# Stanley 444 dovetail plane ?



## Lord Nibbo (20 Apr 2007)

I've been watching and I suspect others have noticed THIS Stanley 444 dovetail plane on ebay it's currently at £360 is it really worth that sort of money? :shock:


----------



## MarcW (20 Apr 2007)

I guess it is more a collector's tool than a user. So for most of us, except maybe ... Alf? :lol: there will be not much use in the shop. It is tedious to set up and normally you won't find one with much wear. Well it is a tool ranging in the boat anchors' league. Alf again? :lol: 

Cheers,

with a collapsed mainboard only visiting time by time this nice place,


----------



## Mirboo (20 Apr 2007)

Lord Nibbo,

The price of the 444 is high simply because it is quite a rare plane. 

I searched completed auctions on eBay and only found one. It went for US$985, or about AUS$1179. The one you highlighted is up to £360 as I type this, or about AUS$863, so I suspect it might go a little bit higher yet. 

There is another one for auction via eBay in the States at the moment that is up to US$733, or about AUS$877, with about 2-1/2 days to go.

It is interesting to note that the sellers of both of the 444's being auctioned at the moment will only post the item to buyers in their home country. I would have thought that the sellers could potentially get a higher price if they opened the auctions up to buyers worldwide.


----------



## Alf (20 Apr 2007)

It was only made between 1912 and 1938 according to B&G so it's down to simple rarity. It's be interesting to have one from a purely user's perspective, and see whether it's really as unusable as claimed.

Cheers, Alf


----------



## bugbear (20 Apr 2007)

Alf":1nz6rhc8 said:


> It was only made between 1912 and 1938 according to B&G so it's down to simple rarity. It's be interesting to have one from a purely user's perspective, and see whether it's really as unusable as claimed.
> 
> Cheers, Alf



That's what Garrett Hack thought.

So he bought one.

He agrees with everybody else 

BugBear


----------



## Alf (20 Apr 2007)

Yeah, but he also consigns combination planes to the dustbin of usability too, which puts a morsel of Miracle-Gro on the seedling of doubt. :? 

Cheers, Alf


----------



## Paul Kierstead (20 Apr 2007)

Lord Nibbo":2loqzp3e said:


> I've been watching and I suspect others have noticed THIS Stanley 444 dovetail plane on ebay it's currently at £360 is it really worth that sort of money? :shock:



What do you mean by 'worth'? If you mean could you resell it for that price, then apparently so. If you mean would it save you £360, well I rather doubt it, unless your strategy is importing a beaver and teaching it to do sliding dovetails; I expect even the nay-sayers will agree it is cheaper then a teaching a beaver.


----------



## Scrit (24 Apr 2007)

Alf":3muaxgd3 said:


> Yeah, but he also consigns combination planes to the dustbin of usability too, which puts a morsel of Miracle-Gro on the seedling of doubt. :?


And quite right, too! :wink: I suppose the perspective comes from what you do. If you are bench based and planing all day then a set of H&Rs and a selection of moulding planes can be readily stored and they are lighter (and I'd say easier and less tiring) to use than a combination plane. If you're out on site and having to lug round a toolkit a combination makes a bit more sense, although no one in their right mind would seriously consider planing up several hundred feet of material with one, would they? (awaiting incoming here) 

In any case wasn't the #444 introduced at a time when Stanley were into making all sorts of other useful planes like the #196 curve rebate plane (also introduced in 1912 - see Patrick's Blood & Gore for details)? As the #444 post-dates the appearance of the Kelley electric router and is about the same time as the Carter electric routers were introduced (both much more capable of undertaking the task of cutting that extremely common joint, the sliding dovetail :? ) you have to wonder just who would have bought a #444. The fact that you'll proably never find a heavily-used second-hand #444 (as opposed to a well-used #45, say) speaks volumes as to their usefulness.

Scrit


----------



## Alf (24 Apr 2007)

I've evidentally miserably failed to say what I meant. #-o My contention is perhaps they didn't work _as well_ as routers and such (as I'm sure they don't) but does that mean they're totally useless, which seems to be the percieved wisdom? And that's what I'd like to know, from someone who has at least had the patience to use a combination plane without running back to their router immediately. Otherwise it's like getting an opinion of Wagner's Ring Cycle from a Motorhead fan - they might be right, but it's unlikely you'd place a lot of faith in it.

Cheers, Alf


----------



## Scrit (24 Apr 2007)

Alf":3qi1vzvf said:


> And that's what I'd like to know, from someone who has at least had the patience to use a combination plane without running back to their router immediately.


Having the patience to use one and finding them useful _aren't_ the same thing, methinks. If a well used one (#444) had ever come up at auction then I'd be more likely to believe that they were a useful tool, but I've talked to Patrick Leach, Tony Murland and David Stanley about this in the past and none of them could recall seeing a well-used example. That perhaps indicates that either the sliding dovetail joint is not one produced all that often (possibly true) or that they were indeed of little practical application. It's also of interest that none of Stanley's rivals, such as Sargent, ever bothered to copy the tool. 

