Tool restoration; how far should we go?

[MCB]

Whatever you do, it's not as if you've found a Leonard sketchpad and intend using it for shopping lists.
Being lazy I'd do the minimum and in this case it includes a protective coat against further rust. I like the look of the knobs but don't know if they would be uncomfortable.
Use it and enjoy it.

What's a Leonard sketchpad?

I think Phil was making a subtle reference to Leonardo da Vinci - a forward thinking engineer in Italy who also did a bit of painting.

I remember as a lad going to see the famous CARTOON (probably in the National Gallery) and thinking that it wasn't a proper cartoon because there were no speech bubbles!

There are a number of Leonardo's notebooks in the British Library - one can look at them on a computer screen which turns the pages.

MCB

 

[pitch pine]

I thought this Rapier 400 plane was junk when I picked it up. The sole looked corroded beyond repair. It had been fished out of the scrap metal at a local tip. I took pity on it (I live fairly close to Gateshead where it was made) and it is now a really nice plane. It looks to be of a better quality than some of the newer Stanleys etc. I did the "clean and fettle till it works" technique, and I like the look that comes with that. It was so filthy I thought the handles were tufnol, but I found wood under the grime. The surreal colours were added by my camera free of charge.

 

[Corneel]

PS if you can see that an item has been "restored", as distinct from repaired or maintained, then it's not been done well.

This!

I have meddled a bit in antique motorbikes. Usually the bikes I got were just too far gone and needed a complete overhaul, including striping paint etc. Somehow the end result never quite spoke to me as when I saw someone dragging an old bike from a barn and carefully repairing it, leaving the age and wear intact as much as possible. That's a tactic I use now with old tools. Luckily old tools in usefull condition are not very rare. This #8 plane I would carefully repair too. Scrub of the rust, leave the japanning as is, protect with linseed oil.

 

[D_W]

Since other people have shared their favorite minimalist methods, here's mine.

* deactivate any rust inside the casting with phosphoric acid (usually not necessary).
* Wash inside of casting with hot water and soap, dry thoroughly
* spray shellac (in a can) the inside of the casting and the outside of the frog
* oil the wood parts thoroughly to freshen them up and then wax them
* minimal cleaning to the sole and sides (only as necessary), sharpen the iron and go

The plane will look halfway , or three quarters, but if you ever decide you don't like your restore job, the shellac can be taken off with alcohol.

And it's quick.

 

[Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)]

* oil the wood parts thoroughly to freshen them up and then wax them

Be cautious here, if this is used in the context of handles. Any oil on Rosewood will cause it to darken (near black) and lose all wood grain. You cannot undo this.

Just wax alone is sufficient to clean and preserve.

Regards from Perth

Derek

 

[AndyT]

On the specific topic of painting planes, I would never recommend it, and would always advise halting the aging process rather than trying to reverse it. With a neglected tool I ask myself what things a careful owner would have done at the end of the working day. I think it would be little more than removing any stray rust, keeping moving parts free, removing dirt, sharpening cutting edges and possibly oiling or waxing wooden parts.

I think that if an iron plane has lost its black finish, it should just stay looking old, not be made to look like a new one, just as I don't dye my grey hair or add a toupee to cover up the thin spot. Why make a plane from the 1880s look like one from the 1980s?

Another reason to leave well alone is that on most metal planes, as far as I know, the finish was not paint and cannot be matched by anything brushed on readymade from a tin. As Derek says, the original "japanning" can be more nearly matched with a mixture of asphaltum and varnish if you really want to, and have access to hot sunshine to cure it.

Also, for anything other than black, repainting brings the extra problem of matching the colour. Record, for example, used several different shades of blue at different periods. Which one should you choose?

These generalisations don't fit so well in the case of a common tool of no historical interest which has been rescued from severe neglect so that it can be put to use. But deciding what is of no historical interest is difficult - the only accurate test cannot be made until a future time, looking back.

 

[D_W]

There are high solids paints sold over here that look pretty good when they go on planes, but the biggest problem I've had with them is that without anything over them, if a stray iron corner hits them, it chews the paint right off.

If I should ever run into a plane again that needs more than shellac (needs being an interesting word), I will probably paint it an odd color of high solids paint and then spray shellac on top of it to give it depth and some additional durability.

If something is like "75%" japanning, though, spraying on spray can shellac goes a long way in making it look better and preventing future rust.

That was something I saw (the shellac tip) on an old vhs video that ernie conover put together. On planes that never lay on their side, a very thin coat of padded shellac on fresh cheeks (if it's necessary to lap them to remove rust) also goes a long way toward limiting maintenance and nuisance rust. I never want a fresh metal surface on any plane, except for on the sole, unless I can't help it. It's a rust magnet, and time spent chasing rust on tools is a complete waste.

 

[shed9]

Not sure that No 8 is a Stanley.

 

[D_W]

Looks like an early type stanley with a replacement iron. The adjuster looks stanley.

Of all of the planes that end up with oddball parts, probably the 2 1/4" size 5 1/2s and the #8s are at the top of the list (at least here in the states).

 

[Bod]

Not sure that No 8 is a Stanley.

Interesting comment.
I have a No.6, identical to what you would expect from an early Stanley, except "Stanley" is not marked anywhere.
Mine has no makers mark anywhere. Though to be maybe Swedish or German copy of a pre 1930 Stanley.

