# Vintage British planes worth buying [metal]



## ED65 (10 Jan 2016)

I'd like to acquire a few older British-made planes to flesh out my collection and was hoping to get some help on what brands to look for, and I suppose just as importantly which are best avoided.

I knew about Record, Stanley, Woden and Marples but I'd read that back in the day there were actually quite a large number of clones knocking about. Had the devil's own time trying to find a more comprehensive list of names until I stumbled across one by accident just now in a thread here from early last year posted by member *Job and Knock* (thank you sir if you're still around). 

So my list of possibles is looking a little healthier:


Chapman (Acorn)
Footprint
Marples
Mathieson
Preston
Record
Salmen
Sedgley
I. Sorby
Spear & Jackson
Spiers
Stanley
WS
Woden
Whitmore

Any others I should have in the back of my mind on the off chance I spot one? Please note I am primarily interested in sizes 5 and above if that makes a difference.

Are there any vintage British brands I should Avoid At All Costs?

TIA!


----------



## Mr_P (10 Jan 2016)

I wouldn't touch I.Sorby if I was you they are total crud. I will revise my opinion when I have the full set and don't mind prices rising any more. 

Loads more could be added to the list, not sure if any are worth searching out though.

I bought my Span no.4 purely for comedy value. Plastic handled Rapier get a bad press but just as good as plenty of the above and a darn site better than the Acorns I've seen and usually bin.


----------



## AndyT (10 Jan 2016)

You could add the Anglo Scottish Tool Company of Gateshead who made planes under the Rapier trademark in the 50s. Their copy of the little Record 043 plough is quite common, but apparently they made bench planes too.

I see Mr P beat me to it on that one.

I'll add one to the list of brands to avoid - GTL - Guaranteed tools Ltd - used to sell sets of tools on hire purchase and their range included a bronze/brass bodied no 4 with what looks like a Norris adjuster. It's widely said to be unusable as a plane, but it does look a bit attractive to some collectors!


----------



## MIGNAL (10 Jan 2016)

I have an Acorn, probably one of the better ones. Good blade but nothing else grabs me about it. Whitmore I had in the late 70's. Less said about it the better. In fact personally I'd aim for a Stanley and Record from the blades with the square cut corners - 40's/50's. The rest wouldn't interest me.


----------



## yetloh (10 Jan 2016)

If you want use them, I would avoid anything made from the 1960s on when Record and Stanley joined the race to the bottom that was the cheap diy market and none of the others saw any reason to make anything better.

Jim


----------



## G S Haydon (10 Jan 2016)

Mr_P":2omfnu4m said:


> I wouldn't touch I.Sorby if I was you they are total crud. I will revise my opinion when I have the full set and don't mind prices rising any more.
> 
> Loads more could be added to the list, not sure if any are worth searching out though.
> 
> I bought my Span no.4 purely for comedy value. Plastic handled Rapier get a bad press but just as good as plenty of the above and a darn site better than the Acorns I've seen and usually bin.



What was up with the Sorby Mr P?


----------



## Harbo (10 Jan 2016)

He collects them!

Rod


----------



## ED65 (11 Jan 2016)

Mr_P":3a94lw7l said:


> I wouldn't touch I.Sorby if I was you they are total crud. I will revise my opinion when I have the full set and don't mind prices rising any more.


  Not to worry, I was asking in relation to what I might see out in the wild so we won't ever be bidding against each other for one.

What do you consider good prices for an S4 or S5 in fixer-upper condition?


----------



## ED65 (11 Jan 2016)

Thanks for the input gents, will revise the list accordingly.


----------



## Jelly (11 Jan 2016)

I have a footprint 4 and 5, they're pretty well made and work well.

A lot of footprint tools were made for the MOD and GPO on contracts going into the 70's as a result the quality decline doesn't seem to have happened in quite the same way as the Stanley/Record one mentioned above, (indeed from what I can tell, lots of the stuff like planes appears to have just stopped as a product line when the contracts to supply them ended, rather than trying to compete on ever lowering prices and standards).


----------



## AndyT (11 Jan 2016)

yetloh":1ad8iq02 said:


> If you want use them, I would avoid anything made from the 1960s on when Record and Stanley joined the race to the bottom that was the cheap diy market and none of the others saw any reason to make anything better.
> 
> Jim



Just to pick up and echo Jim's point - as far as I can see, the real race to the bottom came about by developing 'value engineered' variant designs, aimed squarely at the diy user who wanted a tool that was cheaper to buy, even if it was inferior to the established pattern. So Stanley came out with endless versions of the 'Handyman' plane, some with replaceable blades; some with a tiny iron like that found in a spokeshave, with two thumbscrews for adjustment. All these are easily spotted and can be left in the car boot, rickety trestle table or banana box.

But the standard cast iron bench planes continued to be made with the same bodies and frog castings until well into the 70s and although those planes had hard brown plastic handles rather than stained beech, they can still perform as well as their older cousins.

