Stanley V Stanley

[Cordy]

oh what did we do before forums on the pc/

Well before forums and YouTube I knew nought about sharpening planes; the difference in various number models etc. or how to adjust them
This year I got interested in woodwork -- mainly trying things on a Scroll-saw

With my Veritas MK. II Honing Guide - sharpening is easy; I've even devised a method [with the Veritas] to sharpen my Stanley Spoke-Shave blades to perfection

God bless the internet and woodworking Forums :lol:

Cordy

 

[Carl P]

God bless the internet and woodworking Forums :lol:

Cordy

Amen to that!

Carl

 

[Corneel]

My sample is very small of course, but I have way more work into my newer planes then the old ones. In the old ones it is about repairing wear. I have been very lucky with the straightness of the soles of my pre WW1 #6 and #7. They didn't need any attention at all. While I have had some true banana's in newer UK made Stanleys

 

[Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)]

My Stanley bench planes currently include USA-made #4 1/2 Type 11, #7 Type 11, Bed Rocks #604 and #605, and a UK-made #3.

The ones that get frequent use are the #605, which is used as a jack with a 8" cambered blade, and the #604 and #3, both obviously smoothers. All these planes, including the others above, required fettling.

The #7 required the most work. It was quite hollow around the mouth, but after being lapped on a 1m long granite plate, it turned into a good user.

In general, the Stanley blades were better suited to softer woods. The local West Australian timber is high in silica and very abrasive. It is one of the reasons most here moved to A2 or HSS and, more recently, to PM-V11. The modern blades are a joy in tuning since they are flat, where I have always needed to spend a lot of time with Stanley blades. UK-made Stanley blades hold an edge less well than USA-made blades on the whole.

The Stanley I am most fond of is the UK #3. It was my late father-in-law's plane and was my introduction to handplanes 20 years ago. It didn't work very well, but in those early days I did not know better. Eventually, as I worked more hardwoods, I moved to high angle HNT Gordon planes.

When discussion on the chipbreaker effect began to filter through about 3 years ago, I returned to explore the potential of these Stanley planes afresh. I decided to give the #3 a total restoration: fettling of the sole and frog, and a Veritas PM-V11 blade and chipbreaker. It has turned into a smoother that is capable of planing the most interlocked grain. A wonderful plane, but it took a fair amount of work to make it such.

Regards from Perth

Derek

 

[MIGNAL]

Must have been a very slow filter Derek. I read of the chipbreaker effect 35 years ago!

 

[Mike.S]

Derek - nice looking no3. I bought one recently but time pressures mean it's still in my 'to be fettled' bucket of tools. Nice to know what can be done.

I prefer the older tools, for the reasons others have stated, but must confess my hollow plastic handled Stanley 'Handyman' (like a no4 - bought c1985) is an excellent smoother, performance wise - after it had been fettled.

 

[Downwindtracker2]

On the you never know file, a couple #4s, a late 1980s or early 1990s Footprint, wood tote and knob,frog adjustment screw, and shiny lever cap and a '49 American made Stanley, deluxe model. That Footprint was flat, square and the frog bedded in it it's seats. The Stanley was neither flat nor square.

 

[lurcher]

well i am going to say that marples outperform all old stanley planes from the start .
1 all marples/ sorby planes are of a better casting than the stanley and straight from the factory the blade is thicker as is the cap iron so no need to upgrade also the handles are set for sligthtly larger hands .
i would recomend this plane to you all if you see 1 buy it you will not be dissapointed honestly.

 

[Corneel]

Must have been a very slow filter Derek. I read of the chipbreaker effect 35 years ago!

You've been pretty slow too. It was first discussed 250 years ago.

 

[AndyT]

Talking of older discussions, this one might be of interest. It's from the Woodworker in 1978, commenting on the decline in quality of planes offered for sale and asking for a premium line to be introduced as an alternative.
(This is what Record did with their short lived Calvert Stevens range, at about this time I think, but as far as I know it didn't do them any good. )

I must be a very undiscerning woodworker or just a lucky one as I have had excellent results from my 1970s Stanley planes without having done anything special to them.

 

[Corneel]

I wonder how many people really used the capiron instead of just relying on a thin shaving and a sharp blade to mitigate tearout, while setting the capiron as a talisman close(ish) to the edge.

It's a bit like the tight mouth. "Everybody" knows that a tight mouth prevents tearout. But do they really know how tight? And do they know that the sole of the plane should be dead flat pressing on the wood just in front of the mouth (every antique plane has considerable wear in that spot)? A mouth wider then 0.2 mm is really not doing anything usefull anymore, so people are instead just relying on the sharp blade and the thin shaving while proclaiming that the mouth of a smoother should be tight.

Setting the capiron close to the edge was a well known method to prevent tearout. It was in all the books, so it had to be true. But I suspect not many knew how damned close it should really be to be effective. And setting a capiron very close leads often to shavings pressed under it or clogging in a less then perfectly configured plane mouth. In Europe most wood is bening enough to be planed without trouble if the blade is sharp enough and the shaving thin, but I understand that the wood in Australia presents troubles every day so dissapointment about the capiron was no surprise.

