# Bought an old Stanley 4 1/2 - What level of refurbing?



## Bodgers (14 Feb 2018)

I bought this Stanley 4 1/2 smoother for £30 delivered - which seems like an ok price to me. I could have gone cheaper, but I didn't want to buy a total basket case.

The sole is basically flat apart from a sort of very slightly shallow area at the back. So I might at least do a bit of flattening there. Blade needs some attention as it has some minor chips - maybe a regrind. 

A little bit crazy, but alongside the Shooting plane I just ordered from Lee Valley, I bought a Veritas PMV11 blade and chip breaker for a 4 1/2 or 5 1/2. I thought I would use it on this or maybe even a future used 5 1/2 buy. Those won't be here until late March when the relatives bring those over. 

I wasn't going to do much with this plane, but as I have sunk £90 into this now (with the fancy Veritas blade) I was thinking of giving this plane a full refurb. 

The Japanning is basically ok but there are chips in some areas. The handles/tote are in tact but the finish is poor and there are some chips. 

Would it be completely sacrilege to completely replace the Japanning, lap the sole and maybe even replace the totes etc.?


















Sent from my MI 3W using Tapatalk


----------



## MJP (14 Feb 2018)

"Would it be completely sacrilege to completely replace the Japanning, lap the sole and maybe even replace the totes etc.?"

and in doing so totally erase its history?

I think so.

Martin.


----------



## Bodgers (14 Feb 2018)

MJP":ubcqa50r said:


> "Would it be completely sacrilege to completely replace the Japanning, lap the sole and maybe even replace the totes etc.?"
> 
> and in doing so totally erase its history?
> 
> ...


Fair enough. I suppose it's getting the right balance between a useable tool that won't rapidly degrade further or leave it as a time capsule piece.

Not entirely sure how old this thing is anyway - it has the newer style higher front tote, but not the plastic handles of the later ones, so could be anywhere from 1950s to 1970s? 

Sent from my MI 3W using Tapatalk


----------



## sunnybob (14 Feb 2018)

*by MJP » 22 minutes ago
"Would it be completely sacrilege to completely replace the Japanning, lap the sole and maybe even replace the totes etc.?"

and in doing so totally erase its history?

I think so.

Martin.*

Hang on, do we KNOW the history of this plane?
All well and good refurbing to original, but this is a case of "triggers broom".
"had this broom 10 years, two new heads and three new handles".

If you have spent more money on a new blade than the price of the plane, how can you be preserving history?

You bought it use it, not put it in a glass case and throw sugar at it.

I got a 4 1/2 in a job lot of tools, in a similar condition to yours. i scrubbed off all the original wood coating and then used teak wood stain (it was what I had at the time)
Its a perfectly servicable tool, shame I dont ever use it.

With the prices talked about now, i just might take my 4 1/2 and 5 1/2 back to the Uk next time and sell them on. I think it will pay for my flights and food.


----------



## nabs (14 Feb 2018)

I agree with the above -it is a nice plane, but there is nothing remotely rare or unusual about it. 

If you would like a pristine example I say go ahead and refurb it to whatever level you want to achieve. 

On my used planes I just cleaned them up , but I did scrape of the finish from the wooden parts (whatever they used in the 40s/50s - varnish? - tends to crack and look awful). 
I've repainted a few drills and other tools I've repaired, but only after removing the original finish entirely. If you do this, the best tip I can offer is to get a decent filling primer (it makes a much better result) . I used mipa rapidfiller.


----------



## Bodgers (14 Feb 2018)

sunnybob":dtjsfcar said:


> *by MJP » 22 minutes ago
> "Would it be completely sacrilege to completely replace the Japanning, lap the sole and maybe even replace the totes etc.?"
> 
> and in doing so totally erase its history?
> ...



I'm not throwing away the old blade and breaker, I'll keep them and put them back in if I resell it. But point taken, I did buy it to use it.

I suppose that is basis of my question - do I actually need to be fussy about any possible heritage here - or do I just go all in, and go for it. 

Sent from my MI 3W using Tapatalk


----------



## El Barto (14 Feb 2018)

I think do as much or as little to it as you want. It's such an open question with no right or wrong answer. There's an argument for keeping it perfectly preserved and thus retaining its history and there's an argument for making it your plane, doing what you want to it and giving it a new chapter of its life and using it. I'm for the latter and I don't think it's sacrilegious. 

If it was me, I'd probably give the sole a quick flatten and remove any sharp edges and also remove any surface rust (although it looks pretty clean). I'd also fettle the blade and cap iron (not really necessary though since you're replacing them) and probably remove the old varnish on the tote and knob before soaking them in linseed oil.


----------



## sunnybob (14 Feb 2018)

Heritage is provenance.
I happen to have got mine from a retired carpenter who bought it new sometime in the late 60's. But he didnt keep receipts, he threw the box and waxed paper away, theres no serial numbers, or even pictures of him holding it, so its just another plane.
One of millions (possibly).
use it and enjoy it.


----------



## novocaine (14 Feb 2018)

I wouldn't even bother to flatten the sole. 

I'd sharpen the blade, set the cap and take it for a spin, if it takes the shavings I want then I'd leave it alone. if it doesn't then I'd give it a quick (maybe 20 minutes) fettle and see what happens, most likely I'd reset the frog and maybe run it over some 1200 grit. 

it's a tool, use it, you never know, you might like it. :wink:


----------



## Woody2Shoes (14 Feb 2018)

If it were mine, I'd do little to it, beyond perhaps:

- flattening the sole using a piece of wet and dry paper on a marble slab or perhaps cast iron machine table, if necessary;
- cleaning up the tote and knob with sandpaper followed by stain/finish of choice, then re-attach - doing up the screws/nuts nice and tight;
- fitting the new blade and chipbreaker (perhaps requiring a new yoke I'd get from Workshop Heaven and a file to widen the mouth if necessary) plus adjusting the frog;
- cleaning and oiling everything and then get to work!

I'd keep the old blade and chipbreaker, which look like they don't need much work.

Cheers, W2S


----------



## AndyT (14 Feb 2018)

Continuing the theme... I suggest you just sharpen the iron and use it. You could fiddle about with it but there's no need to. Chipped black paint doesn't make a plane perform better or worse, it's just for appearance and some protection, but you are going to look after this and keep it in the dry, so it doesn't need anything fresh. 
You could smooth out the chipped varnish on the handle if it's uncomfortable in use.


----------



## Sheffield Tony (14 Feb 2018)

It looks in quite nice condition to me as it is. I'd just grind and sharpen.

The only plane I've bothered to do any flattening on was one with a concave sole. Winding out the adjuster a shade between shavings it would take nothing, nothing, nothing, huge bite ! Well, there was that Acorn #3 which was so rusty I got it for free, but that was just for the challenge !

