There's nothing like a nice low knob.....
- Thread starter memzey
- Start date
Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:
Was it bugbear earlier on who said something about moving the frog back and measuring it? I'd move it flush with the bottom of the casting and *leave it there* regardless of whether or not the iron fits. Even with a thin iron, precisely because the more escapement room you have in a stanley plane, the better it works across a range of shavings (none of them have a garish large mouth that's likely to catch on the ends of the boards.
Being that I haven't bought anything but a complete stanley plane in a long time, I went out to peebay and there literally is not one single decent shape 2 3/8 inch vintage iron that I could find. That's very disheartening!!
Being that I haven't bought anything but a complete stanley plane in a long time, I went out to peebay and there literally is not one single decent shape 2 3/8 inch vintage iron that I could find. That's very disheartening!!
bugbear
Established Member
MIGNAL":25ntrkmg said:
A broken #4 1/2 is the most likely cheap donor.
BugBear
Yes, I mentioned the 4 because I bought one recently with a cracked casting. Salvaged the frog, blade, lever cap and chipbreaker for £10. You'll pay a lot more than that if you tried to buy those items separately.
matthewwh
Established Member
Nice plane Memzey!
If you opt to go for a Ray Iles replacement make sure you get the RI023S (S for slim) rather than the standard RI023.
I've just measured the current stock and they are 2.3mm which should drop straight in, possibly with the need to back the frog up a smidgen if it is set close. Much of the stability benefit of a thicker iron can be achieved by fitting a beefier cap iron like the two piece Clifton or one piece Quangsheng, again with no modification required so you can swap the original irons back in if you ever need to return it to 100% original condition. I'm sure the 19th C Stanleys will continue to be sought after by collectors long into the future and that looks like a good honest original example.
I recently acquired a beautifully maintained Liberty Bell smoother, diabolical to use, but a stark illustration of just how much of an improvement Leonard Bailey's designs were on their immediate predecessors.
David,
Very glad to hear that your file-to-fit Y lever worked out so well - less than half a degree, that really is an astonishing success!
I thoroughly enjoyed your new drawer making DVD by the way, unlikely that I will achieve quite the same standards without a lot more practice but at least now I have an aiming point and a plan for how to get there.
If you opt to go for a Ray Iles replacement make sure you get the RI023S (S for slim) rather than the standard RI023.
I've just measured the current stock and they are 2.3mm which should drop straight in, possibly with the need to back the frog up a smidgen if it is set close. Much of the stability benefit of a thicker iron can be achieved by fitting a beefier cap iron like the two piece Clifton or one piece Quangsheng, again with no modification required so you can swap the original irons back in if you ever need to return it to 100% original condition. I'm sure the 19th C Stanleys will continue to be sought after by collectors long into the future and that looks like a good honest original example.
I recently acquired a beautifully maintained Liberty Bell smoother, diabolical to use, but a stark illustration of just how much of an improvement Leonard Bailey's designs were on their immediate predecessors.
David,
Very glad to hear that your file-to-fit Y lever worked out so well - less than half a degree, that really is an astonishing success!
I thoroughly enjoyed your new drawer making DVD by the way, unlikely that I will achieve quite the same standards without a lot more practice but at least now I have an aiming point and a plan for how to get there.
arnoldmason8
Established Member
Hi memzey
I have a Record 2 3/8" wide iron which is 0.085" (2mm) thick with good length left. A bit of surface rust but I am sure it would clean up OK.
Not sure what vintage it is.
Its yours if you would like to try it. Just PM me with your address and I will send it to you.
Regards---- Arnold
I have a Record 2 3/8" wide iron which is 0.085" (2mm) thick with good length left. A bit of surface rust but I am sure it would clean up OK.
Not sure what vintage it is.
Its yours if you would like to try it. Just PM me with your address and I will send it to you.
Regards---- Arnold
David C
In Memorium
Matthew,
Thank you.
NB I have a "nasty" habit of describing angle as minutes on the analogue clock.
