# Dating a Stanley #4 1/2 plane?



## sploo (10 Dec 2015)

I've bought a "vintage" Stanley #4 1/2 plane from eBay, and found this http://www.hyperkitten.com/tools/stanle ... wchart.php useful website. Going through the flow chart points me to it being a Type 19 (1948-1961) but there are a couple of oddities.

I do note that the site warns of hybrid planes; where it was common for Stanley to mix and match bits during production runs, so I'm wondering if that's the case with mine.

I notice that I've got a two part split Y fork between the iron and tote - something listed as being 1962 onwards.

The tote looks sound but is heavily worn (no coating left) but the front handle has a shiny varnish coating (though does look pretty old). I'm sure I've seen this oddity on some other planes, so I'm wondering if it's indicative of people replacing parts, or whether this uneven wearing was common?

The back of the lever cap also looks to have a suspiciously clean strip of metal, so I'm wondering if that's not original.

I can post some pictures when I get time but I was wondering if anyone has images of parts of the #4 and #4 1/2 planes from the various ages?

BTW Strangely, my #4, a (much more recent, plastic handled) gift from maybe 15-20 years ago, does have a single piece Y fork, IRC. I think the top of the iron is also flat, unlike the curved iron in this #4 1/2.


----------



## Bod (10 Dec 2015)

Your 4 1/2 is it UK or USA made?
All the dating information I've found only works for USA made Stanleys.

Bod


----------



## sploo (10 Dec 2015)

Bod":2d4yf727 said:


> Your 4 1/2 is it UK or USA made?
> All the dating information I've found only works for USA made Stanleys.
> 
> Bod


Good question. This one is "Made in England".


----------



## bugbear (10 Dec 2015)

sploo":2jrhmxv6 said:


> Bod":2jrhmxv6 said:
> 
> 
> > Your 4 1/2 is it UK or USA made?
> ...



In which case the well known dating "tree" is simply inapplicable.

In truth, much of the tree is dedicated to telling apart various models
that predate the existence of Stanley UK by decades!

BugBear


----------



## sploo (10 Dec 2015)

bugbear":14hpjqwg said:


> In which case the well known dating "tree" is simply inapplicable.
> 
> In truth, much of the tree is dedicated to telling apart various models
> that predate the existence of Stanley UK by decades!
> ...


Ah. Right.

Erm... so... anyone know how I'd date* a UK made Stanley?

* Answers on the lines of "a movie and dinner" will result in a rusty plane iron being thrown in your general direction :wink:


----------



## Bod (10 Dec 2015)

Ask the guy who first brought it.

Bod


----------



## lurker (10 Dec 2015)

I have bought lots of these over the years, paying around a fiver.
I did go mad once and spent nine pounds on a record stay sharp.

I've made mongrels out of the nice bits for my collection and rebuilt others with my rejects (those nasty sheet metal y forks and ally nuts) and sold them on for a a rude profit.

I doubt I am the only one. A real complete old plane is easy to spot but the individual characteristics are going to lead you astray.

Anyway fettle the thing up and get using it!


----------



## David C (10 Dec 2015)

I think Stanley UK started in Sheffield in 1937.

I assume Rosewood handle & knob were prewar?

Older planes have elliptical section handles?

David


----------



## Vann (10 Dec 2015)

Stanley bought out JA Chapman in December 1936, and set up Stanley UK. I believe they began producing UK Stanleys before WW2, but suspect some models had a lot of USA made parts, at the time. The first UK Stanleys have the same features as the USA Stanley of the time - type 16.

Early UK Stanleys don't have the lip (raised portion) across the front and back of the main casting. No UK Stanleys were made with the pre-ogee-shaped frog.

As far as I can tell, No.8 planes (and probably No.5 1/4 planes) were never made in UK, they just continued to import them from the States.

- The fabricated (two-piece) yoke was introduced either late 1950s or early 1960s, then changed back to a casting during the 1970s. These later cast yokes are sometimes plated, sometimes painted - I believe the plated may have come first, followed by painted. 
- During the late 1960s UK Stanleys changed to plated steel wheels for the depth adjuster; and aluminium nuts for the handles. Somewhere in the 1970s they changed back to brass. 
- Probably late 1970s or early 1980s the frog mating surfaces on the main casting were split into two (i.e. eight points of contact instead of four), presumably to further reduce machining costs.






- The 1980s also brought 5 digit numbers to supplement the goode olde Stanley classification, and plastic handles to replace beech ones.






The last UK Stanleys are believed to have rolled off the assembly line in 2004.

Cheers, Vann.


----------



## David C (10 Dec 2015)

I think I was given one of those, it is truly horrible, and won't plane a straight edge..