I guess it depends whether you prefer woodwork or pimping tools. Either is fine ...


----------



## Tasky (14 Feb 2018)

Looks better than the 4½ I got for about the same price. 
Use it.


----------



## Ttrees (14 Feb 2018)

Unless it rocked about on a surface plate, I would be hesitant to lap it as the sole doesn't look
too thick from the piccy, those two things are important to me.
It looks ready to go do some work as I see it, and if the sole is thin it would not be worth the 
restoration from my point of view, to make a really lovely plane.
You will not see any chips on the Japanning when it gets a nice layer of protective dust in about 5 seconds, so its not gonna rust.
I have considered to get or make a really hard cap iron as I have hit some cement before and 
had to refettle the edge more than once.
Some boards I had to plane with the cap iron, as some iroko is very unforgivable
I wonder if a hardened cap would hold up, with the cement ?
Might be an option to get a single iron high angle plane at it instead beforehand.

Presuming you have some more steel tools, do you notice any rust where they are?
You might be as well off keeping that patina on it, if you think there's some traces elsewhere,
as fresh cast iron is prone to corrosion, even when oiled.

I keep an oil can with a t-shirt rolled up, actually its from an old Weider weightlifting belt
these things look good for making strops and power strop wheels too.
Bamboo utensil holders make nice looking pots also,
Look up... the essential oilpot Stanley Covington 
and Paul Sellers oil can

Good luck
Tom


----------



## Bodgers (14 Feb 2018)

Thanks for the replies and advice chaps, much appreciated.

To answer Ttrees, the sole doesn't look too thin to my eyes. At a guess I'd say around 7mm. Looks thicker than a brand new cheap Stanley (not Sweetheart).

Rust is a minor problem in my workshop. It isn't permanently heated, it's a reasonably new build ext Garage with a damp course and basic roof insulation, so in the coldest weeks of the year books and manuals in there can feel a bit damp to the touch. I have had a bit of surface rust on the tablesaw before (now sold). 

I have a drawer which I keep bags of Cat Silicate descant alongside the more expensive tools. Now I actually have a collection of planes I have a plan to build a 'proper' closed off wall cabinet.

I am undecided about oiling stuff up. With the Veritas on the way I need to do something. Too expensive to risk that. I have seen Sir Paul's oil in a can, but don't fancy mineral oil. I want something I can also put on plane soles without worrying too much about having to wipe loads of stuff off to get working.

I hear good things about the German Bailstol, which is natural. Expensive. 

I saw a demo on the Lie Nielsen YouTube channel about using Camellia oil, but I think that's proven to go rancid and be questionable about doing a great deal for rust prevention. 

A read a thread on here where a member did a pretty good test across all kinds of stuff and WD40 came out in top...


----------



## sunnybob (14 Feb 2018)

Youre never going to get an agreement on oiling, its even worse than a sharpening thread.

I have seen several threads rubbishing camelia oil. But I have been away for a total of 5 weeks since the start of december and the cast iron I wiped over before I went away with camelia oil is no worse (or better unfortunately) than when I left.
It can only go rancid if its applied too thickly.
I have used acf 50 in the past, with the same results as camelia oil.
I also have heritage wax now, and when I have a spare moment I will use that on the stanley planes that have picked up some surface rust this year.

For what its worth... I scrub the cast iron with a garry block and wd 40. Wipe completely clean and dry. Spray camelia oil (axminsters brand) and gently wipe off any excess.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (14 Feb 2018)

I was skeptical about P.S's oil can - but it works perfectly and is safer than leaving vegetable oils hanging around. All I'd do with your plane is sharpen it and strip the varnish off the woodwork - that's personal taste, I find oiled or waxed andles more comfortable. Do what you like with it, though - it's not a museum piece.


----------



## MikeG. (14 Feb 2018)

You sure that's a 4-1/2, and not a 4? It looks identical to mine, which is a 4.

Common as muck. Great plane. Shaapen it, set it, and use it. If it doesn't work properly, find out why and fix it. It's a tool, not an _objet d'art._


----------



## MikeG. (14 Feb 2018)

phil.p":2alrsj3h said:


> I was skeptical about P.S's oil can - but it works perfectly and is safer than leaving vegetable oils hanging around. ......



I've used the same stub of candle for about 20 years now. A quick zig zag on the bottom of the plane is all you need.


----------



## Jacob (14 Feb 2018)

It's been "refurbed" already by the looks of it. 
Just sharpen and go!
If in good usable condition they tend to fetch a better price is they haven't been worked over by an enthusiast.


----------



## G S Haydon (14 Feb 2018)

Sharpen and use.


----------



## RogerP (14 Feb 2018)

MikeG.":3kjauz2u said:


> You sure that's a 4-1/2, and not a 4? It looks identical to mine, which is a 4.
> 
> Common as muck. Great plane. Shaapen it, set it, and use it. If it doesn't work properly, find out why and fix it. It's a tool, not an _objet d'art._


 You can see 4 1/2 on the front by the knob on the last two photos.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (14 Feb 2018)

MikeG.":1zoyhmc8 said:


> phil.p":1zoyhmc8 said:
> 
> 
> > I was skeptical about P.S's oil can - but it works perfectly and is safer than leaving vegetable oils hanging around. ......
> ...



Nowhere near as good for keeping rust off, though.


----------



## patrickjchase (15 Feb 2018)

MJP":38rvdt9k said:


> "Would it be completely sacrilege to completely replace the Japanning, lap the sole and maybe even replace the totes etc.?"
> 
> and in doing so totally erase its history?
> 
> I think so.



It isn't a historical artifact. It isn't a work of art. It's a simple tool, of a sort that was literally mass-produced by the millions. The notion of "sacrilege" shouldn't even enter the discussion IMO. If this were a #2 or a type 1 then it would be a different matter as those are relatively rare, but this is neither.

Do whatever you like with it, but most importantly use it (and modify it) as the *tool* that it is. I suspect that were Justus Traut and Leonard Bailey with us today, that would give them far more pleasure than any amount of veneration.


----------



## Bm101 (15 Feb 2018)

You might have to open the mouth with a file to fit the new iron Bodgers. Are the benefits of pmv advantageous over any difficulties of maintaining a thick iron compared to the original iron? No answers here... Just a thought since no one's mentioned it. :wink: 
All the best. Don't get overwhelmed with all the answers pal. It's your plane. 
Regards,
Chris


----------



## Woody2Shoes (15 Feb 2018)

Bm101":1jazotsa said:


> You might have to open the mouth with a file to fit the new iron Bodgers. Are the benefits of pmv advantageous over any difficulties of maintaining a thick iron compared to the original iron? No answers here... Just a thought since no one's mentioned it. :wink:
> All the best. Don't get overwhelmed with all the answers pal. It's your plane.
> Regards,
> Chris



They sort of have mentioned it already


----------



## Bodgers (15 Feb 2018)

Bm101":a5gufeio said:


> You might have to open the mouth with a file to fit the new iron Bodgers. Are the benefits of pmv advantageous over any difficulties of maintaining a thick iron compared to the original iron? No answers here... Just a thought since no one's mentioned it. :wink:
> All the best. Don't get overwhelmed with all the answers pal. It's your plane.
> Regards,
> Chris



Apparently these Veritas Stanley/Record fit blade/breaker combos are designed for the old Stanley's so it shouldn't be needed. I think they are thicker, but not thick enough to need extensive mods.

