Did I miss something?

[MJP]

Digging through a box of near-scrap planes a couple of days ago in my local rust haunt.

the usual rotted 4s, 5s, etc, lots of loose blades, keepers, and so on. Nothing to get the heart racing.

Looking back now, I recall one plane with an odd knob - it was much flatter, far less upright, than usual. I didn't take much notice at the time, just carried on going through the pile.

But now I'm thinking - was this plane with the odd, flattened, knob something out of the ordinary?

Is this characteristic of some uncommon make or model?

Anyone got any ideas?

Martin.

 

[Racers]

Early low knob Stanley, probably a good plane.

Pete

 

[MJP]

Ah - thanks Pete.

I've got a description to use to search for a pic now, just to see.

Sounds as if a return visit to the junkyard is on the cards!

Martin.

 

[Ttrees]

Low knob's are some of the oldest Stanley planes I believe.
Preferred by some, never tried one though.
Patrick's blood and gore plane dating website has extensive articles about this.

I believe this is specifically USA Stanley plane related?
Is it a USA plane?

Tom

 

[MJP]

Hi Tom -

Is it a USA plane?

I'm ashamed to say I have no idea - I didn't give it more than a second's look in passing....I was idly going through a boxful of planes in various states of decay and just noticed the low knob.

I'll go back tomorrow and take another look - if it's there I'll buy the boxful, since there might be other bits of the same age in amongst the scatterings. I just hope the proprietor hasn't thrown it out.

Just my luck if he has - that'll teach me!

Martin.

 

[Ttrees]

My priority when looking at planes is a thick sole, and parallel in width at that...
Some were lapped awfully, or customised as the sides are often not 100% square.
You'd normally use the bailey or bedrock pattern for face grain, although I do use one of my Stanley 5 1/2's for end grain at the moment.
I will get or make a low angle jack or a shooting plane for myself in the future.
That's not to say I have one of them specifically for the shooting board, I just have a small camber on one and a near flat one on the other.

Look at the evenly thick soles on both of these same period (newer, prob mid 1950's ?) Stanley no.5 1/2 planes
I have been fooled before!
One of these was real rusty and it doesn't bother me a bit if looking for one.
If you're getting the box for very little, I'd take it if its full of irons and plane bits.
You might find them useful

 

[MJP]

If you're getting the box for very little, I'd take it if its full of irons and plane bits.
You might find them useful[/quote]

That I will T - I'm kicking myself that I didn't do that when I was there last time - I just hope he hasn't tossed the box, he was tidying up - and we all know what that means.

Martin.

 

[shed9]

What size was it?

You can easily date the plane by the number of dates behind the frog or indeed no dates at all. Low knob Stanleys are superb users and definitely worth salvaging if the price is right. Cleaned and tuned up with a thicker blade and they will compete with the best.

 

[MJP]

What size was it?

.

-ah, another question to be answered if - and only if - that flippin' box is still there tomorrow!

I didn't really notice, but probably a 4 or thereabouts.

Martin.

 

[Bm101]

Little heads up as to age mjp. If you look at the photo above there's a ring around the front knob. This was added to prevent cracking in the knob. Earlier planes won't have this. If you get one without the raised ring and a low knob it's probably a good sign it's fairly old.

 

[MJP]

Thanks BM -

Can't recall whether there was a base ring or not, tomorrow will reveal all, hopefully.

Martin.

 

[ED65]

Martin, another first-glance thing to program yourself to look for is the keyhole-shaped hole in the lever cap rather than the kidney-shaped hole we're more familiar with. A keyhole will generally indicate an old plane underneath, although of course lever caps can be swapped from plane to plane so it's not completely reliable. But at the least you'll know you're getting a very old lever cap.

Old lever caps are unplated, so they tend to age gracefully and are easier to restore if you like to give your planes a facelift or make them look like new.

 

[MJP]

Thanks ED - another good tip.

The more folks help me with this, the more I'm kicking myself!

I have to say again though, this forum is just wonderful - everyone is so helpful, even for a newbie like me who asks the most basic questions.

Roll on tomorrow.

Martin.

