# Upgrading a Stanley 151 spokeshave



## woden (10 Jul 2007)

Some time ago I got a book containing a compilation of articles from Fine Wood Working magazine out from the library. One of them focused on upgrading your run of the mill Stanley or Record spokeshave. If I can remember it all correctly I'm thinking of doing something similar with an old Stanley I have.

Firstly I'd get a new replacement blade from Lie Nielsen. This is partly because of the better A2 steel and greater thickness, etc. but also because the side of the blade that sits facing down is likely to be dead flat which would allow for the next step. That's using the blade to mould a new bed out of epoxy.

The author explained that if you strip the paint off the bed, covered it in epoxy and then inserted a piece of cardboard before replacing (and tightening up) the blade you'd get a smooth level bed with any casting indentations filled. I was thinking of varying this approach slightly. Firstly I'd stick parcel tape to the blade instead of the card board as this doesn't stick to epoxy and so will come away when finished leaving a smooth glued surface. However, I have colloidal silica for mixing into epoxy to turn it into a filler as well as glue so I could also build up the bed to reduce the mouth opening - a big failing with the Stanley/Record spokeshaves by all accounts. I'm just not sure at the moment how I could not tighten the blade fully down on the squidgy bed of wet epoxy while at the same time maintaining the correct slope/even height on each side, etc. This problem is all eradicated if you just tighten the blade down fully - but then no smaller mouth. Hmm...

The final alteration in the article was replacing the cap piece with one made out of 1/4" thick rectangular brass bar. Unfortunately, I can't remember the justification behind doing this. It couldn't be to position the cap closer to the blade's edge to simulate a chip breaker.... you can simply do this with the original by filing the corners and lengthening the keyhole slot. So there must have been another reason - would it just be to increase the weight of the spokeshave? Would that aid performance? I also remember that he just drilled the one hole through the new brass cap for the retaining screw and didn't tap a second one higher up for a thumscrew. So instead of sort of pivoting about the retaining screw with only the front edge of the cap pressing on the blade the entire thing was tightened down onto the blade. Would this have been to aid stability or increase dampening or more likely just because it's easier to drill one hole instead of two?


Ps. just realised that moving the blade towards the front edge of the mouth using epoxy 'packing' probably won't work as this would cause the slots in the blade to disengage with the two depth thumbscrews. So I'll only just be able to level out the bed with epoxy. However, I'm now thinking that this is where an old Preston shave might be a better choice for 'doing up' as the ones with the lateral adjustment knobs have a longer piece of metal passing through the blade's slot which would better accommodate the blade being moved up and towards the mouth's front edge. Stuff to ponder... :?


----------



## Philly (10 Jul 2007)

Woden
The article was by Brian Boggs, if I remember correctly.
Cheers
Philly


----------



## Paul Chapman (11 Jul 2007)

Hi Woden,

Rob (Woodbloke) made some improvements to his Stanley spokeshaves along the lines you are thinking of. As far as I remember, he stuck some veneer on the blade bed to smooth it out a bit and overcame the problem of the adjuster nuts disengaging with the slots in the blade by giving the threaded rods a clout with a hammer - it worked quite well  No doubt he'll be along if I've got any of this wrong.

However, having struggled with trying to get similar Record spokeshaves to perform better, I've concluded that you are better off starting with a better spokeshave. If you can find a second-hand Stanley #53 with the adjustable mouth, they work very nicely, as does the Veritas low angle one. Far better than you will ever be able to get a Stanley or Record #151 to work in my view. 

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## Alf (11 Jul 2007)

"better" A2 steel? <wince> Depends on your criterior, but never mind...

Anyway, Phil's on the money and that was indeed Brian Boggs' article - the general consensus about it at the time seemed to be "why?". If the Stanley's that bad, it's not worth the bother, if it's worth bothering with at all is it really necessary to go so far (no) and anyway why spend as much on it when you're near as dammit at the price of a good quality new one?

However, if you still wanted to do it, first up I should regard the epoxy bedding and shimming the mouth closed as seperate tasks. I've done the epoxy thing (JB Weld in fact) on the gross Groz block plane and found a good thick coating of wax on the blade was all that was needed.