PMV11 is supposed to offer the edge retention of A2, but at the same time being a lot easier to sharpen.


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (15 Feb 2018)

Bodgers":1ngv0bdo said:


> I bought this Stanley 4 1/2 smoother for £30 delivered - which seems like an ok price to me. I could have gone cheaper, but I didn't want to buy a total basket case.
> 
> The sole is basically flat apart from a sort of very slightly shallow area at the back. So I might at least do a bit of flattening there. Blade needs some attention as it has some minor chips - maybe a regrind.
> 
> ...



Bodgers, you can do what you like - it is your plane. I actually get that you want something a little blingy to go with the new Veritas that is on its way. And why not? It is just a plane, a tool, and yours to use. Some like them old and dingy, and some not. This example is not destined for a museum, and the very best one can hope is that it gives you many years of satisfied use.

Here's a #605 I repainted (use engine paint - it, too, was not a collector's item when I received it) ..







I have also restored others to original condition using jappaning because they were collector's items (such as a Stanley #51/52). Let me know if you want the recipe, but I think an engine spray paint is just fine in your case - but you must remove all vestiges of existing paint, otherwise it will look like hell.






Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## Tasky (15 Feb 2018)

Jacob":1ppbvhdp said:


> If in good usable condition they tend to fetch a better price is they haven't been worked over by an enthusiast.



What ^he said. 

There is an antique shop near us that has tools in sometimes and I regularly check in there. However, their main 'supplier' buys old junk and refurbs them... to the point where every piece of wood looks brand new and bit of metal is so highly polished you'd think a soldier was taking it with him on parade. 
Visually, it is utterly attrocious and the tools actually look like they're fakes or monkey-metal repros.


----------



## Bodgers (15 Feb 2018)

Derek Cohen (Perth said:


> Bodgers":2peew746 said:
> 
> 
> > I bought this Stanley 4 1/2 smoother for £30 delivered - which seems like an ok price to me. I could have gone cheaper, but I didn't want to buy a total basket case.
> ...


That is a sweet looking Bedrock. I wanted the 4 1/2 in the Bedrock, but I just couldn't find one at a cost that didn't make it look crazy buying it over a QuangSheng pattern Bedrock.

I was wondering what sort of paint to use for the Japanning - engine enamel paint looks like it will be very durable....


----------



## Ttrees (15 Feb 2018)

I wonder if you can set the cap iron very close with the new iron being thicker,
without having to file the mouth?
as the close cap iron setting needs an open mouth to work right.
I actually really like the look of those old laminated blades and the ol' crackled rosewood finish,
and I like the mouth to be smaller, like in your plane, and most...
compared to some of the 70's models with maroon paint and plastic handles, where they have a huge mouth, as those could possibly present a few issues, 
I haven't noticed any with my one though, and it will plane tearout free on anything, 

If one was to nitpick an issue with a wider mouth, (with an old cast metal plane, not the newer ductile iron that is supposedly unbreakable?) 
I would guess that the structural aspect could be compromised, 
The plane might move some, if you relieve the same amount of difference between my old 
planes and the 70's plane I have, possibly making the sole have issues after that.. so I would consider those things too.


----------



## Bodgers (15 Feb 2018)

Not sure, I guess I will find out when it arrives.

Info is here:

http://www.leevalley.com/en/wood/page.a ... 1182,43698


----------



## Bm101 (15 Feb 2018)

Woody2Shoes":pz6su2p2 said:


> Bm101":pz6su2p2 said:
> 
> 
> > You might have to open the mouth with a file to fit the new iron Bodgers. Are the benefits of pmv advantageous over any difficulties of maintaining a thick iron compared to the original iron? No answers here... Just a thought since no one's mentioned it. :wink:
> ...



I think I probably phrased it badly Woody. Apologies. What I meant by 'no answer here' is no definite answer from me. Willingly hold my hands up to being a novice and as such I'm very cautious about giving out 'advice'. Hence maybe my caution. What I was trying to convey (badly  ) was what something I'd previously read by Custard. By chance, he's repeated the same advice in a similar thread today so I hope he won't mind me copy and posting it here. 

_1. The very thick iron means sharpening can be a long and tedious business without a power grinder to handle the majority of the metal removal.

2. The geometry of the iron makes forming and finessing a camber quite a bit harder. Getting a camber just how you want it, and then keeping it there, is one of the most important aspects of plane work. It's not impossible with a low angle jack, but it is much more of a challenge.

3. You can't use a closely set cap iron to control tear out, and the high angle iron you use with your low angle jack may not be high enough to get the job done.

4. There's not much lateral adjustment possible.
_

Custard's original post is here: topic110742.html It's aimed at a different question so maybe not entirely relevant in its original context.

@ Bodgers. My first ever post on ukw was about fitting a PMV iron to a troubled old record 4 1/2. My first ever woodworking tool (as opposed to diy, etc) I thought, I'll be needing one of them then. I'm hardly any wiser now but I was actually trying to fit it upside down. Really.
So a short history of my beginning to fathom out the workings of a plane and this has no reflection of you in it. Just my experience.
In the end I swallowed my pride and when a stanley came up on here by Graham Haydon for twenty quid I bit his fingers off. It turned up tuned and sharp. I learnt a lot from that plane and on here about the cap iron etc etc. On reflection that was my datum plane. It helped me see how to set up and more importantly adjust it to the particular circumstance I was (quite often vainly and frustratingly) addressing. It's easy to forget just how much you are scrabbling about in the dark when you very first start out. Again, no reflection on you. I have no idea what stage you are at, probably far advanced from me.
I never did fit that pmv iron to that Record and despite the assurances that it will fit most stanleys/records. This one won't. Not without filing the mouth. Hence the cautionary note.
So it's still there, down the shed, on the side. I will at some point fit it on the Record,open the mouth just enough, sort the other issues with that particular plane. Would be madness not to. I have no doubt it's an iron of great metallurgical properties. 
 




Be rude not to.
Would I buy one now?
No I probably wouldn't.
Think I'd prefer to sharpen little and often tbh.
Who knows? Certainly not me. :wink: 
Cheers
Chris


----------



## Bodgers (16 Feb 2018)

Bm101":25ccslqq said:


> Woody2Shoes":25ccslqq said:
> 
> 
> > Bm101":25ccslqq said:
> ...