Bod

 

[ED65]

Going back to if you can see something is restored it's not done well briefly, we should be careful about applying a standard from another area to tools.

Obviously tools are a very different thing, but even in the antiques world there is no one set level of acceptable restoration. What's not generally desirable with furniture is not only okay in ceramics, it's actively desired. Same story with European swords versus Japanese swords where restoration kills value in the one case but maintains or greatly enhances value in the other.

 

[ED65]

Wash inside of casting with hot water and soap, dry thoroughly

That's nearly the first time I've read of someone washing an old tool which is something I've started to do. Rinsing in mineral spirits/white spirit seems to be the default recommendation these days and it's smelly, oily work and at the end of the day much less effective if the goal is thorough degreasing.

There are high solids paints sold over here that look pretty good when they go on planes, but the biggest problem I've had with them is that without anything over them, if a stray iron corner hits them, it chews the paint right off.

Is this even with curing them hard by baking in a warm oven?

 

[AndyT]

Going back to if you can see something is restored it's not done well briefly, we should be careful about applying a standard from another area to tools.

Obviously tools are a very different thing, but even in the antiques world there is no one set level of acceptable restoration. What's not generally desirable with furniture is not only okay in ceramics, it's actively desired. Same story with European swords versus Japanese swords where restoration kills value in the one case but maintains or greatly enhances value in the other.

And for another extreme case - there are people doing "restoration projects" on historic wooden boats - in which they replace every rotten plank! The only original parts are some iron fittings. Ok, each new plank is cut to match the one it is replacing, but none of the original surface - which is what anyone sees when viewing the finished job - is actually original.

I don't think we can apply that thinking to tools...

 

[ED65]

That's the "Ship of Theseus" paradox, and yes I don't think we can apply that to tools!

 

[Jacob]

Going back to if you can see something is restored it's not done well briefly, we should be careful about applying a standard from another area to tools.

Obviously tools are a very different thing, but even in the antiques world there is no one set level of acceptable restoration. What's not generally desirable with furniture is not only okay in ceramics, it's actively desired. Same story with European swords versus Japanese swords where restoration kills value in the one case but maintains or greatly enhances value in the other.

And for another extreme case - there are people doing "restoration projects" on historic wooden boats - in which they replace every rotten plank! The only original parts are some iron fittings. Ok, each new plank is cut to match the one it is replacing, but none of the original surface - which is what anyone sees when viewing the finished job - is actually original.

I don't think we can apply that thinking to tools...

Yebbut replacing rotten planks is necessary maintenance or it'd sink, even if the whole thing is replaced bit by bit.
How do you "restore" ceramics other than by mending; gluing together broken pots?

 

[D_W]

Wash inside of casting with hot water and soap, dry thoroughly

That's nearly the first time I've read of someone washing an old tool which is something I've started to do. Rinsing in mineral spirits/white spirit seems to be the default recommendation these days and it's smelly, oily work and at the end of the day much less effective if the goal is thorough degreasing.

There are high solids paints sold over here that look pretty good when they go on planes, but the biggest problem I've had with them is that without anything over them, if a stray iron corner hits them, it chews the paint right off.

Is this even with curing them hard by baking in a warm oven?

the high solids paints that I've used don't require anything other than time to cure in a dry area. The issue has been that they have dried too hard, as opposed to too soft.

It probably varies by paint, as I've heard other folks say they've had good experience with paint and didn't notice it to be fragile.

 

[shed9]

Looks like an early type stanley with a replacement iron. The adjuster looks stanley.

Of all of the planes that end up with oddball parts, probably the 2 1/4" size 5 1/2s and the #8s are at the top of the list (at least here in the states).

I concede it may be a Stanley, but I didn't think Stanley cast 8's with the number on the toe.

Though to be maybe Swedish or German copy of a pre 1930 Stanley.

I think it's a copy myself not it would detract in any shape or form from the plane if were not a Stanley. I love the low knob varieties whatever the flavour.

In regards to the original query on what to do with it, personally I would remove any rust, rub a protector on it, check it is actually flat (and remedy if not) then put a modern thick blade in it - something like a Hock.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

That's the "Ship of Theseus" paradox, and yes I don't think we can apply that to tools!

Or commonly "Trigger's broom"

 

[Jacob]

That's the "Ship of Theseus" paradox, and yes I don't think we can apply that to tools!

I've had old woodies where the blade, cap iron, half the body, have all been replaced. Not much original except the handles and the wedge. Not restoration just maintenance.

 

[D_W]

Looks like an early type stanley with a replacement iron. The adjuster looks stanley.

Of all of the planes that end up with oddball parts, probably the 2 1/4" size 5 1/2s and the #8s are at the top of the list (at least here in the states).

I concede it may be a Stanley, but I didn't think Stanley cast 8's with the number on the toe.

Though to be maybe Swedish or German copy of a pre 1930 Stanley.

I think it's a copy myself not it would detract in any shape or form from the plane if were not a Stanley. I love the low knob varieties whatever the flavour.

In regards to the original query on what to do with it, personally I would remove any rust, rub a protector on it, check it is actually flat (and remedy if not) then put a modern thick blade in it - something like a Hock.

Early types with the low knob like that one had the number cast in the toe.