Of course, one possible direction for a truly dedicated collector would be to seek out all those downmarket variants - limiting yourself to those that were still made in Britain would excuse you from gathering everything by Silverline, Anant etc - and it would let you add F Parramore and Sons to your list.


----------



## lurker (11 Jan 2016)

What amuses and annoys me in equal measure is folks coming here and saying I've got this really old plane (or other tool) and when you look at it, I can see it was manufactured after I was born.


----------



## lurker (11 Jan 2016)

yetloh":49o3rv71 said:


> If you want use them, I would avoid anything made from the 1960s on when Record and Stanley joined the race to the bottom that was the cheap diy market and none of the others saw any reason to make anything better.
> 
> Jim



Spot on!


----------



## Mr_P (11 Jan 2016)

ED65":b5nz0ik2 said:


> Mr_P":b5nz0ik2 said:
> 
> 
> > I wouldn't touch I.Sorby if I was you they are total crud. I will revise my opinion when I have the full set and don't mind prices rising any more.
> ...



Well I've got two 4's both purchased on ebay for about £30 only bought the second as it had the original iron, sticker on the rear handle and the price was right. I've seen them fetch as much as £90 for no better than mine, probably just after Paul Sellars mentioned them.

My 5 was £40 from a stall at David Stanley tool auctions.

My 6 was the best bargain in a £40 job lot that also included the Record 05 1/2 which I also use.

So thats my collection 4,5 and 6. I have an unwritten rule about spending no more than £50 on a bailey type, think £40 is the most I've ever paid for a bailey, I was going to break it before Xmas as a treat for myself.

D.Barrons Mathieson 4 1/2
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/MATHIESON-4-1 ... SwcOFWbZt-

Guess everyone else had the same idea so not this time.


----------



## G S Haydon (11 Jan 2016)

Heavens I'm thick! Carry on.....


----------



## heimlaga (11 Jan 2016)

I have a number 7 sized Rapier jointer plane in the attic and have seen a lot of smaller bench planes from that maker. Apparently they sold well in Finland.
The main fault on all of them is that neither the underside of the frog nor it's mating surfaces on the body are machined. This makes the whole frog rather wobbly. I would't recommend Rapier planer to anyone who hasn't got access to a milling machine and an operator who can mill those surfaces and make the plane ready for use. The castings are a bit rough but otherwise well made and there are allowances for machining. 
A plane in kit form for the handy machinist;-)


----------



## Vann (12 Jan 2016)

heimlaga":1n98gzcd said:


> I would't recommend Rapier planer to anyone...


I agree. They seem to be similar in quality to a Stanley era Acorn, or Stanley Handiman. They should be in a list of "Vintage British planes NOT worth buying (unless really really cheap)"

Cheers, Vann.


----------



## Benchwayze (12 Jan 2016)

lurker":1wkkazyu said:


> What amuses and annoys me in equal measure is folks coming here and saying I've got this really old plane (or other tool) and when you look at it, I can see it was manufactured after I was born.



You and me too Lurker!


:lol:


----------



## swb58 (12 Jan 2016)

Here's another not-vote for the Rapier, well not the model that I've got anyway. It's a No 4 size, wood handles, it looked OK until I realised it doesn't have a screw for moving the frog. Slacken the mounting screws and the frog instantly slops about in every direction.


----------



## Peter Capon (28 Jul 2020)

I have a Woden no6 which is a great plane and some later made in England Stanley and Record planes that are all very good. They are not the very latest as, all have the traditional frog adjuster at the rear of the frog. I do have a Stanley with plastic handles and no adjuster screw which does work surprisingly well. I use this a a semi scrub with slight camber on the blade.


----------



## dannyr (28 Jul 2020)

I pass no final judgement - but a couple of 'what do you think?' --

regarding Rapier - their fairly common spokeshave is quite interesting - made like an adjustable wooden shave (ie blade flat to wood) - not like Stanley, Record and many others - I tried one - seemed nice in use, good blade, both round and flat fronts available (confession - I also have one in pices, needs a small repair). Anyone else have these?
(I believe Rapier were a Tyneside manufacturer?)

GTL - people often try to sell these for high sums as the adjuster looks like a Norris (but no side to side) - typically a No3 or narrow No4 smoother and body cast iron or brass/bronze - I came across two very cheap brass bodied in a market ages ago - one had a far thicker casting than the other and other differences (ie significantly better - bought it but not much used).
(I think GTL was Midlands based and mainly sold tool kits so would buy in from wherever).

Lewin - made a multi-plane (maybe equiv to Stanley, Record 45, 405) - sounds Welsh but I don't know - any good? looks OK, but it's often said that multi-planes sounded good and were bought by craftsmen after a well-paying job and then sat in its box. Again, I think they made at least one other plane.

I think these firms were all part of the post war effort to make something other than arms and, while they may not have really succeeded, I give them good marks for effort in not just copying the old designs. Or is that just sentimental?