I think Custards comments you posted are applied to a Low Angle Jack are they not? (e.g. Lateral adjustment, cap iron, geometry)

The Veritas Stanley replacement blades aren't as thick as the ones in any of the other Veritas bench planes, so it shouldn't too much of an chore to touch up, surely? If I have to open the mouth a little on a £30 plane, It doesn't concern me too much. 

I finally got my new style Stanley Sweetheart low angle Jack out of its box yesterday (a year after buying it - it is a very sweet thing btw) and worked on its A2 blade - flattened the back, and sharpened it. With a diamond plate setup it didn't seem like an ordeal to me...


----------



## patrickjchase (16 Feb 2018)

Bm101":kf5u707o said:


> You might have to open the mouth with a file to fit the new iron Bodgers. Are the benefits of pmv advantageous over any difficulties of maintaining a thick iron compared to the original iron? No answers here... Just a thought since no one's mentioned it. :wink:
> All the best. Don't get overwhelmed with all the answers pal. It's your plane.
> Regards,
> Chris



The Veritas replacement irons are thin enough (0.1" thick) that you shouldn't need to modify the plane to accept them.

IMO the Stanley irons are thick enough to begin with. If they needed to be thicker for "optimum performance" then they would have been made that way, particularly in the BedRock line which were beefed up in other respects. I've never had a chatter problem with a Stanley iron that couldn't be fixed by properly tuning the plane.


----------



## Jacob (16 Feb 2018)

patrickjchase":kwbz1li2 said:


> .....
> 
> IMO the Stanley irons are thick enough to begin with. If they needed to be thicker for "optimum performance" then they would have been made that way, particularly in the BedRock line which were beefed up in other respects. I've never had a chatter problem with a Stanley iron that couldn't be fixed by properly tuning the plane.


Yep.
The whole "refurb aftermarket PMV11..etc" is just a funny little hobby in it's own right and has no bearing on woodwork and tool use. 
It's a branch of the steam punk fashion movement.
This intriguing but very silly triangular diagram says it all! Fantasy!


----------



## Sheffield Tony (16 Feb 2018)

For what it's worth ... my Record #6 came with a thin Stanley cutting iron, and possibly the thinnest bit of spring steel as a cap iron I've ever seen, no maker admitted to it by applying their mark. So, I bought a Clifton 2 piece cap iron, a Clifton thick cutting iron, and they threw in the required longer cap iron screw for free.

Trouble is, not only is the mouth not wide enough, but the screw in the frog for the lever cap is too short, and is left holding on by not many turns of thread. It is a peculiar thread, and all the replacement bolts I could find were the same length. It did cut rather nicely though, until the thread in the frog stripped.

Thanks to BugBear the plane is back in one piece, this time with the Stanley thin iron and the Clifton 2 piece cap, and works pretty much the same as it did with the Clifton cutter. I surmise that replacing a really rubbish cap iron with a better one makes more difference than a thicker cutting iron.

Little used old-style Clifton cutter with genuine wonky stamp is still sitting in my drawer, waiting till it becomes collectable !


----------



## Bodgers (16 Feb 2018)

Jacob":6zhoq5wq said:


> patrickjchase":6zhoq5wq said:
> 
> 
> > .....
> ...


So you are saying PmV11 is 'snake oil'?

Sent from my MI 3W using Tapatalk


----------



## Jacob (16 Feb 2018)

Yes. 
Not that improvements aren't possible but they seem always to be so tiny, marginal, unconvincing and not worth the price, usually high.


----------



## Ttrees (16 Feb 2018)

I know its not everybody's cup of tea reclaiming stuff, but I would love to know
how it would hold up to some cement :shock: 
I can tell you regular Stanley cap irons don't last long, before refettling is needed,
if you hit some.
I am a keen scraper when it comes to cement, but an avid planer when it comes to most paints and varnishes.
Sometimes you can get some cement somewhere in the paint maybe, it comes from nowhere 
to destroy your edge.
Come to think of it there could be lead paint on the afrormosia I have, this could be also troublesome, I'm not sure as all I have is reclaimed 

Tom


----------



## Bm101 (16 Feb 2018)

Bodgers":35h1gvza said:


> I think Custards comments you posted are applied to a Low Angle Jack are they not? (e.g. Lateral adjustment, cap iron, geometry)



Don't they apply to a thicker iron in a 4 1/2 then? Genuine question mind.
I'm not being negative or trying to put you off Bodgers. Not for me to say what works for you. For me personally, at that time it was the wrong move. And I know it's supposed to fit. It just doesn't fit my one.. When I bought it I didn't have a clue. I feel I have at least a little knowledge under my belt now. Still doesn't fit.
If you are ok filing the mouth, all good. Hopefully it will fit with no messing at all. Fingers crossed and it's an easy conversion. Was just trying to help in my little way. Hope you didn't feel I was banging on. I don't come on here for that. Best of luck.
Regards,
Chris


----------



## custard (16 Feb 2018)

Bm101":1uoz02j7 said:


> I never did fit that pmv iron to that Record and despite the assurances that it will fit most stanleys/records. This one won't. Not without filing the mouth. Hence the cautionary note.



I think you're right Chris, this is what it says on the Axminster web site about the replacement Veritas irons for Stanley and Record planes,



> These Veritas PM-V11 blades are thicker than the standard blade so the mouth of the plane may need to be opened up a bit. This is a simple process using a good quality file and the pawl on the end of the lateral adjust lever on older planes may have to be filed slightly to fit in the blade slot.



I've fitted a few replacement irons over the years and the only one I can recall that dropped straight in was an IBC replacement iron and cap iron into a 1940's Stanley Bedrock, everything else needed a bit of work on the plane with a file.

On the other hand, when you get a matched iron and cap iron from a really good manufacturer, like IBC or Veritas, then they'll mate beautifully. Where as there are plenty of Record and Stanley iron/cap iron combinations out there that need even more time fettling because there's a gap which allows shavings to get jammed between them. 

I guess the moral of the story is that you pays your money and you makes your choice! 

In terms of the actual performance difference between a Record/Stanley iron and a replacement, well a lot depends on the work you're doing and what timbers you're working with. If you're planing lots of Rosewood end grain or marine plywood edges or laminations glued up with UF adhesives, then you'll probably notice a clear benefit from PMV-11 or A2. But for long grain planing on softwoods or temperate zone hardwoods, then I don't think the difference is all that great. I normally refresh the edge of a plane iron after about ten minutes of constant planing. To put that in context, on a typical workpiece that's say 600 or 700mm long I might well average about 40 or 45 strokes a minute, so that means honing after roughly 400-450 strokes. Here's the rub, that rhythm of planing and honing is now so deeply ingrained that even if the plane iron was still performing after ten minutes I'd find it almost impossible _not_ to hone...if only to give my arms a brief rest.