David


----------



## sploo (10 Dec 2015)

Vann":1nqdgzi0 said:


> ...- The fabricated (two-piece) yoke was introduced either late 1950s or early 1960s, then changed back to a casting during the 1970s. These later cast yokes are sometimes plated, sometimes painted - I believe the plated may have come first, followed by painted.
> - During the late 1960s UK Stanleys changed to plated steel wheels for the depth adjuster; and aluminium nuts for the handles. Somewhere in the 1970s they changed back to brass.
> - Probably late 1970s or early 1980s the frog mating surfaces on the main casting were split into two (i.e. eight points of contact instead of four), presumably to further reduce machining costs.
> 
> ...


Vann - that's hugely useful, many thanks.

I can't recall exactly when I got my #4 (it was a gift from my Dad). It might have been been early/mid 1990's, but I'm certain it'd have been well before 2004. When Matthew at Workshop Heaven kindly gave me some of his time to teach me some sharpening and set up techniques he checked out the plane and indicated it was probably one of the last of the good ones. I appreciate "good" has different meanings to different people - anything produced this side of the last ice age is "modern tat" for some :wink: 

I took some shots of the planes this evening (apologies for the cr*ppy phone pics). What you've said above aligns with other sources I've seen, and indeed what I'm seeing on the planes. Namely - my modern-ish #4 has a cast yoke and brass depth adjuster and handle nut; the #4 1/2 has a two piece yoke and steel adjuster. The handle nut on the #4 1/2 appears to be steel (at least, it'll attract a magnet).

You can see also that my #4 has the single piece pressed lateral adjustment lever, and the #4 1/2 has the two piece construction.









I found something interesting with the handles (I don't know if this is normal). On my #4, the rod is centred in the raised ring, but it's offset on the #4 1/2 (and the hole in the handle is too). I assume this was to try to resist it spinning.






The two levers are more alike than different. Part of me thinks the one on the #4 1/2 looks too modern to be a 1960s design/manufacture, but maybe I'm wrong. It's not rust on the #4 BTW, it's just a reflection:






These two shots show both side by side, and also includes the box for my #4 (perhaps that might help date it, as it appears the box designs changed a lot over the years).










What's perhaps not that obvious in the above shots is the huge difference between the tote and the handle on the #4 1/2. I was planning on cleaning them up, and removing the varnish from the handle. However, I'm wondering if that might verge on vandalism and I should just turn a new handle.


----------



## sploo (10 Dec 2015)

David C":d8jj5ssi said:


> I think I was given one of those, it is truly horrible, and won't plane a straight edge..


A one of what (4, 4 1/2, new, old)?

That does surprise me though - unless there was some serious fault with it I'd assume it's more down to the skill of the user than the plane. I know I lack that skill, but I'm trying to work out what could cause it to be the plane's fault. Perhaps a cracked one that flexes? Maybe a really sole (that wasn't remotely flat)?


----------



## Racers (11 Dec 2015)

sploo":3bmwqkp3 said:


> I found something interesting with the handles (I don't know if this is normal). On my #4, the rod is centred in the raised ring, but it's offset on the #4 1/2 (and the hole in the handle is too). I assume this was to try to resist it spinning.
> 
> View attachment 20151210



Its off set due to water poor manufacturing.

The lateral leaver went from 5 piece construction to only 2 pieces leaver and rivet.

Pete


----------



## sploo (11 Dec 2015)

Racers":3v633bdg said:


> Its off set due to water poor manufacturing.


Really? It's so far off the centre it's not even in the same postcode. Given the handle matches I assumed it was intentional.

Anyway... this evening I got chance to take a look at it from the point of view of actually making it work. I was surprised to see that the blade appeared to be skewed in the mouth - no amount of fiddling with the lateral adjustment lever would give me anything like an even cut; to the point that the blade would completely close the mouth on one corner.

Now, I'm a complete novice with hand planes. I've never even adjusted the frog on my #4, let alone removed it. Yet, even I could see that the frog had been tightened down at a skewed angle, and the previous owner appears to have tried to (vainly) grind the iron with a skew to try to compensate #-o 

In for a penny etc., off came the frog. I see the 4 contact points as alluded to by Vann:






The back of the iron was a pig to flatten - even Paul Sellers' "hit it with a nylon hammer" trick didn't work. Lots of time with a bobbin sander, followed by various grits and it's now acceptable. The bevel was then relatively trivial. The striations on the bevel are actually the reflection of my garage ceiling :wink:






A quick bit of flattening the tip of the chip breaker, back together, and she's now producing nice even paper thin shavings. An old plane lives again 






When I next get time I'm going to strip it down again and give the casting and frog a good clean, then flatten and feather the sole, but that's a job for another day.


