5 1/2 plane???
- Thread starter Jameshow
- Start date
Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:
thetyreman
Established Member
if you have a no6 you probably don't need one, I like my no5 1/2 which came with plastic handles and it's from the 1950s (I think) first thing I did was make new handles for it out of sapele
Blackswanwood
Still Learning
I concur with Tryreman. I have both - inherited the Record No6 but mostly use my Clifton 5 1/2 which I prefer as it’s heavier. Both do the same job.
Ttrees
Iroko loco!
The photos and the price is whats important for me.
I'd make sure it's still got a thick sole, so a picture from head on, from both front and the back, along with the usual looking at the sole condition and cheeks for cracks photos.
A full length iron would be nice, but I'd rather have a nice hefty plane.
A bit of rust or whatever wouldn't bother me.
I've got a pair of 5 1/2's, they look about the same age, same condition, but the handles were likely shaped by different folks.
The first one I bought has ever so slightly a more forward leaning handle and it is a noticeable weight difference (feels lighter) when holding one handed.
Not that you'd be able to tell from some photos though.
Sorry can't be of help with your query, as I've never used the narrower version.
Good luck
I'd make sure it's still got a thick sole, so a picture from head on, from both front and the back, along with the usual looking at the sole condition and cheeks for cracks photos.
A full length iron would be nice, but I'd rather have a nice hefty plane.
A bit of rust or whatever wouldn't bother me.
I've got a pair of 5 1/2's, they look about the same age, same condition, but the handles were likely shaped by different folks.
The first one I bought has ever so slightly a more forward leaning handle and it is a noticeable weight difference (feels lighter) when holding one handed.
Not that you'd be able to tell from some photos though.
Sorry can't be of help with your query, as I've never used the narrower version.
Good luck
Vann
Established Member
There's nothing wrong (and a lot right) with the older, narrower version - but if the iron is well worn it's hard to find a replacement. Look for a wider one from the 1940s or 1950s. Too new and there's a higher chance of picking up a dud (as quality control got worse). Record held their quality longer than Stanley, but they bothe eventually went downhill. Or you could buy a modern Clifton - quite heavy (for my liking), but good quality (and they're still in business if there is an issue).
Cheers, Vann.
I think plastic handles came out in the 1980s (possibly 1970s). If the plane has other 1950s features then maybe the handles replaced the original beech handles after breakages.
Cheers, Vann.
Phil Pascoe
Established Member
I doubt it's from the '50s - I bought my 5 1/2 in the early '70s and it has wooden ones.
Phil Pascoe
Established Member
I believe Record went plastic in the '70s and Stanley a bit earlier.
Vann
Established Member
My 1973 Stanley No.4 had stained beech handles. I don't believe Stanley went to plastic until either very late 1970s or 1980s. I have an early 1990s Record-Marples No.04 with wooden handles (that's not to say they didn't experiment with plastic handles before that).
Cheers, Vann.
Cheers, Vann.
Vann
Established Member
While good information of English Stanleys is hard to come by, the late David Lynch did fairly thorough research on Record handplanes. I just checked his definitive website and he makes no mention of anything other than wooden handles on Record bench planes.
The Record 044C and 045C combination planes, introduced in 1970 had plastic handles - or more specifically "A handle made from cellulose acetate." The Record 045C, manufactured 1982-1995, also had these handles.
Cheers, Vann.
The Record 044C and 045C combination planes, introduced in 1970 had plastic handles - or more specifically "A handle made from cellulose acetate." The Record 045C, manufactured 1982-1995, also had these handles.
Cheers, Vann.
Stanley in the US went later as far as I can tell (your date range is probably accurate) except for some earlier planes that had hard rubber handles. Two different worlds - the hard rubber handles are uncommon and were actually quite nice. Think like a hard shoe sole material. The later handles with plastic are also OK once you scrape the seam off, but they always feel like plastic.
I can't find pictures of the rubber handles and am not a type enthusiast, but had a 4 with them in the past - wish I'd kept it.
I'd say early 1900s to mid late 1900s would be my target, and record or stanley, either one. 2 3/8" iron size as if you find you've got a basket case part in a 2 1/4" plane, it's a problem finding that part without buying a whole other plane. BTDT and lost about $70 by the time I was done - on a plane that cost $70 in the first place. Should've sold the parts and thrown the unwanted ones away.
If you have a 6 and you use it like a 6, you'll find limited usefulness for a 5 1/2, but I cannot talk from a position of strength about not having extra tools just because you want to. That's for sure.