For closing the mouth just use some shims; veneer, plastic, I've used cut up drinks cans to good effect myself. That way you have flexibility to open it up again if desired. If the adjusters no longer register in their slots in the cutter, go on your way rejoicing - tedious things, IMO.

Ultimately I'm with Paul; get a 53/54 with adjustable mouth or put the money that otherwise would go towards a fancy blade, brass etc and get an LN, Veritas, how about a wooden one? Or if you want to make something a nice kit from Hock or Veritas. So many better ways to spend quality spokeshave time.

Cheers, Alf


----------



## bugbear (11 Jul 2007)

I could have SWORN there was an article on the web (not Smalser's) on tuning a spokeshave, including closing the mouth via veneer (or other shim) on the bed.

Can't find it though :-(

BugBear


----------



## woden (13 Jul 2007)

So the consensus is that an upgrade really wouldn't be worth it. I dunno, it may not produce quite the same quality of spokeshave as a Veritas but I think it would be cheaper. I actually can't find a LN replacement but an A2 Hock for a #151 is £20 plus about £5 for postage. I imagine that a piece of brass bar for the cap would be around £10, that is if I couldn't get away with moving the original cap further down towards the cutting edge. The epoxy I had anyway for another job and the #151 only cost me around £5. 

So that's a total of £40 and a saving of £15 on a Veritas from Axminster. Hmm, sound financial sense or penny pinching gone mad - I leave that open to the floor.



Alf":15bbemkm said:


> ...I should regard the epoxy bedding and shimming the mouth closed as seperate tasks. ...


I was thinking that too but then wondered should I get a cheap #51 or the like for roughing out and leave this modifying #151 solely for finishing. A sort of spokeshave smoother, if you will.



> For closing the mouth just use some shims; veneer, plastic, I've used cut up drinks cans to good effect myself. ...


But do such shims provide a solid bed for the blade? I though the whole idea of having an epoxy or cast bed is that it is part of the plane body and so completely solid. Having 'lose' pieces in there surely defeats the purpose of the sound bed underneath - like having bits of crud or sawdust between the frog and sole on a bench plane. Surely it wouldn't be advisable to shim the blade on a bevel up plane to attain a higher cutting angle?




Paul Chapman":15bbemkm said:


> If you can find a second-hand Stanley #53 with the adjustable mouth, they work very nicely...


What sort of price do they usually command, Paul?


----------



## Scrit (13 Jul 2007)

Alf":1dl5hcpf said:


> "better" A2 steel? <wince> Depends on your criterior, but never mind...


Who've you been talking to in Sheffield, then? :wink: But I agree, wholeheartedly

I'm also with you on the go to a secondhand #53 or #54 or try a low angle spokeshave. BTW, how good is your Veritas low angle spokeshave in comparison to a #53? I've always fancied one of Dave's shaves, but I never seem to get round to buying one (maybe at Christmas, then [-o< )Anyone here have one and care to comment?

Scrit


----------



## Paul Chapman (13 Jul 2007)

woden":204t2386 said:


> Paul Chapman":204t2386 said:
> 
> 
> > If you can find a second-hand Stanley #53 with the adjustable mouth, they work very nicely...
> ...



I bought one from Pennyfarthing Tools, in good condition, for about £10, or it might even have been less. They had another one in there about three weeks ago http://www.pennyfarthingtools.co.uk/ The main thing to ensure is that the little two springs which help in controlling the adjustable mouth are OK.

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## Paul Chapman (13 Jul 2007)

Scrit":2hieu1ut said:


> BTW, how good is your Veritas low angle spokeshave in comparison to a #53?



I have both the #53 and the Veritas. I would rate them equally good but it's difficult to say one is better than the other because the action of the two is so different. One point about the Veritas is that it can be turned from a flat face to a curved face 'shave by turning the front piece around. However, I find this a bit fiddly, so it would be better to have two of them and have them set up specifically for flat and curved work.

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## Scrit (13 Jul 2007)

Thanks for that, Paul. Interesting

Scrit


----------



## Alf (13 Jul 2007)

Scrit":3io26m6f said:


> Alf":3io26m6f said:
> 
> 
> > "better" A2 steel? <wince> Depends on your criterior, but never mind...
> ...


Long-held view arrived at all by myself - although I'd have happily talked to someone in Sheffield if I knew anyone! 

