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

[G S Haydon]

Sharpen and use.

 

[RogerP]

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]

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.

Nowhere near as good for keeping rust off, though.

 

[patrickjchase]

"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]

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]

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]

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)]

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.?

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 ****.

Regards from Perth

Derek

 

[Tasky]

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]

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.?

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 ****.

Regards from Perth

Derek

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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

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

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]

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]

.....

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]

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]

.....

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!

So you are saying PmV11 is 'snake oil'?

Sent from my MI 3W using Tapatalk

 

[Jacob]

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]

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