do it.

(hammer)


----------



## memzey (4 Feb 2016)

Hi again gang,

I have been working on the tool some more and have successfully de-rusted the lever cap and cap iron. Struggling slightly to get a good edge on the iron though as it's massive and I have never sharpened an iron that big before. I'll get the hang of it though. I did manage to glue the tote back together but I had to use PU glue which left a bit of a visible glue line. Does anyone have a tip on dressing that up? I'll post up some photos when I get home tonight. I started lapping the sole last night - 2' of cast iron back and forth over sandpaper stuck to float glass; who needs to go to the gym anyway?

With regards to the finish; the more I live with it like this, the more I want to apply some paint to it. I think I have settled on that as my course of action I just need to establish the right way of doing it. Something that will result in a surface that looks more like my equally old No. 7 than a new and shiny thing. I will give this some more thought....


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (4 Feb 2016)

Hi memzey

Have you stripped all finish from the handles? If you wish to hide the glue lines, you probably need to do this, and then stain the wood. A dark walnut or rosewood would probably do the trick.

With regards paint, several coats of engine enamel will do a pretty good job of mimicking the original finish. Just make sure you strip all the original paint first (paint stripper), otherwise it will be lumpy and horrible ..






This was in bad shape to start (and why I picked it up cheaply) ...






Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## memzey (4 Feb 2016)

Nice job Derek! No I haven't stripped the tote or the last of the paint from the casting. If I were going for an "as new" look I'd definitely go down the engine enamel path - that Bedrock looks awesome. As it is I want a bit more of a patinated result - If I could get it to look exactly like my No. 7 I'd be dead chuffed. The finish on that has dulled to a semi-gloss kind of hue and is thin enough in some places for bare metal so be seen (such as over the "No. 7"casting and around the edges). I picked up a small tin of black Hammerite satin straight to metal paint last night which I think thinned down appropriately might just work. I will experiment on some unsuspecting bit of metal tonight and see how it goes. As for the glue line I wondered if one of those coloured wax sticks might work? Has anyone tried that on a PU glue line before?


----------



## ED65 (4 Feb 2016)

memzey":3lifk3hp said:


> Struggling slightly to get a good edge on the iron though as it's massive and I have never sharpened an iron that big before. I'll get the hang of it though.


Do you have a lot of material to remove to clear some pitting at the edge? 

If not a wide iron from a bevel-down plane shouldn't take any real time longer to sharpen than a narrower one because you don't have to touch the whole bevel surface if you don't want to. Just form a small secondary bevel at a steeper angle, anywhere from 2-10°, and call it done.



memzey":3lifk3hp said:


> I did manage to glue the tote back together but I had to use PU glue which left a bit of a visible glue line.


Why did you feel you had to? Would normal wood glue not suffice? Apparently PVA glues can make for a stronger bond despite Gorilla's marketing claims in the past, assuming the glue line is very thin as it should be. 

If you were gap filling then PU is poor for that and epoxy is the glue of choice for most of us, and it can be easily coloured lighter or darker if needed.



memzey":3lifk3hp said:


> As for the glue line I wondered if one of those coloured wax sticks might work? Has anyone tried that on a PU glue line before?


The PU glue line is flush with the surface presumably? Filler won't have any effect in that case. 

I think your three options are: living with the visible glue line; staining the wood to match the glue line; overcoating the handle with something that'll hide the glue line (e.g. button polish).


----------



## memzey (4 Feb 2016)

Thanks ED,

I don't have any trouble sharpening edge tools normally. I do it quickly and with little fuss on some old oil stones I have. Every other plane iron or chisel I have is sharpened in the same way and they can all shave hairs off my arm. The iron on a No. 8 is just that bit bigger than I have used before which won't be a problem by the time I've done it a couple of times I'm sure. I did have to lap the non-bevel side a bit to clear some pitting but that part is quite straight forward as the iron is run face done along the lengths of the stones. The tricky bit is that the stones are only 2" wide but the iron is 2 5/8". Not a problem though, like I said I'm sure I'll get the hang of it soon enough (at least I hope so).

