shed9
establiSHED member
D_W":3sayd96q said:
I thought that was only true for sizes up to a number 4 and 5 and above numbered on the heel for that era of plane.
Tool restoration; how far should we go?
- Thread starter memzey
- Start date
Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:
I thought that was only true for sizes up to a number 4 and 5 and above numbered on the heel for that era of plane.
shed9":y0tz0koq said:
Sorry, early types of the no 8 - i just don't know when they changed and went to the back of the plane. Maybe type 10 or 11? I'm no fanatical stanley historian, I only care that a stanley plane isn't broken if I'm in need of one.
memzey
Established Member
Hi everyone. Thanks for all your comments so far which I have been reading with great interest. First off I'd like to say it is definitely a Stanley albeit a very early one; type 6 or so I'd say which puts it in the mid-1880's or thereabouts. I do understand the confusion given the lack of obvious markings. There are markings however which do establish its provenance:
Under the tote:
On the lever cap:
On the frog:
In fact I think everything on it is original bar the iron which is made in England and probably from the 60's.
A number of people have hit on one of the main points of clarification for me and that is this; as we partly determine the extent of restoration that is appropriate for an item by its rarity, how rare should we consider a ~130 year old No. 8 to be? I've not seen too many No. 8s of any age before let alone one of this age so I'm not going to be much help in that I'm afraid. Can I put that one out there for your thoughts as well please?
Under the tote:
On the lever cap:
On the frog:
In fact I think everything on it is original bar the iron which is made in England and probably from the 60's.
A number of people have hit on one of the main points of clarification for me and that is this; as we partly determine the extent of restoration that is appropriate for an item by its rarity, how rare should we consider a ~130 year old No. 8 to be? I've not seen too many No. 8s of any age before let alone one of this age so I'm not going to be much help in that I'm afraid. Can I put that one out there for your thoughts as well please?
shed9
establiSHED member
memzey, with the S foundry stamp it is likely to be a type 7 which would place between 1893 and 1899.
That's rarer than most low knob 8's but not so rare that anyone is going to berate you should you decide a full restore or none at all. Personally unless a full restore is spot on, it will in my opinion lose it's character.
That's rarer than most low knob 8's but not so rare that anyone is going to berate you should you decide a full restore or none at all. Personally unless a full restore is spot on, it will in my opinion lose it's character.
memzey
Established Member
Oh and a bit of progress to report as well; I attacked the the knob with some microcrystalline wax as per the good professors' recommendation:
I think it has really brought out the figure and patina in the wood, not to mention a few battle scars to boot. I couldn't do the tote as I was gluing it up tonight - it was cracked into two.
I think it has really brought out the figure and patina in the wood, not to mention a few battle scars to boot. I couldn't do the tote as I was gluing it up tonight - it was cracked into two.
memzey
Established Member
Thanks Shed. I think you are right - it is probably a type 7 given the foundry castings and other details. I am leaning towards some kind of sympathetic paint job that won't look out of place on a tool of this age. I don't want it to look like new just well cared for - and most all I want it to stop depositing crusty detritus on my hands every time I touch it!shed9":ewyrwjpa said:
Dredging my memory a bit here but one methodology is replacement of voids or missing pieces with epoxy, repainting of missing decoration with oil paints or alkyds, re-glazing any areas that need it with "cold glaze" set using a UV light.Jacob":12g0xw8l said:
The desired effect in some cases is a like-new condition where no signs of damage or ageing are seen any longer. And if done right the piece keeps the 'ring' of an unbroken piece so it hides that a repair was done in that way too.
Thanks for the clarification, I was assuming you meant it was too soft not too hard. Obviously there's a middle ground between those, tough, and the best modern paints (requiring baking on not) apparently get the balance just right as they are as durable as one would hope for.D_W":3slfttox said:
So, summarising so far, I think the position is this:
The plane is early - well over a century old - and not common. No 8s are an unusual choice at any period.
Number 8s in general are not super-rare, so they generally sell as a user-tool for a discerning user, looking for something cheaper than a new number 8 - a LN - is currently £366 at Axminster. (Looking at old (but not early) No 8s, I see that OldTools have a Record No 8 at £130 and a StaySet at £220 - obviously both newer than yours but cosmetically nicer).