Half a degree would be quite extraordinary. One and a half turns was converted to a bit less than half a turn.
Very pleased all the same.
David
Thank you.
NB I have a "nasty" habit of describing angle as minutes on the analogue clock.
Half a degree would be quite extraordinary. One and a half turns was converted to a bit less than half a turn.
Very pleased all the same.
David
Vann
Established Member
I prefer the analogue analogy. Half a degree? In my humble opinion that's a bogus measurement. One and a half turns is 540 degrees. 25 minutes is 150 degrees rotation of the wheel.David C":b1jnimkg said:
Does 30 minutes turn of the wheel = half a degree of tilt of the yoke? Possibly, but I doubt it's anywhere near that accurate.
I think the analogue clock analogy is a good habit David.
Cheers, Vann.
matt_southward
Established Member
Nice. I got a similar No 6 (which I dated to around 1888-90) and I love it - apart from the reverse adjustment thread! I'd love a 7 like it. I don't think I'd go for a Quangsheng replacement though as my experience of it on my 5 1/2 wasn't terrific. Unnecessarily thick IMO (causing the yoke problem) plus the blade I had was warped at the cutting edge. Next time I'd try Hock, Isles or Veritas I think.
Vann":217dt9l5 said:
1° = 60'
One Degree = Sixty Minutes [of arc]
1' = 60"
One Minute [of arc] = Sixty Seconds [of arc]
Thus whilst the minutes on a clock analogy is useful, it's also confusing as 25/60° is rather different from 150°.
I prefer the O'Clock notation, where 12 O'Clock is either directly forwards or directly upward depending on context... Less likely to be confused with Degrees-Minutes-Seconds notation, but has the same immediacy to its descriptive power as David's minute analogy.
memzey
Established Member
Thanks for the generous offer Arnold - I will send you a PM.
Thank you everyone else for your suggestions as well. Just to reiterate; I'm not after a newer style thicker iron as I don't think I'm experiencing any issues with my planing that it would resolve let alone any benefit that would outweigh the permanent change to the mouth and extended sharpening time it would need - sharpening currently takes me about 4 minutes from stopping planing to starting again and I don't wish to introduce any unnecessary delays into my work flow. My planing technique is bad enough as it is!
To those that wondered how usable the current iron is; there are some shavings that can be seen in my OP. It does or rather can be made to work for edge jointing but due to the nature of the pitting on the back (non-beveled) side of the iron I can't get good contact across the surface therefore full width shavings such as I need when truing the face of stock (I don't have a planer-thicknesser) are impossible.
Thank you everyone else for your suggestions as well. Just to reiterate; I'm not after a newer style thicker iron as I don't think I'm experiencing any issues with my planing that it would resolve let alone any benefit that would outweigh the permanent change to the mouth and extended sharpening time it would need - sharpening currently takes me about 4 minutes from stopping planing to starting again and I don't wish to introduce any unnecessary delays into my work flow. My planing technique is bad enough as it is!
To those that wondered how usable the current iron is; there are some shavings that can be seen in my OP. It does or rather can be made to work for edge jointing but due to the nature of the pitting on the back (non-beveled) side of the iron I can't get good contact across the surface therefore full width shavings such as I need when truing the face of stock (I don't have a planer-thicknesser) are impossible.
bugbear
Established Member
memzey":2mkla4ea said:
Do keep the old iron - if nothing else, you may one day need to remove some paint, and be glad of it.
BugBear
memzey
Established Member
Matt- I found the reverse threaded depth adjuster interesting at first too! First thoughts were "carp it doesn't work" but then remembered about the thread direction. If a period iron doesn't work out for me then I will probably go for a slim Isles from Matt at WH. Seems the best current bet and is probably the answer to my opening question!matt_southward":2ihmcpkt said:
Just a point to share with everyone; All my bench planes are vintage Stanleys, all work as they should after I sorted them out but this feels the best made of the lot. It has the least backlash and the most well cast frog and frog receiving casting and even retains most of its japanning.