----------



## lurker (12 Dec 2015)

Well done not quite a silk purse but certainly no longer a sows ear.
Decent user and wiser owner.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (12 Dec 2015)

If you don't mind my making a suggestion, before flattening the sole, it may be worth having another planing session. Clean up the plane and go round with a fine file to take off any roughness and burrs, and slightly round sole edges (but leave the front of the mouth as a nice well-defined sharp angle), then re-assemble and try it out again. Choose a nice, flat, mild straight-grained piece of timber if you can, and face-plane it as flat as you can. Keep adjusting the depth of cut until you get the very finest, tissue-like shavings. If the plane will do that, the sole is as flat as it needs to be, and there's no need to do anything further to it. If, on the other hand, the plane will take a decent thick shaving, then nothing when adjusted finer, the sole is probably a tad concave, and some flattening work will improve it's capabilities.

You rarely need a plane to take tissue-thin shavings - most work is done with a slightly deeper cut - but only a plane with a flat or slightly convex sole is capable of such fine shavings, so it's a good practical woodworker's test of a plane's sole flatness. It's probably a surer indication than relying on a 'straightedge' of unknown straightness, and it's a lot cheaper than a good quality straightedge of known straightness!


----------



## Wildman (12 Dec 2015)

I think I'd rather date a Stephanie but whatever floats your boat, hee hee


----------



## sploo (12 Dec 2015)

Cheshirechappie":3nalb59z said:


> If you don't mind my making a suggestion, before flattening the sole, it may be worth having another planing session. Clean up the plane and go round with a fine file to take off any roughness and burrs, and slightly round sole edges (but leave the front of the mouth as a nice well-defined sharp angle), then re-assemble and try it out again. Choose a nice, flat, mild straight-grained piece of timber if you can, and face-plane it as flat as you can. Keep adjusting the depth of cut until you get the very finest, tissue-like shavings. If the plane will do that, the sole is as flat as it needs to be, and there's no need to do anything further to it. If, on the other hand, the plane will take a decent thick shaving, then nothing when adjusted finer, the sole is probably a tad concave, and some flattening work will improve it's capabilities.
> 
> You rarely need a plane to take tissue-thin shavings - most work is done with a slightly deeper cut - but only a plane with a flat or slightly convex sole is capable of such fine shavings, so it's a good practical woodworker's test of a plane's sole flatness. It's probably a surer indication than relying on a 'straightedge' of unknown straightness, and it's a lot cheaper than a good quality straightedge of known straightness!


Good suggestions - thanks. Shame I didn't see it until now (having just flattened it this evening) :wink: 

As it happens, I've got a glass float plate which is flat enough that it's probably a higher standard than my skill level with a plane (if that makes sense). It wasn't bad at all - just a line about 3/4" wide where it's maybe been used to plane a lot of board edges.

Having done that, I decided to attack my #4. Turns out that had a much more significant twist in the sole, but I've mostly got that out too.

Finally I did ease the edges and toe and filed the heel on both planes. I ran out of time this evening to do a proper clean of the #4 1/2 and wax both, so for the moment I've just wiped the soles down with some 3-in-1 to prevent them rusting.



lurker":3nalb59z said:


> Well done not quite a silk purse but certainly no longer a sows ear.
> Decent user and wiser owner.


Thanks. I did also (entirely for cosmetic reasons) flatten the sides of the #4 1/2, and I've picked up some bubinga (with the intention of making a new handle and tote). Cross fingers it'll end up looking pretty nice; as well as the important bit of actually being useful.


----------



## condeesteso (13 Dec 2015)

David C":3c563bl3 said:


> I think Stanley UK started in Sheffield in 1937.
> 
> I assume Rosewood handle & knob were prewar?
> 
> ...



Most of this is from memory... but I recall Stanley USA acquired Seargant in Sheffield around that time. I have a Seargant hand drill so had looked into the maker. I then saw somewhere (it makes sense) that the first Sheffield-made planes used parts from the States, and that later much tooling was shipped over. Also of course the War got in the way. I don't know if there is any record of this but I imagine that there are early hybrid planes around (marked England but consisting of at least some USA parts). Given the effects of the war it is probable that real Sheffield made (cast etc) may not have appeared until the very late 40s at the earliest.
If anyone knows more on this it would be interesting to know.


----------



## Vann (13 Dec 2015)

condeesteso":l4ks4p6u said:


> Given the effects of the war it is probable that real Sheffield made (cast etc) may not have appeared until the very late 40s at the earliest.
> If anyone knows more on this it would be interesting to know.


Stanley UK were using Qualcast for their plane castings a good many years before Record switched to Qualcast (late 1950s). It can't have been many years after the war.

Cheers, Vann.