Re; the glue up - I originally did glue it up with PVA (TB3) after giving the mating surfaces a rub down with acetone. It didn't take unfortunately so I took the PU route instead. This seems to have resulted in a successful join I just need to colour in the buff coloured glue line that has resulted. You are probably correct in that the proper way to treat that line is by treating the whole tote - I just wondered if there was something akin to a pencil that could be used to colour in PU as a bit of a cheat.


----------



## ED65 (4 Feb 2016)

memzey":6vp6ep7w said:


> I just wondered if there was something akin to a pencil that could be used to colour in PU as a bit of a cheat.


Crazy thought, would a felt tip do it?


----------



## MCB (4 Feb 2016)

memzey":ze84nb1n said:


> - I just wondered if there was something akin to a pencil that could be used to colour in PU as a bit of a cheat.



Lidl are currently offering felt tip pens in a variety of wood colours.

I bought a selection this week - mahogany oak, et hoc genus omne 

(or it might be Aldi!)

MCB


----------



## memzey (4 Feb 2016)

Cheers MCB I might just do that. Did you pick them up in Hemel? In which case it was Aldi. Our nearest lidl is in Borehamwood. 

BTW I took your advice and picked up some Shield technologies rust remover. Only had a little play last night but looks promising.


----------



## memzey (4 Feb 2016)

Oh and I had another pop at sharpening the iron again tonight and succeeded this time. Not sure what I was playing at the other night but this big old plane is now taking beautiful shavings. With all my other vintage tools right about here is where the restoration would stop but I feel like I'm going to go a bit further with this one. I'd like to see if I can "sympathetically" restore it to a condition that's like my No. 7.


----------



## MCB (4 Feb 2016)

memzey":3rtcqqc3 said:


> Cheers MCB I might just do that. Did you pick them up in Hemel? In which case it was Aldi. Our nearest lidl is in Borehamwood.
> 
> BTW I took your advice and picked up some Shield technologies rust remover. Only had a little play last night but looks promising.



I think it was Lidl at Borehamwood.

If it had been Aldi, it with have been Hatfield

I use the diluted RESTORE in an ultrasonic bath and leave it for a few days before stiff brushing under running water. That's freed up items that were rusted solid. I was very impressed.

I was given an old Record No. 55 woodworking vice. I took it apart, removed all rust with wire brush and flap wheel on drill; spray painted both jaws with zinc primer and then black; cleared all threaded holes with taps (fortunately, I had the necessary BSF taps inherited from my late father); made new wooden sacrificial jaws and fitted with countersunk socket screws (obtained from Orbital Fasteners). After lubricating the big screw and reassembling it's now fixed to bench and is a pleasure to use.

MCB


----------



## memzey (4 Feb 2016)

Interesting. I bought the gel rather than the dilute stuff. It seemed to work well during the little time I played with it.


----------



## MCB (4 Feb 2016)

memzey":95ism932 said:


> Interesting. I bought the gel rather than the dilute stuff. It seemed to work well during the little time I played with it.



In view of the size of your plane, I think that's the right decision.

I've NOT used the Gel, only the liquid in the ultrasonic bath (which is about 6 inches long and four wide). I was given it since the timer is u/s 

It works better at higher temperature (like many chemical reactions)

MC Black


----------



## memzey (5 Feb 2016)

That's also interesting. I tried it in a freezing cold shed on a freezing cold bit of cast iron. I wonder if it would work any better if I were to warm up the item or the gel beforehand? I'll give that a go too at some point.


----------



## ED65 (5 Feb 2016)

MCB":21csgmjw said:


> I use the diluted RESTORE in an ultrasonic bath and leave it for a few days before stiff brushing under running water. That's freed up items that were rusted solid. I was very impressed.


If that kind of timeframe doesn't bother you you should try molasses in water, you'll be just as impressed and it'll no doubt save you a bundle.