Given that a regular Record or Stanley iron meets that ten minute requirement I don't place much of a practical value on a longer performing steel.

When it comes to really heavy planing work, like flattening off a giant waney edged slab for a desk or a table, similar complications are in play. Then I'll prefer an old wooden jack for the majority of the work, and personally I'll take the benefit of the lighter tool and the slicker sole over any sharpness longevity advantages any day. Besides which, if I feel like a honing break after ten minutes planing puny little 600mm long furniture components, then I'm pretty desperate for a honing break after ten minutes grafting away on a two hundredweight slab!

The point I'm making is that in real world woodworking, as opposed to internet thought experiments, there are many other factors in play which muddy the water.


----------



## Bodgers (16 Feb 2018)

Bm101":31728wug said:


> Bodgers":31728wug said:
> 
> 
> > I think Custards comments you posted are applied to a Low Angle Jack are they not? (e.g. Lateral adjustment, cap iron, geometry)
> ...



The Vertias low angle jack's blade is 4.7mm thick (which is pretty similar to my new Stanley SW LA Jack).

These replacement Stanley PMV11's are only 2.5mm thick, so there is a lot of difference. 

Is it possible they have either changed since you bought it, or you had the wrong blade?


----------



## Bodgers (16 Feb 2018)

custard":3t7syhef said:


> I guess the moral of the story is that you pays your money and you makes your choice!
> 
> In terms of the actual performance difference between a Record/Stanley iron and a replacement, well a lot depends on the work you're doing and what timbers you're working with. If you're planing lots of Rosewood end grain or marine plywood edges or laminations glued up with UF adhesives, then you'll probably notice a clear benefit from PMV-11 or A2. But for long grain planing on softwoods or temperate zone hardwoods, then I don't think the difference is all that great. I normally refresh the edge of a plane iron after about ten minutes of constant planing. To put that in context, on a typical workpiece that's say 600 or 700mm long I might well average about 40 or 45 strokes a minute, so that means honing after roughly 400-450 strokes. Here's the rub, that rhythm of planing and honing is now so deeply ingrained that even if the plane iron was still performing after ten minutes I'd find it almost impossible _not_ to hone...if only to give my arms a brief rest.
> 
> ...



For me it was worth a try. Total price of the plane and the blades is around £90 - which is £70 cheaper than say a 4 1/2 Bedrock pattern plane from Workshop Heaven. I have no experience with exotics (only pine, oak, beech, ABW and Sapele), so I don't have the best reference points for comparison. 

It doesn't have to be anything amazing, but with this blade/chip breaker combo it might the best this type of plane can be for under £100.


----------



## Jacob (17 Feb 2018)

Bodgers":2mepv4un said:


> .....
> For me it was worth a try. Total price of the plane and the blades is around £90 - which is £70 cheaper than say a 4 1/2 Bedrock pattern plane from Workshop Heaven. ....


Bedrock never really caught on. Basically cos its a crapo pointless design


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (17 Feb 2018)

The difference in thickness of the Stanley and Veritas replacement is negligible in practice when fitting to a Stanley plane. They are not the same as a LN or Clifton blade, neither of which are suitable for Stanley planes owing to their thickness (they can be used, but generally require modification to the plane).

Here are Japanese Smoothcut, Veritas replacement, and LN blades ...







There is little difference between the Smoothcut, which is the same thickness as a regular Stanley, and the Veritas replacement. Incidentally, the Smoothcut is a fabulous blade.

Whichever you choose, the final bevel angle needs to be around 30 degrees for longevity.

I have the Veritas PM-V11 blade in a couple of Stanley planes, and really like them for their easy set up as well as edge holding. They have the same buttery smoothness as O1 blades. 

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## Bodgers (17 Feb 2018)

Derek Cohen (Perth said:


> The difference in thickness of the Stanley and Veritas replacement is negligible in practice when fitting to a Stanley plane. They are not the same as a LN or Clifton blade, neither of which are suitable for Stanley planes owing to their thickness (they can be used, but generally require modification to the plane).
> 
> Here are Japanese Smoothcut, Veritas replacement, and LN blades ...
> 
> ...



Thanks for clearing this up.


----------



## Bodgers (17 Feb 2018)

Jacob":1rsivj9r said:


> Bodgers":1rsivj9r said:
> 
> 
> > .....
> ...



WoodRiver/Quengsheng...
Lie Nielsen...


----------



## Jacob (17 Feb 2018)

Bodgers":2u8kymio said:


> Jacob":2u8kymio said:
> 
> 
> > Bodgers":2u8kymio said:
> ...


Just cashing in on the fashion. Nobody needs them. 
I bought a Clifton 4 to find out what the fuss was about. Adjusting the frog is not particularly easy - you still have to re-set the blade. The difference between that and the normal set up is very insignificant. It was a dud design to start with, but stays fashionable.


----------



## nabs (17 Feb 2018)

the frog design used in bedrocks is a better solution for adjusting the position of the frog than you get with a standard bailey design. The fact is that the most of Stanley's customer concluded that this was an improvement they did not need/were not prepared to pay extra for and consequently they did not buy as many.

so 'pointless' - arguably, but a 'dud' - no - they were in production until WWII so clearly some people appreciated them.


----------



## Mr T (17 Feb 2018)

Jacob":1920vd41 said:


> Just cashing in on the fashion. Nobody needs them.
> I bought a Clifton 4 to find out what the fuss was about. Adjusting the frog is not particularly easy - you still have to re-set the blade. The difference between that and the normal set up is very insignificant. It was a dud design to start with, but stays fashionable.



I think you're being a bit disingenuous there Jacob. It is definitely easier to adjust the frog on a bedrock. My question is how often you need to do this, is it worth the extra for an adjustment you make once in a blue moon?

Chris


----------



## Cheshirechappie (17 Feb 2018)

For newer members of the forum, or those reading from afar, I should perhaps point out that Jacob is the forum's Official Grump. As far as he is concerned, woodwork was going along just fine until some pillock invented the Bronze Age, and it's been downhill ever since. Especially that new-fangled, fashionable 'steel' stuff for cutting tools. Nowt wrong with flint - and Jacob still knaps his own.

Thus, newer recruits to the forum would be well advised to just get on with the joys of Finding Out For Themselves, and if they wish to try out cutting tools with bedrock soles, or bevel-up planes, or cutters made from steel, or even - heaven forfend - Modern steels - they are perfectly at liberty to do so. There ain't no law agin it yet - though Jacob's working on that !


----------



## Jacob (17 Feb 2018)

Mr T":1drwqv1r said:


> Jacob":1drwqv1r said:
> 
> 
> > Just cashing in on the fashion. Nobody needs them.
> ...