If you have a 6 and you use it like a 6, you'll find limited usefulness for a 5 1/2, but I cannot talk from a position of strength about not having extra tools just because you want to. That's for sure.
shed9
establiSHED member
You will never get a consensus on which is best. Both Record and Stanley planes are fit for purpose however they both also offer their fair share of decent tools and horrors in equal measure. The difference of widths is probably dictated more about your buying options, sheer luck and budget. As long as the blade has a fair amount of life left the difference of 1/8" is not that great and more reliant on what feels right to you personally.
If you're thinking of getting a No 5 1/2, just go for it. If it's not for you throw it back to the market. Pick one and use it, that's the only way you will know if it's right for you.
As others have pointed out, year of manufacture is your general guide on build quality and materials used. Both manufacturers started to shift quality detrimentally towards the end of and just after WW2 although the Stanley Type 17's (1942-45) are probably the exception there as the castings are a lot thicker than previous and subsequent offerings (although they also stopped using Rosewood at this same point). Surface rust isn't that much of an issue but walk away from pitting, especially on the sole. As long as its sole is flat, the blade is serviceable and the condition is good you will be able to eek another lifetime from it. There is probably some merit in buying from a recognised tool seller than skeet shooting on Ebay. You will obviously pay more but you remove a fair amount of risk. If you have the budget, the premium planes from the likes of Clifton, Quangsheng, Wood River, Lie Nielsen etc should not be discounted. I would probably go the Clifton route for a No 5 1/2 personally if this is an option.
Phil Pascoe
Established Member
Why should pitting in the form of pits affect the performance of a plane when serious pitting in the form of corrugations doesn't? I've not quite worked that one out.
okeydokey
Established Member
Ive also wondered why the mantra says never buy a plane with serious pitting, I have a couple that were basket cases or considered scrap but after a clean up work perfectly well, well good enough for an amateur wood smoother 
okeydokey
Established Member
Back to the original post Older (narrower 2 1/4") or newer 2 3/8"?
If you needed a narrower blade/iron and could only find a wider one would a careful bit of bench grinding (on each side edge) followed by a judicious amount of filing make a narrower version or is the steel to hard to shape this way?
Would someone thats tried this advise please
If you needed a narrower blade/iron and could only find a wider one would a careful bit of bench grinding (on each side edge) followed by a judicious amount of filing make a narrower version or is the steel to hard to shape this way?
Would someone thats tried this advise please
Ok, I wasn't going to weigh into a "what's best" debate but I do have an old type eleven 5 1/2 inherited from my dad. It has become my absolute favourite bench plane & gets used daily. I like it because of the lighter casting - at my age, pushing extra metal around for no good reason is not as much fun as it once was (I have a very nice skewed-blade infill panel plane, but it only gets used for fine finishings due to its heft!).
The problem of replacing blades in the 2 1/4 inch jobs is much exaggerated, imo. I bought a new blade for mine in complete ignorance of the size issue, which I only discovered when I went to fit it. Had I done some very simple research beforehand, I would have known & maybe wasted much time & energy looking for the 'right' blade. The blade I bought (Veritas), was certainly a bit wide & would not fit initially, but it didn't need much ground off the sides to get it to fit, certainly not a full 1/16" per side. Stanley wasn't all that fussy with mouths and there is a good deal of room on most old planes I've had much to do with, anything from 1.5 to 2mm. I doubt I removed more than .5mm each side.
Having the mouth just wide enough to admit the blade is a good thing, imo, because the blade pivots on the edges of the mouth and it makes lateral adjustment more consistent & repeatable. In fact, my Norris A5 has a convex disc either side of the mouth that can only be there for that purpose, as far as I can tell.
Whatever, I sure wouldn't worry too much about having to replace a blade in a 2 1/4" model of the 5 1/2 (pre-1935, iirc), they may not all be as easy as mine turned out to be but if you have access to a grinder it shouldn't take you too long to have it in place. I made a crude jig to keep the sides straight, & snoothed them with a diamond file once the bulk removal was done (new blades are hard for their full length, & I couldn't cut the upper end with a regular file).
Cheers,
Ian
shed9
establiSHED member
By all means if you are gifted a plane with pitting or it has sentimental value then no problem, but if you are buying one why would you purposefully hand over cash for something that has suffered more than surface rust when there are loads of them to choose from. My point is the market is plentiful enough to not compromise on the general quality of the tool, move on and look for something a little more cared for.
Agree with the comments from IWW, the blade availability thing is not that much of a showstopper, they can be sought or the tool adapted (if it really needs it). Most of my vintage plane's are type 11's, no regrets with any of them. If they have lasted 100+ years they will outlast ours and the next generations.
Phil Pascoe
Established Member
Certainly but - "Surface rust isn't that much of an issue but walk away from pitting, especially on the sole."
doesn't ring true with what you've just said.
doesn't ring true with what you've just said.