----------



## bugbear (5 Feb 2016)

memzey":1vli9pa5 said:


> Oh and I had another pop at sharpening the iron again tonight and succeeded this time. Not sure what I was playing at the other night but this big old plane is now taking beautiful shavings. With all my other vintage tools right about here is where the restoration would stop but I feel like I'm going to go a bit further with this one. I'd like to see if I can "sympathetically" restore it to a condition that's like my No. 7.



The secret with a really blunt old iron is not to start with too fine an abrasive. Unlike "maintainance" sharpening, you are probably trying to make substantial alterations to the bevel, and it's quite possible some silly person has back bevelled it, not to reduce tearout, but on the off chance it's a faster was to sharpen. So a fair amount of steel probably needs to come off to get you where you want to be.

So - go in with the big guns, either truly coarse abrasive by hand, or a linisher/grinder of some kind.

BugBear

PS If you think a #8 blade is a big chunk o' steel, some woodies have blades that are 3/16" thick, and 3" wide, and faced with much harder steel than Stanley ever shipped.


----------



## ED65 (5 Feb 2016)

memzey":24vhbt2o said:


> That's also interesting. I tried it in a freezing cold shed on a freezing cold bit of cast iron. I wonder if it would work any better if I were to warm up the item or the gel beforehand? I'll give that a go too at some point.


The treated item would need to be kept warm, just an initially higher temp probably won't do enough to see any difference because it's a relatively slow reaction. 

You will see a marked speed improvement with most rust-removing methods if you increase the temperature. With any product like this you'll notice it works quickly in the summer and much slower in the winter. 

When you can soak something is where you can get the most marked difference, using vinegar or another of the mild acids at about the temperature of tea you can actually put the part in and the liquid will actually appear to boil the reaction is so vigorous. But you have to be very careful doing it this fast as you get significant etching of the surface in only a few minutes.


----------



## MCB (5 Feb 2016)

ED65":15d8uex4 said:


> MCB":15d8uex4 said:
> 
> 
> > I use the diluted RESTORE in an ultrasonic bath and leave it for a few days before stiff brushing under running water. That's freed up items that were rusted solid. I was very impressed.
> ...



I regret that I don't see any logic in that

I already have the Restore; It dilutes 1 + 19 with water and is reusable many times.

I do NOT have any molasses.

So how will buying molasses save money?

MCB


----------



## ED65 (5 Feb 2016)

:| I meant in the long term, once the (no doubt pricey) Restore is gone.


----------



## MCB (5 Feb 2016)

ED65":2j3au8l5 said:


> :| I meant in the long term, once the (no doubt pricey) Restore is gone.



My experience with Restore is that it's good value for money and the firm that make it has very helpful courteous people who respond quickly to After sales queries.

Since I'm diabetic, I would NOT want to have Molasses in my home!

MCB


----------



## RogerP (5 Feb 2016)

Over the years I've tried most methods of rust removal. I now have a large plastic container permanently rigged up for electrolysis. Just connect up and hang the items in it, and come back a bit later to find all the rust completely removed. Quick wash and going over with a wire brush and ready for painting/finishing.


----------



## memzey (5 Feb 2016)

I have tried that before with mixed results. It can work well but if taken too far it can have the effect of almost dissolving the metal (DAMHIKT).


----------



## ED65 (5 Feb 2016)

MCB":359hc1cf said:


> My experience with Restore is that it's good value for money and the firm that make it has very helpful courteous people who respond quickly to After sales queries.
> 
> Since I'm diabetic, I would NOT want to have Molasses in my home!


So don't eat it! Not difficult to treat it like it was household bleach or something else you wouldn't take internally.

Anyway, for anyone that is interested I did the sums earlier and molasses is as I presumed much better value for money.