If you only adjust the frog when the blade is out for sharpening then the bedrock has no advantage at all. With both designs you have to re- adjust the blade and if you are using the plane much the blade is going to be out frequently.
Old bed rocks are fairly uncommon, presumably because not many people valued them enough to want to spend the extra. PS though I see they are rare enough to get collector prices on ebay £150 + :shock: - which isn't about their usefulness!


----------



## nabs (17 Feb 2018)

someone at Sargent had already came up with a better design in 1903 that meant you could adjust the frog without the adjusting the set and Stanly thus had to come up with an (inferior) alternative. Mind you the Sargent planes are even rarer than bedrocks)





https://patentimages.storage.googleapis ... 824954.pdf


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (17 Feb 2018)

Jacob, I agree with you that the Bed Rock design is overplayed. I rarely vary the position of a frog once I have established where it is needed. There are some planes - the Veritas Custom is an example - where the mouth is instead adjusted. This is helpful for clearing shavings. For these planes, too, I usually set the mouth size and leave it alone.

However, this is missing the point about LN, Veritas, and Clifton. They are simply better made than Stanley and Record planes. This does not necessarily mean that they perform better - there are many issues involved in setting up a plane, and poorly done will turn a LN into a dog. Conversely, done well will turn a Stanley into an exceptional user. This is not a given, but the LN is better prepared by the factory to use out of the box.

What will not change, however, is making the Stanley or Record adjust as smoothly as the LN et al. Nor will it reduce backlash (even when we learn to accept it), or a flatter sole ready to use in a predictable manner from new. 

One pays for the privilege of having a ready-to-perform plane, but that is the choice of the buyer - for which one pays the price - and should not be material for criticism. 

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## David C (17 Feb 2018)

I agree with Derek, but here are a couple of extra points.

The large machined frog support is a huge advance compared to the small badly machined support in later Bailey planes. 

For a beginner, fixing the frog of a bailey can be a task requiring many repeats.

The relative lack of available frog twist in the bedrock is a great advantage.

best wishes,
David


----------



## patrickjchase (17 Feb 2018)

Jacob":1pb6wbw9 said:


> patrickjchase":1pb6wbw9 said:
> 
> 
> > IMO the Stanley irons are thick enough to begin with. If they needed to be thicker for "optimum performance" then they would have been made that way, particularly in the BedRock line which were beefed up in other respects. I've never had a chatter problem with a Stanley iron that couldn't be fixed by properly tuning the plane.
> ...



Your argument here is every bit as nonsensical as the ones that people advance to explain why thick irons are a must-have upgrade. It turns out that there are blinkered extremists on both sides of this particular discussion.

There has been significant progress in the last century plus of metallurgy, and steels like CTS-XHP (PM-V11) reflect that. We have traditionally been forced to trade off wear resistance and edge-taking, because the hard carbides that boost the former tend to compromise the latter. Modern fabrication processes like hot isostatic pressing (HIP) "raise the curve" of that tradeoff, i.e. they improve the wear resistance that can be achieved at any given edge quality and vice versa.

The folks who fetishize 19th century steels and manufacturing processes are the true "steampunk fashionistas" of our community, in more ways than one. 

Clearly stating my opinion: Classic Stanley irons work and work well. You can achieve higher wear-resistance with a modern iron, and that may or may not matter to you (there are fair arguments both ways), but you don't need one to "eliminate chatter" or "improve the performance" of your plane. You just need to learn to use your tool to achieve that. I fully anticipate that I shall now be flamed from both sides .


----------



## patrickjchase (17 Feb 2018)

Jacob":12iil05l said:


> Yes.
> Not that improvements aren't possible but they seem always to be so tiny, marginal, unconvincing and not worth the price, usually high.



Have you actually used PM-V11 irons for any length of time, or is this just your religious fervor talking?


----------



## patrickjchase (17 Feb 2018)

Jacob":petpzcvy said:


> Bodgers":petpzcvy said:
> 
> 
> > .....
> ...



Hmm, something we agree upon.

As an engineer I really like the Bailey design precisely because it's efficient. It's as robust as it needs to be to do its intended job well, and no more. IMO BedRock was a retrograde step, because it added cost and weight to fix an issue that didn't exist to begin with.

It also made the frog adjustment less usable IMO, by "coupling" it to the depth adjust. Moving the frog along its inclined ramp in the BedRocks changes the depth, but then restoring the depth to the desired value changes the mouth, which leads to another iteration with the frog adjust, etc. Give me a "flat" mouth adjustment as on the Bailey or the LV planes any day.


----------



## patrickjchase (17 Feb 2018)

Mr T":2vsm0xn5 said:


> I think you're being a bit disingenuous there Jacob. It is definitely easier to adjust the frog on a bedrock. My question is how often you need to do this, is it worth the extra for an adjustment you make once in a blue moon?



I disagree. It is easier to *move* the frog once on a BedRock, but it is not easier to *adjust* it to a final desired position.

The reason is of course that in BedRock the frog and depth adjustment are coupled in a way that forces you to iterate between them to precisely dial in your desired setting. Designs in which the frog adjustment operates purely along the long axis of the plane (like, say, Bailey or the Sargent patent) don't have that issue.


----------



## patrickjchase (17 Feb 2018)

David C":11twxdb8 said:


> The large machined frog support is a huge advance compared to the small badly machined support in later Bailey planes.



Yes, but that's just a reason to avoid late Bailey-pattern types, not a reason to seek out (or clone) the Bedrock pattern.


----------



## Jacob (17 Feb 2018)

Assuming an adjustable mouth _is_ desirable then the only real improvement on the basic Stanley was the modern Stanley SW with one piece body/frog and adjustable mouth. Unfortunately the rest of the plane wasn't up to much - heavy, thick blade, very crude Norton type adjuster. What a missed opportunity!


----------



## patrickjchase (17 Feb 2018)

Jacob":2l21amme said:


> Assuming an adjustable mouth _is_ desirable then the only real improvement on the basic Stanley was the modern Stanley SW with one piece body/frog and adjustable mouth. Unfortunately the rest of the plane wasn't up to much - heavy, thick blade, very crude Norton type adjuster. What a missed opportunity!



The challenge with adjustable toes in general is that they add an additional machined interface in the tolerance stack from the rest of the sole to the bit directly in front of the mouth, which is arguably the part where flatness matters most. LV does a good job of controlling those tolerances and getting the toe insert flat to the sole, but that probably wouldn't have been feasible when Bailey and BedRock were designed (no CNC, precision metrology was much more expensive, etc).

The "classic" LV/Veritas BD plane design has a mouth adjustment that's an advancement over Bailey in some respects IMO. Most notably the thumbscrew-based adjustment (made possible by using a Norris adjuster to open up the space behind the frog) and the fact that the frog extends all the way through the sole. 

