Stanley No. 5 transformation

[Graham Orm]

I picked one up very cheaply from a friend. (Plastic handled version). It's in the box and hardly used and in good nick. First thing was to sharpen the blade and try it. It cut but skipped and bounced and was basically useless for it's purpose.
I removed the blade and frog and did the usual flattening and cleaning of mating surfaces. I then marked the sole with a permanent marker and ran it over a flat plate with wet n dry on it. (With the frog in place but not the blade). This showed a huge hollow in the centre of the sole centering on the mouth.
I set about flattening it with a coarse paper and pretty soon realised that it was going to be a long haul. As the thing cost me next to nothing and I was enjoying the experiment of getting it working, I decided to flatten it using my bench belt sander. It has a flat surface that the belt runs over which is big enough to take the plane comfortably. After 20 minutes the pen marks were all but gone. (How long would this have taken by hand?).
I cleaned all the dust and grit from the plane and re-fitted the re-honed blade. A mahogany scrap was placed on the bench and off I went. I can only describe my smile as the widest it's ever been! What a transformation! It cuts as sweetly, as finely and as evenly as any I have seen or used.
As David Charlesworth says, all planes with very few exceptions are not working tools, but kit's when you get them requiring finishing off. It begs the question how Stanley could sell this tool and expect a DIY'er to be able to use it to any satisfactory degree.

 

[tobytools]

Sounds like you had fun and did a good job, the only thing I would say is with a belt sander can you guarantee its flat and didn't vibrate around and small particles didn't get under the paper and create an uneven surface?
some say there is no need to flatter plane this I disagree on as U had a no 6 record that with a feeler gauge and an engineers straight edge concluded it was 0.7mm out near the front end. I ran it over these grits: first 80grit (alot of passes) then 120, 180 and finally 240. All in all about just over an hour, I did the wing also as I will use as a shooting plane. The for a mirror finish I used autosol and very fine wire wool (messy job) and checked with a straight edge and was just 0.1mm if that. If i remember a LN is 0.3mm out the box so it pays to take time, to create the flat surface. Was a piece of float glass on some ply that was again ontop a flat machine surface (can't remember what it was) and then had some paper between the ply and glass to get in as straight as possiable. I've only done it once and was very happy with the result. lapping the sole of a plane causes alot of debate so I'll say this do it if you wish and if you don't then don't.
Hope this help
TT

 

[Richard T]

Graham wrote: It begs the question how Stanley could sell this tool and expect a DIY'er to be able to use it to any satisfactory degree.



I don't think it is something they worry about. Gawd knows how they think that works but people keep on buying them.

You either know about fettling them up to work or you assume you have to stump up for something better that will work out of the box.

I wonder if Veritas et al have a deal with Stanley to provide 'gateway' planes .... get 'em hooked and they'll need more and more ...

 

[David C]

Graham, its good to hear of your success! I was given a new no 5, by Stanley in about 1999. Six thou hollow in length, not capable of planing a straight edge with a fine shaving.

I reckon that hollow is useless but very slight convexity works very well.

Toby, by the way, L-N specification is within three thousandths of an inch not 0.3mm.

Best wishes,
David

 

[tobytools]

Graham, its good to hear of your success! I was given a new no 5, by Stanley in about 1999. Six thou hollow in length, not capable of planing a straight edge with a fine shaving.

I reckon that hollow is useless but very slight convexity works very well.

Toby, by the way, L-N specification is within three thousandths of an inch not 0.3mm.

Best wishes,
David

Sorry missed out the extra 0

TT

 

[Graham Orm]

TT: It's a chance I knowingly took. As I said the plane didn't cost me much and was pretty much useless as it was. It would have taken for ever by hand. The thing is still not perfect, I've still got very feint pen marks around the mouth, and haven't even begun to start polishing with finer grits etc. However I will do all of the above when I have another spare hour just for the satisfaction of completing the job, despite the transformation to date.

Richard: It's an odd one, it's not like a chisel, or cheap screwdriver that will do the job from new but possibly break quickly. The planes simply do not do the job they are supposed to.

David: Thanks, did you get into conversation with Stanley over the issue? Have you ever discussed the matter with them or any other entry level manufacturer? How does convexity work?

 

[David C]

Graham,

I think I was the last of a long list of craftsmen who Stanley consulted. I chose to keep my talk to "What makes a good plane".

It was both fascinating and rather tragic. There were only two people in the factory who remembered what a good Stanley looked like. A formidable lady in the packing department and a man who demonstrated hammers.

I think I have seen photos recently, showing that the Sheffield works is now derelict.

David

I also used to abuse a nice man who I called Mr Record, every year at the Axminster shows. He was sympathetic, but it was clear nothing would change.

My estimate of the period of significant decline would be from about 1980 to 2000.

 

[Graham Orm]

Graham,

I think I was the last of a long list of craftsmen who Stanley consulted. I chose to keep my talk to "What makes a good plane".