----------



## Benchwayze (6 Feb 2016)

It's not that easy to resist eating the things you used to enjoy, without peril. I know. I have to have the things I shouldn't eat in the house because I am not the only person who eats. Worse; I am looking after the distaff side of things, so from time to time I'm cooking crumbles, and serving up cereals_ et al_. I do resist because I don't want to lose body parts to the surgeon's saw. But it is definitely a struggle to ignore the temptation.

The last time I used molasses, was when I brewed my own ale; and even that is a no-no these days! So to buy molasses would be another temptation to knock-up a five gallon barrel! of my 'Old Bill'! :mrgreen: 

regards 

J


----------



## Phil Pascoe (6 Feb 2016)

It's a damn sight easier not to have things in the house you shouldn't eat. The surgeon's taken his saw or bone cropper to me five times already and I'm rather fond of the bit of me that's left.


----------



## Benchwayze (6 Feb 2016)

Rather than hijack the thread, I am taking my mind off the prospect of unwanted surgery. I am giving my Coronet Major Combination machine a thorough going over. I have to build a bench for it, and decide where to site it, but I think that across the garage just inside the door is best, so I can feed the saw out of the garage. I'll have to dismantle the Festool MFT mind, and use that outside on fair weather days! 

Can't promise a WIP, but there's going to be a lot of cleaning and repainting to be done. I've a suspicion I might have to shim the table adjustment so I can set up the saw blade and table properly, but the machine goes on and on; just giving. I think it's easily the equal of some of the small table-saws, such as the Bosch and the Hitachi. But unless molasses have some lubrication properties (Highly unlikely!) I don't buy any! 

For interest:

http://www.coronetwoodworking.co.uk/

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/g.e.malthouse/cmajor01.htm

Wish me luck folks.


----------



## Jacob (7 Feb 2016)

bugbear":1bzck6xi said:


> memzey":1bzck6xi said:
> 
> 
> > Oh and I had another pop at sharpening the iron again tonight and succeeded this time. Not sure what I was playing at the other night but this big old plane is now taking beautiful shavings. With all my other vintage tools right about here is where the restoration would stop but I feel like I'm going to go a bit further with this one. I'd like to see if I can "sympathetically" restore it to a condition that's like my No. 7.
> ...


Fine abrasive and a jig :shock: come in handy with a really blunt old iron as with just a few passes they touch up the high points at a defined angle and show up what needs doing.


----------



## memzey (7 Feb 2016)

I just wanged it up and down my most abrasive old oil stone for a bit longer than I normally would have done (even longer than I have with with my boot fair finds) until I got quite a substantial burr, then the medium and fine oil stones followed by a strop. That's about as sharp as anything needs to be in my book (or should that be "in my shed")? Anyway I think the knack I picked up was more to do with skewing the angle of my strokes which was done more acutely than I was accustomed to. Previously my widest irons were on my 5 1/2, 6 and 7 and for some reason I managed ok on those first time but the added width on this No. 8 just took a little longer to get used to. As with most things I find once you've tried it a couple of times you discover ways of getting the results you are after - as long as you don't over complicate matters.


----------



## sploo (8 Feb 2016)

I can certainly recommend the benefits of 120 grit paper on a flat surface (glass or stone) for getting an old (and possibly chipped) blade back to something sensible. I have a grinder but it's cheap and nasty and doesn't have any good way of supporting an iron; hence a blade/sharpening guide on paper gets me back to a decent 25 degree bevel reasonably quickly, ready for whatever your chosen sharpening routine would be.


----------



## MCB (8 Feb 2016)

I'd like to suggest that anybody who needs to restore an old cutting tool like this tries a Pro-Edge.

I'm sure that any retailer offering these would be pleased to demonstrate its effectiveness by sharpening your blade.

MCB


----------



## ED65 (9 Feb 2016)

memzey":1tz5v42r said:


> I just wanged it up and down my most abrasive old oil stone for a bit longer than I normally would have done (even longer than I have with with my boot fair finds) until I got quite a substantial burr, then the medium and fine oil stones followed by a strop. That's about as sharp as anything needs to be in my book (or should that be "in my shed")?