The newer LV "custom" BD plane design has a fixed (though modular) frog and an adjustable mouth like the Stanley SW, but is far better executed IMO. It also has a Norris adjuster, though, which is likely to be off-putting to some.

The LVs definitely aren't for everybody, but I given them credit for resisting the pressure from reviewers etc to slavishly clone BedRock. I chuckle every time I see a reviewer obsess over the purported "ease of frog adjustment" advantages of BR.


----------



## Sam_Jack (18 Feb 2018)

Jacob - "You just need to learn to use your tool to achieve that. I fully anticipate that I shall now be flamed from both sides" . 

Agreed; there was none of this 'razamataz' with the old wooden planes. They came 'made' and either cut as well as you'd like; or, where possible, you tuned them to suit the work at hand.

Sharp steel cuts; a well set blade cuts as required, timber responds to correct handling. You, your work, your plane, set and tuned as required. Nothing, straight out of a box, can do this. I'm with you Jacob; learn to 'use' the plane - warts, limits and all - to do the job you want done. Learning to 'set' a plane, from frog to chip breaker is every bit as essential as learning to 'sharpen' to 'task'. That's the trick; to getting the job done without 'fussing' over what grade of 'steel' is employed. Just like the 'wine buffs' endless waffle - plonk is plonk; but a shaving, is not the focus - merely the beginning of a symphony. The four square sonata - played by whatever you have - in your hand.


----------



## Jacob (18 Feb 2018)

That quote was from Patrick not me. But yes.
Wine buffs make me laugh too. It's a cover for alcoholism. I annoy my wine buff friends by saying I'll drink anything (within reason) I'm just an alcoholic. But they drink a lot more than me!
Clue to incipient alcoholism - you check the alcohol content of the bottles before you buy them.


----------



## Bodgers (28 Mar 2018)

Ok so, the relatives came through, and as well as dropping in a very nice Vertias Shooting plane, they also brought a Veritas PMV11 blade for the 4 1/2 and a matching chip breaker.

So the question is, does it fit without filing the mouth?

Answer: Yes

So I'm not sure what those other posters were doing where it wouldn't fit. Maybe they ordered standard blades or something?

Pictures below.













No honing or anything - just straight out of the box...

Comparison to old cap/blade:






I brought the frog back a little, but it may benefit from a touch of filing if I want more adjustment for a wider throat. But as I'll be using this as a smoother it isn't required that much.


----------



## AndyT (28 Mar 2018)

What nice relatives!
And thank you for improving the evidence to waffle ratio in this thread.


----------



## Bm101 (28 Mar 2018)

Glad it fitted straight in Bodgers and you're happy. Wasn't being negative about the iron or the possible need to open the mouth. Still not sure why mine doesn't and yours does. Just the vagaries of however many years of plane production I suppose. All's well that ends well and all that. ccasion5: 
Cheers
Chris


----------



## topchippyles (28 Mar 2018)

Give the blade a grinding and sharpening,Clean up with some wire wool and a slight rub over with an oiled rag to prevent any future rusting.Should be fine if other functions are working ok.


----------



## Bodgers (28 Mar 2018)

topchippyles":y9v50at5 said:


> Give the blade a grinding and sharpening,Clean up with some wire wool and a slight rub over with an oiled rag to prevent any future rusting.Should be fine if other functions are working ok.


The instructions state that grinding isn't necessary. The back is also impressively flat. It actually came setup with a micro bevel as well. Very sharp from the box.

I think these Veritas blades are intended to be ready for use from the start. Which I suppose is one of the reasons why they are so expensive.





Sent from my MI 3W using Tapatalk


----------



## ED65 (29 Mar 2018)

Bodgers, have you decided how far you'll take the facelift? I'd have had no hesitation in stripping and repainting myself if that's what it needed to look the way I wanted. I might try touchups first to see if I could get them to blend in, although doing that well tends to be more work in the end. 

The handles are probably fine as they stand, i.e. comfortable, but even for a daily user if the original finish were partly gone I'd always scrape back to bare wood and refinish according to taste. Which in my case is either a French polish or a few wiped-on coats of varnish.


----------



## ED65 (29 Mar 2018)

sunnybob":14xgprls said:


> I have seen several threads rubbishing camelia oil. But I have been away for a total of 5 weeks since the start of december and the cast iron I wiped over before I went away with camelia oil is no worse (or better unfortunately) than when I left.


The bottom line for me Bob is that just about any oil may give that same level of protection, and the majority cost a heck of lot less than woodworking supply houses charge for camelia.

FWIW I bet you'd get the same level of protection from a typical sunflower oil if it came down to it, and that's about a quid a litre these days. How much is camelia oil for a 250ml bottle again? It's more than a tenner isn't it?!


----------



## Bodgers (29 Mar 2018)

ED65":2ttggpd2 said:


> Bodgers, have you decided how far you'll take the facelift? I'd have had no hesitation in stripping and repainting myself if that's what it needed to look the way I wanted. I might try touchups first to see if I could get them to blend in, although doing that well tends to be more work in the end.
> 
> The handles are probably fine as they stand, i.e. comfortable, but even for a daily user if the original finish were partly gone I'd always scrape back to bare wood and refinish according to taste. Which in my case is either a French polish or a few wiped-on coats of varnish.



I haven't yet. I am leaning on the side of a total strip down and refinishing though...
Handles I am thinking of complete new ones in Cherry actually...


----------



## ED65 (30 Mar 2018)

Bodgers":25ehxu4u said:


> Handles I am thinking of complete new ones in Cherry actually...


But but, the existing wood is way nicer than cherry!  

On a more practical note, cherry is a little soft for tool handles so they will be more prone to dings than the existing ones.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (30 Mar 2018)

Bm101":5n7yfuua said:


> Still not sure why mine doesn't and yours does.
> Chris



It might just be that the machining has differed over a time - I measured the mouth of my rosewood handled, corrugated Stanley No.6 (not sure of the age, hence the details) against a nearly new Stanley No.4 - the mouth on the No.4 was 50% wider.


----------



## Bodgers (30 Mar 2018)

ED65":1501asss said:


> Bodgers":1501asss said:
> 
> 
> > Handles I am thinking of complete new ones in Cherry actually...
> ...


True, but the handles are beaten up. Stanley seem to be using Cherry on their new stuff. I was thinking playing around with a resin infusion. 

Sent from my MI 3W using Tapatalk


----------



## D_W (30 Mar 2018)

Bodgers":1nclgzzw said:


> topchippyles":1nclgzzw said:
> 
> 
> > Give the blade a grinding and sharpening,Clean up with some wire wool and a slight rub over with an oiled rag to prevent any future rusting.Should be fine if other functions are working ok.
> ...