It was both fascinating and rather tragic. There were only two people in the factory who remembered what a good Stanley looked like. A formidable lady in the packing department and a man who demonstrated hammers.

I think I have seen photos recently, showing that the Sheffield works is now derelict.

David

I also used to abuse a nice man who I called Mr Record, every year at the Axminster shows. He was sympathetic, but it was clear nothing would change.

My estimate of the period of significant decline would be from about 1980 to 2000.

Oh well, I'm sure they have a theory. I feel that I now own a 'good Stanley' especially as it has plastic handles!! It's like pulling up at the lights in a Mini but with a Ferrari engine under the bonnet!

 

[bugbear]

It would have taken for ever by hand.

Not so - just use coarse (VERY coarse) grits. 80 is not coarse, for this purpose, especially with a large plane, which dilutes your working force, resulting in less cutting pressure.

The thing is still not perfect, I've still got very feint pen marks around the mouth, and haven't even begun to start polishing with finer grits etc.

The finer grits are more about smoothness than flatness. If it isn't flat at 120 grit, the later grits will not make it so.

The purpose of any grit other than the first is almost entirely to remove the scratch marks of its predecessor.

But these are just refinements of the basic process - congratulations on your silk purse!!

BugBear

 

[Graham Orm]

It would have taken for ever by hand.

Not so - just use coarse (VERY coarse) grits. 80 is not coarse, for this purpose, especially with a large plane, which dilutes your working force, resulting in less cutting pressure.

The thing is still not perfect, I've still got very feint pen marks around the mouth, and haven't even begun to start polishing with finer grits etc.

The finer grits are more about smoothness than flatness. If it isn't flat at 120 grit, the later grits will not make it so.

The purpose of any grit other than the first is almost entirely to remove the scratch marks of its predecessor.

But these are just refinements of the basic process - congratulations on your silk purse!!

BugBear

Yep I'm aware of all that thanks BB. I still think it would have taken a while by hand. Anyway it's done now but for the last 5%. I'll finish as I started on the sander. Then I'll start going down the grits and see if I can get a shine on it. :wink:

 

[bugbear]

Anyway it's done now but for the last 5%. I'll finish as I started on the sander. Then I'll start going down the grits and see if I can get a shine on it. :wink:

Watch out (REALLY watch out) for convexity - you can have a lovely shiny/ground surface with no pen marks on it, that is lovely and curved.

BugBear

 

[Graham Orm]

Anyway it's done now but for the last 5%. I'll finish as I started on the sander. Then I'll start going down the grits and see if I can get a shine on it. :wink:

Watch out (REALLY watch out) for convexity - you can have a lovely shiny/ground surface with no pen marks on it, that is lovely and curved.

BugBear

Thanks, I'll bear that in mind

 

[Jacob]

You don't need a shine on it for any functional reason. If you flatten with 40 grit (which shouldn't take very long) you can go straight to the finest grit you have and miss out the in betweens. This will reduce friction but not produce a shiny surface.

There's an explanation here topic68962.html though the thread gets boringly trolled later - I wouldn't bother past the first page!

 

[Graham Orm]

You don't need a shine on it for any functional reason. If you flatten with 40 grit (which shouldn't take very long) you can go straight to the finest grit you have and miss out the in betweens. This will reduce friction but not produce a shiny surface.

There's an explanation here topic68962.html though the thread gets boringly trolled later - I wouldn't bother past the first page!

Yes i recognise the theory in that Jacob. I haven't done anything else at all with it yet as I have a No 7 I'm tidying up at the moment. Rest assured if i do make it shine it will be purely for my own satisfaction and not for friction reduction. :wink:

 

[bugbear]

There's an explanation here topic68962.html though the thread gets boringly trolled later - I wouldn't bother past the first page!

What - the bits where your over generalised assertions are contradicted, with evidence and reasoning?

If you want a soapbox, get a blog. This is a discussion forum.

BugBear

 

[Jacob]

There's an explanation here topic68962.html though the thread gets boringly trolled later - I wouldn't bother past the first page!

What - the bits where your over generalised assertions are contradicted, with evidence and reasoning?

If you want a soapbox, get a blog. This is a discussion forum.

BugBear

You see what I mean! :lol: :lol:

 

[Graham Orm]

ENOUGH! This is MY thread and not another excuse to carry on an old and boring argument. Bog off somewhere else for your arguments.

 

[Corneel]

That's an interesting point of view. Who is the real owner of a thread? Maybe compare it with a real world situation, like a conversation in a pub.

Anyway, congratulations with your new #5.

 

[Graham Orm]

That's an interesting point of view. Who is the real owner of a thread? Maybe compare it with a real world situation, like a conversation in a pub.

Anyway, congratulations with your new #5.

Figure of speech, I just don't want to witness yet another protracted p***ing competition in a thread that I took the time to create.

Thanks.

 

[Graham Orm]

Well that seemed to work. (homer)