However, I am in no way an expert on the huge, complicated world of Stanley collecting - there may be something special about yours which makes it worth three times as much, for all I know. (I'm too tight even to buy the big fat John Walker book for Stanley obsessives which lists all the variant details and gives values!)
So, if you did do a radical renovation (including repainting) there is a risk that you could hugely reduce the possible value of your plane. That's the value to someone else, but judging from your post here maybe the value to you too - your old No 7 looks to be in lovely, aged condition -
and I guess you'd like your No 8 to look similar? I think it's what you should aim for!
The main problem with the plane is that you say the finish is flaking off and it is "depositing crusty detritus" on your hands. So, the least invasive route is to stop the flaking. As D_W has said, shellac will stick to what is there, stop the flaking, leave the appearance little altered and be reversible.
Or as Jacob suggests, thinned boiled linseed oil will do the same, though it will be a bit harder to reverse. [I've used linseed oil myself with great success on my old lathe and drilling machine and like the look it produces.]
You probably need to scrub off any really loose bits with an old toothbrush first, and just accept their loss. It's hard to see if there is any rust to speak of on the black parts, but if there is, then a gentle rub with very fine wire wool will get enough of it off to allow the shellac or oil to stick. Alternatively, Garryflex blocks are good - you will probably need to cut one into little bits to get into the corners.
How bad is the finish really?
The plane is early - well over a century old - and not common. No 8s are an unusual choice at any period.
Number 8s in general are not super-rare, so they generally sell as a user-tool for a discerning user, looking for something cheaper than a new number 8 - a LN - is currently £366 at Axminster. (Looking at old (but not early) No 8s, I see that OldTools have a Record No 8 at £130 and a StaySet at £220 - obviously both newer than yours but cosmetically nicer).
However, I am in no way an expert on the huge, complicated world of Stanley collecting - there may be something special about yours which makes it worth three times as much, for all I know. (I'm too tight even to buy the big fat John Walker book for Stanley obsessives which lists all the variant details and gives values!)
So, if you did do a radical renovation (including repainting) there is a risk that you could hugely reduce the possible value of your plane. That's the value to someone else, but judging from your post here maybe the value to you too - your old No 7 looks to be in lovely, aged condition -
and I guess you'd like your No 8 to look similar? I think it's what you should aim for!
The main problem with the plane is that you say the finish is flaking off and it is "depositing crusty detritus" on your hands. So, the least invasive route is to stop the flaking. As D_W has said, shellac will stick to what is there, stop the flaking, leave the appearance little altered and be reversible.
Or as Jacob suggests, thinned boiled linseed oil will do the same, though it will be a bit harder to reverse. [I've used linseed oil myself with great success on my old lathe and drilling machine and like the look it produces.]
You probably need to scrub off any really loose bits with an old toothbrush first, and just accept their loss. It's hard to see if there is any rust to speak of on the black parts, but if there is, then a gentle rub with very fine wire wool will get enough of it off to allow the shellac or oil to stick. Alternatively, Garryflex blocks are good - you will probably need to cut one into little bits to get into the corners.
How bad is the finish really?
Bod
Established Member
Maybe an e-mail to Patrick Leach [[email protected]] asking how common these No8's are, and what would kill the value for resale.
Don't expect him to give a value though, he's based in America.
Bod
Don't expect him to give a value though, he's based in America.
Bod
They're plenty common in the states, and one that was refurbished reasonably well would bring a lot more money than an original in the states.
the big threat with a #8 at this point is they are no more capable than a #7 BUT if you get one with a broken frog, a broken lever cap, or an unexpectedly bad iron and cap iron, it is much harder to find the parts for a reasonable amount of money.
And the fact that they really aren't worth that much unless they're in top shape makes it undesirable to spend the money to make a mediocre plane still look mediocre but work OK.
Same goes for 5 1/2s that have the 2 1/4" iron. They're not worth any more, but they are a lot more trouble to find parts for.
the big threat with a #8 at this point is they are no more capable than a #7 BUT if you get one with a broken frog, a broken lever cap, or an unexpectedly bad iron and cap iron, it is much harder to find the parts for a reasonable amount of money.
And the fact that they really aren't worth that much unless they're in top shape makes it undesirable to spend the money to make a mediocre plane still look mediocre but work OK.