As it happens I sold the Veritas low angle shave - prefer the feel of the wooden shaves for low angle to be honest. Pretty much what Paul said though; the round sole aspect is a bit limited, simply because the generous provision of blade limits the quickness of the curve it can work in. I think you can fully justify a wide range of spokeshaves because they do tend to have their strengths and weaknesses, but that's not the only reason I like them...  :lol:

Not so grabbed by Dave's shaves (heck, I can make one myself) but have often wondered about the Woodjoy cigar variety, I must admit.

Cheers, Alf


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (13 Jul 2007)

As Paul notes, the #53 and the LV LA shaves are different.... I will add that this difference is due to their differing angles of attack. The low angle LV excels on end grain and non-demanding face grain. The higher angle of attack #53 is better on face grain.

Woden, I would forget the idea of trying to improve the #151. It is a crappy spokeshave and modifying it will just produce a crappy modified spokeshave. I had one and found it unbalanced, poorly finished, and it rattled. A #53 is far, far better. 

BB, regarding the tuning of a shave's mouth with veneer, I am sure that this is an age-old trick and, therefore, it has been writen up by many. I did so recently in my review of the HNT Gordon spokeshaves. There I modified a #51 round into something approximating a spokeshave  

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## Bainzy (17 Jul 2007)

I used the article to tune up mine, and am very pleased with the results. Mine was an old Stanley Rule & Level chamfering chave (missing the chamfering attachment) that belonged to my grandfather, so being able to continue using his tools was reason enough to upgrade instead of replace.

The idea behind the brass cap iron in the article is that the cap on the modern spokeshave used was rounded over at the ends even on the underneath, so shavings would be forced into the cap and it'd take far too much work to correct this. I ended up going with 4mm brass sheet from ebay, and it was very easy to make and looks the dogs nads. I still want to make a thumbscrew for it, but since this wasn't featured in the article I'm not too sure how to go about it without proper metalworking tools.

Don't bother messing with the bed until you get the Lie Nielsen blade, as when mine arrived I found the mouth was too narrow to fit it as opposed to too wide, which was surprising as with the old blade it was pretty wide!


----------



## Bainzy (17 Jul 2007)

Before:













After:


----------



## woodbloke (17 Jul 2007)

Paul Chapman wrote:


> Rob (Woodbloke) made some improvements to his Stanley spokeshaves along the lines you are thinking of. As far as I remember, he stuck some veneer on the blade bed to smooth it out a bit and overcame the problem of the adjuster nuts disengaging with the slots in the blade by giving the threaded rods a clout with a hammer - it worked quite well No doubt he'll be along if I've got any of this wrong.



Paul's quite correct here. I read about the epoxy method in one of David C's articles in F&C which I presume was based on the original Boggs one(?) However my little experiment was doomed to failure as epoxy is just about the most gloopy and uncontrollable sort of medium to contain for this sort of task....it was next to impossible to get anywhere like a decent result. What I did tho' was to pack up the bed of the shave with layers of veneer stuck together with double sided tape so when the blade was offered up there was a half-respectable narrow mouth instead of something a tank could fit thru'. Then I just cut off the excess with a Stanley knife and smoothed to the profile of the 'shave with some files. As Paul has said, the adjuster nuts don't engage in the slots so I put the shave body into a vice with the thread and nuts in place and belted them with a hammer till they did. Having done all that the mod has turned a _hugely_ crappy tool into just a merely crappy one now....having used Philly's Veritas 'shaves last time I was in his 'shop, these are the ones I'm sold on

Brainzy - Nice refurb :wink: - Rob


----------



## Benchwayze (23 Jul 2007)

The way I understood David Charlesworth's method was that he greased the back of the blade to avoid it sticking to the epoxy. The thin card was used as a gauge in front of the cutting edge to set the base-width of the mouth. As for the epoxy being 'gloopy' just mix it a little thicker I would have thought. 

I wouldn't say the spokeshave can't be improved, but after flattening and honing the blade, I get on quite well with the spokeshave as it is. So I didn't pay too much attention to fettling to that extent. 

I suppose the scenario is much like Japanese chisels. They might be superior to Western chisels, (?) but our old-timers managed to turn out some fine work without them for long enough. 
In other words what's all the fuss about?  
John


----------