 

[Bm101]

Don't get too hung up on the vintage. There's a school of thought that insists older is always better. It's simply not true. From what little I understand there might be a some truth in it but it's a grain of truth. Castings were left to cool longer etc etc etc and it's no secret production values dropped gradually and even in later years exponentially. That's not to say there's any amount of duff old planes knocking about and there's plenty of non 'vintage' that can be made to sing. From another beginners perspective I'd worry more about fettling than age or pedigree. Leave that to the collectors.
I prefer a low knob myself but I don't have a clue what I'm doing.
We'd like photographs if you have any luck.

 

[MJP]

No, I'm not completely sold on the "it's old so it must be good" argument, but I am developing a kind of sentimental attachment to old stuff - mainly because I never inherited much from my father, so I'm "making my own history" - how sad is that!

And I have to say that using an old tool that has been used by craftsmen now long gone makes me feel that I should do them, and the tool, justice by using it properly, while I might not have the same respect for something out of the Silverline catalogue.

I'm going daft in my old age!

Yes, there'll be pics if I get anything interesting - you can all tell me then that I've bought a load of old junk.

Martin.

 

[Bm101]

Long as you take some joy from it it's fine Martin. Good luck with the search.

 

[shed9]

Don't get too hung up on the vintage. There's a school of thought that insists older is always better. It's simply not true. From what little I understand there might be a some truth in it but it's a grain of truth. Castings were left to cool longer etc etc etc and it's no secret production values dropped gradually and even in later years exponentially. That's not to say there's any amount of duff old planes knocking about and there's plenty of non 'vintage' that can be made to sing. From another beginners perspective I'd worry more about fettling than age or pedigree. Leave that to the collectors.
I prefer a low knob myself but I don't have a clue what I'm doing.
We'd like photographs if you have any luck.

There are good and bad throughout all of the years really, certain vintages don't guarantee usability but they often tip the averages in your favour in my opinion.
Whilst the earlier planes often fetch slightly more interest there are some that get overlooked. I've heard war period planes get slated because of cost cutting during that period however Type 17 (1942-45) for instance have some of the thickest soles ever manufactured into a Stanley plane.

 

[nabs]

...Type 17 (1942-45) for instance have some of the thickest soles ever manufactured into a Stanley plane.

this has come up a couple of times on this thread - a while back I compared some older Records to a modern version and pointed out that, at least for the examples I had, the castings were slightly thicker in the older ones.

I assumed this meant they were better quality until someone pointed out that someone using hand planes all day might well see the lighter plane body as a big benefit.

Assuming the sole is flat, why would it be desirable if it was thicker?

 

[Cheshirechappie]

Assuming the sole is flat, why would it be desirable if it was thicker?

Because if it's thicker, it's stiffer - less liable to flex in use.

Actually, that's not quite such a problem with the shorter planes, but the longer ones - 5s and longer - do have some slight frexibility, and the longer they are, the more there is. It's not a lot - not so much that you notice it with the naked eye - but it's there. It's not enough to be detrimental (obviously, or nobody would have bought and used them!) but it IS enough that when you want real precision, such as when edge-jointing boards to glue up into wide panels, it can affect the job if the technique isn't spot-on.

I suspect that's one reason why the old infills were liked over Bailey planes for more demanding work. Being made from something more like a piece of channel than the Baileys (which are more like a long flat with raised edges half way along) they are inherently stiffer.

Baileys with thicker soles would be a bit stiffer, too.

It's a very subtle effect even with the longer planes (and barely a problem with short ones, because they don't have long flat bits of sole front and back), but it is there!

(Not long ago, I tried the flexibility of a Record 5 1/2, by placing it on shims front and back on a solid flat surface, then checking the gap under the mouth area with feelers. Then repeat with a gentle pressure applied to the top of the frog. There was a difference of 2 thou - the whole plane bent by that amount. The bend for 7 or 8 would be greater.

Not wholly scientific, but certainly indicative - it surprised me how much the plane flexed with not much load applied.)

 

[ED65]

FWIW I wouldn't get hung up on thicker soles v. thinner ones.

While planes being able to flex has been demonstrated to be a real thing flexing in use should be, for all practical purposes, a non-issue. It appears undeniable that planes with soles of all thicknesses seem to work perfectly well, and as far as can be noticed, equally well.