Interestingly enough German tool makers, such as Ulmia, used to specifically list (into the 1980s, don't know about more recently) a wooden plane for cutting the dovetail rebates on the ends of steps used in staircases and also a special saw for cutting the sides of the housings. These would be cleaned out by a combination of chisel/mallet/router plane. By the time th #444 came on the market many staircases were being produced using machines - the spindle moulder, recessor or stair trencher all came into service in joinery shops well before WWI - so I don't doubt that that market wouldn't have been as lucrative for Stanley, either.

Scrit


----------



## dunbarhamlin (24 Apr 2007)

:twisted: I'd actually contend that a Motorhead fan, once they overcame any hangups about listening to classical music, would be _more_ likely to appreciate the Wagnerian soundscape than would an Abba or Lloyd Weber fan (not that I'm suggesting for one moment that the Swedes suffer from the same melodic aridity as our native musichall money generator)

(Remember drinking a gallon of wine listening to the full Ring Cycle, and waking a mate up by putting my head through his wall listening to Motorhead)

Back on topic, for the craftman at the bleeding edge of early 2oth century technology, what were the relative costs of new fangled 'lectric routers and Stanley #444s? 

Perhaps the tried and true _hand_ techniques, still in common knowledge, were returned to in a busy shop, once the unfamiliar new Stanley had proven less than intuitive to set up. And then the next generation had no choice - 'lectric or use the old Fogey's methods.


Steve


----------



## Pekka Huhta (24 Apr 2007)

Alf":1m9sv4i5 said:


> My contention is perhaps they didn't work _as well_ as routers and such (as I'm sure they don't) but does that mean they're totally useless, which seems to be the percieved wisdom?



And now you all tell me that they're useless :roll: :wink: 

I thought a #444 might be worth a try, but as I had no idea of spending good money trying I planned I'd make my own. 

A sketch and the current progress














I had the idea of a "krenov" with just short lengths of copper bar as the cheeks. The plane would work for both parts of the dovetail with different settings. On the top left for the dovetail, on the top right for the groove. The drawing is missing a good deal of the details, I sketched it up just to help me getting the geometry right.

The plane is taking a rest at the top shelf waiting for inspiration. Question is, should I get inspired or just leave it if they are so useless  

Pekka


----------



## Joel Moskowitz (24 Apr 2007)

Alf":y5fxh3hb said:


> It was only made between 1912 and 1938 according to B&G so it's down to simple rarity. It's be interesting to have one from a purely user's perspective, and see whether it's really as unusable as claimed.
> 
> Cheers, Alf


I have one and use it occasioanlly. It works prettty well as long as you take the time to set it up right and the cutters are sharp (and have to be sharpened precisely). A lot of place cut the male side of the joint easily but the 444 is the only one that does the female side. I don't think I would want to use it every day - setup is a pain - but it is a lot of fun and once set up it works pretty fast.

joel


----------



## Newbie_Neil (24 Apr 2007)

Alf":15ni0c93 said:


> It's be interesting to have one from a purely user's perspective...



:roll: :roll: :roll: 


Cheers
Neil :wink:


----------



## pam niedermayer (24 Apr 2007)

I stumbled on a copy of the 444 manual on the bay, figured it would be better than the plane itself, could maybe even figure out how to build a woody/Japanese version. Haven't had time to play with it yet, but the manual is pretty good, and piles cheaper than $700.

Pam


----------



## bugbear (24 Apr 2007)

A dim memory has been tickling me from the OLDTOOLs list.

Here's the result, courtesy the wayback machine. Sadly, it appears that Turner Racing Shells is no more.

http://web.archive.org/web/200406091248 ... nstruc.htm

http://web.archive.org/web/200406241833 ... m/pic9.htm
http://web.archive.org/web/200406221332 ... m/pic3.htm

Lots of obscure Stanleys gettin' used..

BugBear


----------



## Paul Chapman (24 Apr 2007)

Very interesting links, BugBear. Thanks.

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## Alf (24 Apr 2007)

Well in amongst bad news about Turner Racing Shells, Motorhead fan's Wagner appreciation and Pekka building his own version (hope you're taking _lots_ of pics?) I think Joel's given me "closure" on the whole matter and I no longer have a pressing need to buy one. Phew, eh? Not being a collector and all, thankyousoverymuchNeil... 

Cheers, Alf


----------



## Paul Kierstead (24 Apr 2007)

Alf":35erwdpa said:


> I no longer have a pressing need to buy one. Phew, eh? Not being a collector and all, thankyousoverymuchNeil...



You sure? You never really know until you have tried it yourself, you know. 

PK, expecting to see a complete web page and some new YouTube demo's on dovetail planes anytime now.


----------



## MarcW (24 Apr 2007)

Alf":2v7mue7x said:


> ... Not being a collector and all, thankyousoverymuchNeil...
> 
> Cheers, Alf



Alf,

I sincerely have to apologize... to think of you in terms of a collector. Shame on me  :lol:


----------



## Czar (28 Feb 2017)

Some 10 years too late, any further thoughts on the Stanley No 444 dovetail plane, I ask as I've just purchased a pristine complete wooden boxed example.


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (1 Mar 2017)

That it is still pristine may be the clue to your answer. :? 

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------