Same goes for 5 1/2s that have the 2 1/4" iron. They're not worth any more, but they are a lot more trouble to find parts for.
memzey
Established Member
Proff; you are spot on. The kind of finish that the No.7 has is exactly what I'd like to achieve here (I'm almost embarrassed to mention that plane as it begs the obvious question "why do you need a No.8 if you alrea have a No.7" to which I have no sensible answer).
Bod: I was with Patrick last week - I should have asked him really. Maybe I should send him a link to this thread to solicit his opinion. Not that the opinions of those here are in anyway undervalued it's just that Patrick is a bit of a guru on these things!
Bod: I was with Patrick last week - I should have asked him really. Maybe I should send him a link to this thread to solicit his opinion. Not that the opinions of those here are in anyway undervalued it's just that Patrick is a bit of a guru on these things!
shed9
establiSHED member
D_W":1s4oj03k said:
Agree D_W, I see plenty of 8's on US Ebay although mostly corrugated bases. Never used a corrugated base myself - does it offer any real advantage?
As for any advantage an 8 will have over a 7, I totally agree that you can pretty much achieve the same with either tool. The difference however is preference - some people prefer the extra size and mass of the 8 over an 7.
No, no real advantage (the corrugated). I'd rather have a plane without it - it's less common for a reason.
The biggest advantage in making a plane easier to push is paraffin wax. it does 20 to 1 what any corrugations would ever do.
At one point, I had ....3 8s (two stanleys and a lie nielsen). I recall the interest in them back then was just that they were bigger, and I think that's why most people prefer them. It's another instance where the collector and amateur market gets fascinated with tools for a different reason than professionals did.
But as hobbyists or professionals these days where power tools rule most of the work, extra weight is not so much of a detriment and whatever pleases us is what we should get.
The biggest advantage in making a plane easier to push is paraffin wax. it does 20 to 1 what any corrugations would ever do.
At one point, I had ....3 8s (two stanleys and a lie nielsen). I recall the interest in them back then was just that they were bigger, and I think that's why most people prefer them. It's another instance where the collector and amateur market gets fascinated with tools for a different reason than professionals did.
But as hobbyists or professionals these days where power tools rule most of the work, extra weight is not so much of a detriment and whatever pleases us is what we should get.
Benchwayze
Established Member
If I am going to restore a tool, I like to get it into at least a usable condition, to see if it's worth the whole hog. Like the Record five-and-a-half I have, which is in need of attention. (it's been painted green for a start) It looks like it will be worth it. Now I must find the time and inclination to do it.
(hammer)
(hammer)
memzey
Established Member
Hi again gang,
I have been working on the tool some more and have successfully de-rusted the lever cap and cap iron. Struggling slightly to get a good edge on the iron though as it's massive and I have never sharpened an iron that big before. I'll get the hang of it though. I did manage to glue the tote back together but I had to use PU glue which left a bit of a visible glue line. Does anyone have a tip on dressing that up? I'll post up some photos when I get home tonight. I started lapping the sole last night - 2' of cast iron back and forth over sandpaper stuck to float glass; who needs to go to the gym anyway?
With regards to the finish; the more I live with it like this, the more I want to apply some paint to it. I think I have settled on that as my course of action I just need to establish the right way of doing it. Something that will result in a surface that looks more like my equally old No. 7 than a new and shiny thing. I will give this some more thought....
I have been working on the tool some more and have successfully de-rusted the lever cap and cap iron. Struggling slightly to get a good edge on the iron though as it's massive and I have never sharpened an iron that big before. I'll get the hang of it though. I did manage to glue the tote back together but I had to use PU glue which left a bit of a visible glue line. Does anyone have a tip on dressing that up? I'll post up some photos when I get home tonight. I started lapping the sole last night - 2' of cast iron back and forth over sandpaper stuck to float glass; who needs to go to the gym anyway?
With regards to the finish; the more I live with it like this, the more I want to apply some paint to it. I think I have settled on that as my course of action I just need to establish the right way of doing it. Something that will result in a surface that looks more like my equally old No. 7 than a new and shiny thing. I will give this some more thought....
Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)
Established Member
Hi memzey
Have you stripped all finish from the handles? If you wish to hide the glue lines, you probably need to do this, and then stain the wood. A dark walnut or rosewood would probably do the trick.