Quite honestly that's as sharp as plane irons need to be for 99 out of 100 of us 



sploo":1tz5v42r said:


> I can certainly recommend the benefits of 120 grit paper on a flat surface (glass or stone) for getting an old (and possibly chipped) blade back to something sensible.


120 is a bit fine to be doing major removal. I'd use a coarse diamond plate by preference, but if I were using paper I'd start at 80 if I needed to remove a lot of material.


sploo":1tz5v42r said:


> I have a grinder but it's cheap and nasty and doesn't have any good way of supporting an iron


So make a rest for it ;-)



MCB":1tz5v42r said:


> I'd like to suggest that anybody who needs to restore an old cutting tool like this tries a Pro-Edge.


I think an expensive sharpening machine is hard to justify to the typical amateur who only needs to do major reprofiling once in a blue moon. As for normal sharpening tasks they replicate what any beginner can do just as well using a wooden jig they made themselves and a sheet of abrasive paper on a flat surface. Same result for literally a 100th of the price!


----------



## sploo (9 Feb 2016)

ED65":1qicos7a said:


> 120 is a bit fine to be doing major removal. I'd use a coarse diamond plate by preference, but if I were using paper I'd start at 80 if I needed to remove a lot of material.


I've found a good quality 120 grit paper to be more aggressive than even my coarsest diamond stone (which hasn't received much abuse). IRC The coarse side is 360 grit, so that may explain it.



ED65":1qicos7a said:


> So make a rest for it ;-)


It's a classic "roundtuit" problem; I don't need it often enough to force me to find the time to make one. I had a crazy plan of gutting an old broken jigsaw I have and using the mechanism to make a vibrating plate (maybe for the diamond stone). Again... roundtuit!


----------



## ED65 (9 Feb 2016)

sploo":39b0m2py said:


> I've found a good quality 120 grit paper to be more aggressive than even my coarsest diamond stone (which hasn't received much abuse).


I shall do the comparison myself, I might be pleasantly surprised. My coarse plate is a little worn after years of use and 'abuse' (flattening stones and other things).



sploo":39b0m2py said:


> It's a classic "roundtuit" problem...


Oh, you too? I thought that was just me :mrgreen:


----------



## sploo (9 Feb 2016)

ED65":1mnvxxwy said:


> I shall do the comparison myself, I might be pleasantly surprised. My coarse plate is a little worn after years of use and 'abuse' (flattening stones and other things).


I did find a recent (badly chipped) iron heavy going, but didn't have any good 80 grit paper. I should get some in for next time, but the 120 grit usually works well.



ED65":1mnvxxwy said:


> Oh, you too? I thought that was just me :mrgreen:


I have more roundtuits than completed projects :?


----------



## MusicMan (9 Feb 2016)

RogerP":688f19mc said:


> Over the years I've tried most methods of rust removal. I now have a large plastic container permanently rigged up for electrolysis. Just connect up and hang the items in it, and come back a bit later to find all the rust completely removed. Quick wash and going over with a wire brush and ready for painting/finishing.



Roger, do you do this indoors/in garage/shed ? I am planning to set up similar but wonder how risky the electrolysis gases (mainly hydrogen) will be? If the process is very slow, then the risk should be minimal but I'd welcome your experience.

Keith


----------



## Vann (9 Feb 2016)

sploo":24n1zy1x said:


> I have more roundtuits than completed projects :?


Me too  

Cheers, Vann.


----------



## ED65 (9 Feb 2016)

sploo":329vrqrr said:


> I have more roundtuits than completed projects :?


Me three.