----------



## Inspector (28 Jul 2020)

I don't see Clifton on the list. Thought they made good planes or haven't they been around long enough to qualify as old. :wink: 

Pete


----------



## billw (28 Jul 2020)

As well as brands what's the core types to own? I'm thinking of building the collection to include 4,5,7, 45, 55, 60 1/2, 71, 78, and 90.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (29 Jul 2020)

billw":20b9b5i4 said:


> As well as brands what's the core types to own? I'm thinking of building the collection to include 4,5,7, 45, 55, 60 1/2, 71, 78, and 90.



The usual advice is to start with a number 5 jack plane, use it to become familiar with the techniques of squaring up and finishing timber and the chore of keeping a sharp edge, then start to add other types as need arises, and depending on the type of work you end up doing.

Perhaps the best reference as to 'necessary tools' (as opposed to tools nice to have or "I'll buy one of those because I might need it one day" (a trap most of us have fallen into in our early woodworking years), is Chris Schwarz's 'The Anarchists Tool Chest'. Don't be put off by the title - it has no political connotations at all - it's a discussion of the types of tool necessary to build basic furniture by hand techniques, why they are needed (or not needed) and what to look for in each type of tool. Not cheap, but worth it. Classic Hand Tools are the European distributors of Lost Art Press books.

https://www.classichandtools.com/acatal ... l#SID=1220

This will answer the questions about the other plane types, too!


----------



## billw (29 Jul 2020)

Cheshirechappie":2kt73pir said:


> billw":2kt73pir said:
> 
> 
> > As well as brands what's the core types to own? I'm thinking of building the collection to include 4,5,7, 45, 55, 60 1/2, 71, 78, and 90.
> ...



Excellent - just purchased the book!


----------



## AndyT (29 Jul 2020)

billw":1o54dbp0 said:


> As well as brands what's the core types to own? I'm thinking of building the collection to include 4,5,7, 45, 55, 60 1/2, 71, 78, and 90.




With quite a few of those, you're limited to Stanley. 

Afaik only Stanley made a 45 and never in Britain, so if you want a Vintage British 45 style multiplane you'll want a Record 405. It's an excellent quality tool, widely available, often complete in the box and not overpriced. (There was, briefly a Clifton version at several hundred pounds, but too recently to be called vintage. Anant made a copy, but in India, so off topic again.)

Only Stanley made the 55 though there were similar planes (not direct copies) in the States from Sargent. They are interesting as a logical dead end of design, in my opinion, but not especially useful. 

The 60 1/2 is, I think, a useful tool but there are even more opinions about block planes than there are models. Record copied some Stanley designs but the easiest ones to find are the cheaper models aimed at the diy market. 

The 71 is a very useful router as is its Record equivalent or any of the similar models. These shot up in price a few years back and can cost as much as a new one from LN or Veritas. 

The 78 is a rebate plane with a single rod on the fence. You can find twin rod versions from Record, Woden, WS, Faithful. Ok but I much prefer a wooden moving fillister or sash fillister, or plain unfenced rebate.

Rather than a Stanley-only 90, for a vintage British bullnose rebate there are stacks of good infill models around, or you could look for a Preston or Record equivalent.


----------



## SammyQ (30 Jul 2020)

Record 72, 73, 74, router; Preston various...


----------



## toolsntat (31 Jul 2020)

This PATSY is extremely well designed as I finally found out after purchasing one in recent years. 8) 
https://www.oldtools.co.uk/products/pat ... ane-no-55a

Cheers Andy


----------



## AndyT (31 Jul 2020)

toolsntat":3ju0v2pv said:


> This PATSY is extremely well designed as I finally found out after purchasing one in recent years. 8)
> https://www.oldtools.co.uk/products/pat ... ane-no-55a
> 
> Cheers Andy



Yes, there were some interesting oddities in the post-war diy boom. Anyone for a Pemuvar Plough?


----------



## dannyr (31 Jul 2020)

Patsy, Pemuvar, Lewin, Rapier - all being quite inventive, often using light alloys (surplus after melting down those Spitfires?). But all doomed - or did they last long enough to make a profit? - I doubt it.

Could do with their own thread or two.

And who chose the name Patsy? Reminds me of a UK supplier of photo-chemicals called Barfen - what a name.

Talking of UK tool inventors and names - how about the Surform 'plane' -- someone please correct me if I'm wrong but I think the blade concept was first from Firth Brown Tools and made into a patented 'plane' by Aerocessories (variously of London and elsewhere) - Stanley first copied it with their 'Stanley Shaper' then bought Surform and dropped the Shaper line.
If you count this as a plane it's arguably the most commercially successful one of all.
I use my Surform quite often, but as a rasp/shaper, not a plane - the round sections work best on flat work and the flat versions on convex (such as a tool handle), I find


----------



## SteveW1000 (31 Jul 2020)

Don't discount those made after the 60s. I bought a new Stanley 6 in the 70s which is as nice as any of mine a lot older apart from the change to the blade adjusting knob being chrome plated steel and the nuts at the end of the knob and tote being aluminium all being rather than brass. Off topic the american miller falls plane are nice I've a 4 and 41/2.


----------