The best use of the capiron is while preparing stock by hand. It allows to take thicker, full length shavings without introducing deap tearout, even when the edge lost its initial keeness.

Just rambling, not directed at anyone personally.

 

[MIGNAL]

I rely much more on the close cap iron rather than a tight mouth. Setting the cap iron extremely close has it's problems though, it sometimes creeps right over the edge of the blade!

 

[Corneel]

Indeed! That's a bummer when it happens.

 

[Trafalgar]

I think we're creating horror scenarios of tearout and frustrated woodworkers where none really existed or are highly exaggerated; that or somebody needs to explain all the great furniture sitting in museums (Australia and New Zealand too!) whose surfaces look perfectly fine. It was doable, perhaps not by everybody but then cream always rises to the top in art as in any endeavor.

One must remember that stock was being totally hand prepped. The woodworker had easily identified problem areas well before he got to final finishing passes and so knew exactly where extra care was needed. And I would imagine, then as now, the sanest and most direct way to cope was to sharpen up, take very light shavings, and approach the problem areas from a different direction if need be. And sure, if they were using a double iron plane (would have been a woody in the period I'm talking about) they may have set the cap iron closer though on their smoother it was probably already pretty close and with a relatively tight mouth.

Moral: don't let the cap iron turn you into a one-trick pony.

I pity those who would sit there futzing and squinting a cap iron setting when all he needed to do was change the angle of planing by 15 degrees and viola.' That or make a pass or two with a scraper. You have to ask yourself as you're trying to make a one-tenth of one millimeter change in the closeness of a cap iron setting if that really represents efficiency or not. If the wood is tearing up all over the place then sure. A spot or two? Hell no. Scrape it, sand it, move on.

 

[MIGNAL]

Days of yore (circa 17 th, 18 th century) they would have likely turned to a toothing blade and/or scraper when faced with wood that is prone to tearout. I have a Cittern (like a mandolin) that dates from around 1760 and the toothing plane marks are all over the inside surfaces of the highly figured Maple. They didn't bother to scrape these marks off (they couldn't be seen) although it's obvious that they cleaned these off on the outside surface. So there we have it, real evidence that they were using methods to deal with tearout. It was obviously a very fine toothed blade, more like the type you find on preping for veneer. I suppose it had to be fine as they had to glue wooden struts on to this surface.
I suppose the true smoothing plane is really quite a specialist plane, rather than a plane that someone reaches for to 'plane a bit of wood'. It actually doesn't see that much use in my workshop, even though I use a fair amount of hard and figured woods. Either the Jack or a No.4 size sees much more use, the 4 not really set up as a super smoother.

 

[Trafalgar]

Toothing is certainly another viable option on solid stock and if one does any veneering at all, given today's very thin veneers, then scraping and very fine sanding as final treatment is essentially mandatory. It doesn't result in a substandard surface, unless somebody can manage to find fault here:

http://pollaro.com/portfolio/art_deco/

I'm confident that this work goes out the door with blemish-free surfaces and finishes.

If it works on these highly figured veneers then it will certainly work on whatever solid stock is on one's bench at the moment.

I fear that anybody throwing a lot time, expense, and general fuss at the 'tearout problem' is scratching an itch that only tangentially has anything to do with woodworking. I don't think that 'the trade' has been flummoxed by any of this for at least 250 years.

 

[JohnPW]

Back on topic!

I've got a 1930 Stanley no 6 (USA made with the keyhole lever cap) and the first thing I noticed about it was it was surprisingly light, it's about 300g lighter than my 1950s Record no 6. Compared with my later Stanleys (all UK made) it seems more finely made, with smoother surfaces.

 

[Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)]

John

That sounds right to me. About 20 years ago I had a 1950 UK-made Stanley #4 1/2. It had thick walls and was heavy. I sold it to replace with a USA-made# 4 1/2 Type 11 (because it was reputed to be "better"). It actually never felt as good at the UK-made plane. You'd think I would have learned from this, but I sold a UK-made #7, which was the like new with the hands-down best Rosewood handles I have ever seen, that performed like a dream, for a USA-made Type 11 .. also because of the reputation for being "the best". Well it was not even close to that. Took a lot of work to lap out the hollow at the mouth. Live and learn.

Regards from Perth

Derek

 

[David C]

I found the decline of UK Stanley bench planes to be well established by 1972.

When I trained, I was furnished with a completely unusable 4 1/2, poor 5 1/2 and poor no.7.

I had many students over the years and we had irrefutable experience of further decline. (Occasionally a plane was almost usable, there was variability of the awfulness.)

Somewhere about 2000 or so Stanley in Sheffield gave me a number 5, whose sole is so hollow in length that it is incapable of planing a straight edge. It had been dressed on an extra coarse linisher or belt sander and the throat machining was a masterpiece of cost cutting.

The factory shut not long after.

The blades were like cheese as well and hardly capable of planing exotic timbers. The arrival of Ron Hock was a huge leap forward.

best wishes,
David

 

[Trafalgar]

You're giving away your age, David :wink:

At that point (1972) Stanley USA was likely no better and maybe worse.