----------



## memzey (19 Feb 2016)

Hi again everyone,

I just wanted to give an update on where I got to with this plane. The japaning was about 95% gone so after de-rusting there really wasn't very much left to save. I did get some satin finish straight to rust Hammerite paint which I thinned down 4:1 or thereabouts which seemed to give me the kind of finish I was looking for (old, looked after and worn looking as opposed to brand new). After fixing the tote and waxing the woodwork using microcrystalline wax I applied a coat of the thinned paint then lapped the sole flat. Here is how the plane looks now with my No. 7 next to it for comparison:









Here is a shot of the sole. The squiggly marks are from a candlestick which is how I lubricate the soles of my bench planes:




The plane now works a treat and I think does not look unloved or mistreated but at the same time not obviously over-restored. Just the outcome I was looking for. I'd welcome your thoughts.


----------



## AndyT (19 Feb 2016)

I think you've done a lovely job and succeeded in your aim. It certainly doesn't scream 'repainted'. Good for another century of use!


----------



## bugbear (19 Feb 2016)

memzey":3lc3up03 said:


> The plane now works a treat and I think does not look unloved or mistreated but at the same time not obviously over-restored. Just the outcome I was looking for. I'd welcome your thoughts.



My normal goal is for a tool to look as if it has been owned and used by a thoughtful and conscientious craftsman all its life - even it hasn't.  

BugBear


----------



## memzey (19 Feb 2016)

That's basically what I was going for BB; old and well looked after as opposed to new and shiny. 

Having a No. 7 of the same vintage made things easier I must admit. Without that it would have been difficult to know what to aim for (actually most of my planes are of similar age but the point is the same). 

When I pick up and use a 100+ year old tool, entirely aside from the excellent performance, I also get a sense of the times and many craftsmen that the tool has encountered and feel quite privileged to be using it today. I suppose some get the same feeling from a modern LN or Veritas which is totally understandable (perhaps more than my own position in fact) but my own tastes run a bit different. I was having a discussion with a girl that works for me about this sort of thing and we agreed that she was a "new and shiny" sort of person while I preferred "old and patinated" she couldn't figure out why and I'm not sure I can either but there you go!


----------



## biskit (20 Feb 2016)

Nice job memzey ccasion5: did you spray the thinned Hammerite :?:


----------



## memzey (20 Feb 2016)

Thanks biskit. Actually I just thinned it and brushed it on with a fine brush. I do have a compressor but didn't have the space or the patience to spray it on. I need to sort that out in my new workshop really as spraying can give a very fine finish.


----------



## Nic.Watson (5 Feb 2019)

Have just had a read through all of this and am just doing this to a similarly vintage no.6 having done a no.4. Great advice so thanks!


----------



## richarddownunder (6 Feb 2019)

memzey":2o3hsbel said:


> That's basically what I was going for BB; old and well looked after as opposed to new and shiny.
> 
> Having a No. 7 of the same vintage made things easier I must admit. Without that it would have been difficult to know what to aim for (actually most of my planes are of similar age but the point is the same).
> 
> When I pick up and use a 100+ year old tool, entirely aside from the excellent performance, I also get a sense of the times and many craftsmen that the tool has encountered and feel quite privileged to be using it today. I suppose some get the same feeling from a modern LN or Veritas which is totally understandable (perhaps more than my own position in fact) but my own tastes run a bit different. I was having a discussion with a girl that works for me about this sort of thing and we agreed that she was a "new and shiny" sort of person while I preferred "old and patinated" she couldn't figure out why and I'm not sure I can either but there you go!



I feel the same about old tools, it's not just the craftsmen who used them but the folk that made them in the first place. With new high quality or handmade tools I also enjoy the thought that it has been created by craftsmen - so in a way, continuing with that tradition - that is why I have rather a soft spot for the Clifton range... from some years ago...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MdH43wiB0IA 

Nice job on the #8 as well.

Cheers
Richard


----------



## memzey (9 Feb 2019)

Wow this thread is a blast from the past and no mistake. I was using that No. 8 the other day for edge jointing as it happens and it still works like a dream. More to the point of this thread though - it doesn’t look restored at all, even when next to other planes of similar vintage. I’ve decided to quit painting planes while my luck is in though!


----------