----------



## AndyT (13 Dec 2015)

Douglas,
I hope you won't mind if I add that it was JA Chapman that Stanley bought to get established in Sheffield.


----------



## condeesteso (13 Dec 2015)

thanks Andy, it is indeed a Chapman drill that i have, and that is what got me looking. Did I say it was from memory? I can't remember


----------



## Cheshirechappie (13 Dec 2015)

sploo":xhxy8w5n said:


> Good suggestions - thanks. Shame I didn't see it until now (having just flattened it this evening) :wink:
> 
> As it happens, I've got a glass float plate which is flat enough that it's probably a higher standard than my skill level with a plane (if that makes sense). It wasn't bad at all - just a line about 3/4" wide where it's maybe been used to plane a lot of board edges.
> 
> ...



Fair enough! If the soles were noticably worn or twisted, they'll in all liklihood be a bit better for a dose of attention.

Just a suggestion (born of bitter experience!) on the handle making - if you haven't made one before, a practice run on a piece of scrap (anything will do - bit of construction grade pine, even) may well pay dividends. Ironing out the little wrinkles of technique before attacking the 'nice' wood can save time; it's better to waste a bit of pine than a bit of something nice you've paid good money for. Plane handles look simple, but they have their sneaky subtleties....


----------



## sploo (13 Dec 2015)

Cheshirechappie":gue8rwoh said:


> Just a suggestion (born of bitter experience!) on the handle making - if you haven't made one before, a practice run on a piece of scrap (anything will do - bit of construction grade pine, even) may well pay dividends. Ironing out the little wrinkles of technique before attacking the 'nice' wood can save time; it's better to waste a bit of pine than a bit of something nice you've paid good money for. Plane handles look simple, but they have their sneaky subtleties....


Thanks. I've found this rather useful link http://www.leevalley.com/us/wood/page.aspx?p=63262 which I'm hoping will help me get the basics right. The shaping I'll obviously base on the existing totes.

This evening I attacked the plane with a toothbrush, white spirit, wire wool, and a fetching pair of purple rubber gloves (the wife's, obviously :wink. That was followed by Liberon lubricating wax and 3-in-1 in various appropriate places. Turned out nice:











I did briefly attack the tote (and got some grain to appear from under the muck) but didn't spent that much time on it or the front handle as I have some bubinga in preparation:






It may be a while before I get further as I'm going to leave it for a ~week to see if it moves after resawing (before I plane it flat for final use).


----------



## sploo (31 Dec 2015)

This plane buying lark turns out to be a bit addictive :wink: 

I scored a #5 1/2 that looks to be a similar vintage to the #4 1/2. Very mucky, and the paint coat is mostly missing from behind the frog to the plane's heel, though the frog initially looked in better condition:
















Rust remover was required this time, but a few hours of cleaning and wax we have:
















The sole didn't require much flattening and has come up pretty well. The right side of the plane is square to the sole, so should be good for a shooting board. I don't have a straight edge + feeler gauges, but the sole looks pretty good to me vs a decent metal rule, and with the iron sharpened it's cutting really nicely.

I've not done anything with the tote or handle as I'm still planning on making new ones, though TBH these ones look pretty sound and would clean up well.

And... I have a Record #3 on the way. Hopefully the addiction will subside, but I would like a #5 :wink:


----------



## Vann (31 Dec 2015)

sploo":1sazpgvo said:


> This plane buying lark turns out to be a bit addictive :wink:
> 
> And... I have a Record #3 on the way. Hopefully the addiction will subside, but I would like a #5 :wink:


My prediction for 2016: The addiction won't subside and you'll have 20+ planes by this time next year (hammer) 

Have a great New Year everybody.

Cheers, Vann :ho2 :deer :deer :deer .


----------



## sploo (31 Dec 2015)

Vann":2ivloyhq said:


> sploo":2ivloyhq said:
> 
> 
> > This plane buying lark turns out to be a bit addictive :wink:
> ...


No chance. Definitely no chance.




...ebay.co.uk... *click* *click* *tap tap tap* :mrgreen:


----------



## Bod (31 Dec 2015)

sploo":isqyh8kh said:


> Vann":isqyh8kh said:
> 
> 
> > sploo":isqyh8kh said:
> ...



OH yea!!

Bod
Who said something similar....


----------



## Mr_P (31 Dec 2015)

My name is Carl and I'm a planeaholic its been 56 days since I bought a plane.

My resolution for 2016 is one in, two out.


----------



## sploo (31 Dec 2015)

Mr_P":3da1yk04 said:


> My name is Carl and I'm a planeaholic its been 56 days since I bought a plane.


LOL. Do spokeshaves and scraper's count as sober, or are they classed as plane purchases?


----------