Price is in the finish (I didn't read back to see if it's V11), of course. It's what the market demands now. if it's V11 in the iron, add a few bucks because unlike the easy salt-bath quench and tempering stuff that it's ubiquitous, it's pricey stock. 

From their perspective as a retailer, if you don't finish tools perfectly these days, the inexperienced market will inundate you with returns. 

There was an article from Leonard Lee years ago where he talked about people calling and telling LV that this or that was out a thou, and they needed this spec or that spec. He said something along the lines of "they have no idea what they're talking about and couldn't measure what they're claiming in the first place, but sooner or later you just stop arguing and give them what they're asking for, anyway". 

The benefit, of course, is even if you don't need that level of finish, it's there and it won't hurt.


----------



## D_W (30 Mar 2018)

patrickjchase":3l5s8sv4 said:


> Jacob":3l5s8sv4 said:
> 
> 
> > Yes.
> ...



He's right. It really will never make any difference in the quality of work or the volume of work anyone will do. While I have gone all the way down the rabbit hole and back on abrasives, carbides, hardness, etc, it's all a complete waste of time and not a fraction of a percent or even a fraction of a fraction for someone who has an idea of what they want to make, a standard they want to adhere to and a rate at which they want to adhere to it. 

It may be detrimental, as I learned a whole lot more from planing using subpar irons than I ever did trying to use irons that I thought were technical perfection.

It's fun to play with those things, just like it's fun to play with different abrasives, but none of it makes any difference at all unless a woodworker is incompetent, and there are plenty of incompetents. A decent woodworker will understand that searching for some kind of pot of gold in terms of edge holding is just a cover for not being able to use their tools in context. You use whatever you have the way it wants to be used - it'll never make any difference in work. 

However, most of the newer steels are far easier for makers to make tools from with much less worker skill, and that allows makers like LN and LV to cater to a mostly incapable market (no shame in that, it's just what the market is) who doesn't wake up thinking about what they want to make, they wake up thinking about what they want to buy hoping that it will blossom into helping them make something satisfying to make (but not if it's too hard to do or requires too much thought or risk).


----------



## D_W (30 Mar 2018)

David C":25te05ku said:


> I agree with Derek, but here are a couple of extra points.
> 
> The large machined frog support is a huge advance compared to the small badly machined support in later Bailey planes.
> 
> ...



This is often brought up (the fact that later frogs have small bearing surface that isn't precision machined). I have had to fix (and wouldn't have had to, but thought I did) one frog that was out of square in about 50 or 75 stanley planes (it was a newer plane with plastic handles). I also had one plane somewhere around type 18 or so that had a speck of slag on the frog that caused the iron to be suspended above the frog (and whoever had used it a significant amount, apparently was never bothered by it. I filed it off). 

While the later stanley frog types may be unsightly, I've never seen any performance difference between them and the older frogs (and usually, they are in better order due to being newer and with less use). The iron with the cap set only touches two or three tiny contact areas on a frog - the machined nature of the frogs was a waste of money. 

The only thing that really become unserviceable on stanley planes of later types (up to type 20 at least) is the round top irons - soft and junky and short lived when smoothing. But even for jack and jointer work, they're fine. If someone thinks they're not, they're fiddling with tiny shavings which is a waste of time and a display of relative incompetence in terms of work rate (even on fine work). 

The large wheel adjuster on the later planes is an actual bonafide improvement over the early adjusters, though, as long as the threaded area is clean. 

Somewhere along the line, we got sucked into this idea that stanley's later planes came up short as planes because people forgot how to set up the cap iron and use them the way they were designed to be used. Thick irons and lapping frogs, etc, is OK if you want to turn the planes into some sort of infill repro, but the plane can't be used in context as well and a productively as the original setup would've been capable of just by cleaning up the cap iron mating surface, lapping the sole briefly and checking to see that the screws are all tight (and, of course, setting the cap). 

If I'd had fewer stanley planes in the past, I'd have less confidence saying that, but the two sweetest planes I've had (of stanley's manufacture) were a later jointer with the belt sanded frog and a blue stanley 4 type 20 (though I did replace the iron on that one, but with one of my own make and not with a rubbery or overly thick iron - I do have those on hand, but they're not an improvement once a plane is set properly).


----------



## D_W (30 Mar 2018)

Get a can of the cheapest furniture paste wax that you can find and wipe it on the tools from time to time. It's far more effective than any of the overpriced oils or long-term firearms storage treatments, and you can apply it in seconds. 

If you have something where oil is suitable, odor free baby oil (should be a pound or two) from the chemist is at least as good as camelia oil, but it poses a problem for woodworking retailers (it's not profitable for them to sell and handle because whatever they're selling has to be valuable enough to be worth shipping).

Honing oil for oilstones is fine, too, but it's overpriced and it's just light mineral oil (baby oil). 

If you have a tool that is so disused that even wax won't do (which is very uncommon), a very very light coat of shellac on non-wear surfaces does well. Use super blonde if you don't want to see it. You can remove it with alcohol at any future point. 

A third (fourth, eighth?) option is to make a 50/50 mix of mineral oil and beeswax. It won't dry, but it's easy to apply to everything and you'll find a million other uses for it. Beekeepers here in the states sell pesticide free beeswax for about $6 a pound, meaning a quart of mineral oil and wax mix is about 12 bucks. You will have trouble ever using it all (and you'll never need to purchase things like expensive hand creams or lip balms again).


----------



## Bodgers (30 Mar 2018)

D_W":1rdq8lhn said:


> Bodgers":1rdq8lhn said:
> 
> 
> > topchippyles":1rdq8lhn said:
> ...



Yeah, it is PMV11.

When I first took the blade out of my box and looked at the incredible standard of finish, including the micro-bevel, my first thought was "if ever this gets really out of shape, I don't think there is anyway I would ever have the skills to get it looking like this again". So I think they have done a very good job on these that requires no messing around with.


----------



## D_W (30 Mar 2018)

Regardless of whether or not it's needed to actually do anything (based on my comments), it is actually quite wonderful (the V11) and the finish level is superb. You can polish the back, but it's kind of a waste of time above and beyond just sharpening the iron and giving it the back treatment on the polish stone that you would in any other sharpening iteration. 

It (the V11) is also pretty much a rust free steel, but one that doesn't suffer the same ills as some other rust free steels that will behave oddly on certain sharpening stones. It'll take a good edge off of anything, even oilstones.


----------



## beechman (8 Apr 2018)

I've been through a refurbishment thing with a vintage Stanley 4 1/2. It is now my favourite plane. Love the balance afforded by the extra weight. 
Anyway, back to your very first post. Sacrilege is in the eye of the beholder. Do with it whatever gives you the greatest pleasure and satisfaction


----------