With regards paint, several coats of engine enamel will do a pretty good job of mimicking the original finish. Just make sure you strip all the original paint first (paint stripper), otherwise it will be lumpy and horrible ..
This was in bad shape to start (and why I picked it up cheaply) ...
Regards from Perth
Derek
Have you stripped all finish from the handles? If you wish to hide the glue lines, you probably need to do this, and then stain the wood. A dark walnut or rosewood would probably do the trick.
With regards paint, several coats of engine enamel will do a pretty good job of mimicking the original finish. Just make sure you strip all the original paint first (paint stripper), otherwise it will be lumpy and horrible ..
This was in bad shape to start (and why I picked it up cheaply) ...
Regards from Perth
Derek
memzey
Established Member
Nice job Derek! No I haven't stripped the tote or the last of the paint from the casting. If I were going for an "as new" look I'd definitely go down the engine enamel path - that Bedrock looks awesome. As it is I want a bit more of a patinated result - If I could get it to look exactly like my No. 7 I'd be dead chuffed. The finish on that has dulled to a semi-gloss kind of hue and is thin enough in some places for bare metal so be seen (such as over the "No. 7"casting and around the edges). I picked up a small tin of black Hammerite satin straight to metal paint last night which I think thinned down appropriately might just work. I will experiment on some unsuspecting bit of metal tonight and see how it goes. As for the glue line I wondered if one of those coloured wax sticks might work? Has anyone tried that on a PU glue line before?
Do you have a lot of material to remove to clear some pitting at the edge?memzey":3lifk3hp said:
If not a wide iron from a bevel-down plane shouldn't take any real time longer to sharpen than a narrower one because you don't have to touch the whole bevel surface if you don't want to. Just form a small secondary bevel at a steeper angle, anywhere from 2-10°, and call it done.
Why did you feel you had to? Would normal wood glue not suffice? Apparently PVA glues can make for a stronger bond despite Gorilla's marketing claims in the past, assuming the glue line is very thin as it should be.memzey":3lifk3hp said:
If you were gap filling then PU is poor for that and epoxy is the glue of choice for most of us, and it can be easily coloured lighter or darker if needed.
The PU glue line is flush with the surface presumably? Filler won't have any effect in that case.memzey":3lifk3hp said:
I think your three options are: living with the visible glue line; staining the wood to match the glue line; overcoating the handle with something that'll hide the glue line (e.g. button polish).
memzey
Established Member
Thanks ED,
I don't have any trouble sharpening edge tools normally. I do it quickly and with little fuss on some old oil stones I have. Every other plane iron or chisel I have is sharpened in the same way and they can all shave hairs off my arm. The iron on a No. 8 is just that bit bigger than I have used before which won't be a problem by the time I've done it a couple of times I'm sure. I did have to lap the non-bevel side a bit to clear some pitting but that part is quite straight forward as the iron is run face done along the lengths of the stones. The tricky bit is that the stones are only 2" wide but the iron is 2 5/8". Not a problem though, like I said I'm sure I'll get the hang of it soon enough (at least I hope so).
Re; the glue up - I originally did glue it up with PVA (TB3) after giving the mating surfaces a rub down with acetone. It didn't take unfortunately so I took the PU route instead. This seems to have resulted in a successful join I just need to colour in the buff coloured glue line that has resulted. You are probably correct in that the proper way to treat that line is by treating the whole tote - I just wondered if there was something akin to a pencil that could be used to colour in PU as a bit of a cheat.
I don't have any trouble sharpening edge tools normally. I do it quickly and with little fuss on some old oil stones I have. Every other plane iron or chisel I have is sharpened in the same way and they can all shave hairs off my arm. The iron on a No. 8 is just that bit bigger than I have used before which won't be a problem by the time I've done it a couple of times I'm sure. I did have to lap the non-bevel side a bit to clear some pitting but that part is quite straight forward as the iron is run face done along the lengths of the stones. The tricky bit is that the stones are only 2" wide but the iron is 2 5/8". Not a problem though, like I said I'm sure I'll get the hang of it soon enough (at least I hope so).
Re; the glue up - I originally did glue it up with PVA (TB3) after giving the mating surfaces a rub down with acetone. It didn't take unfortunately so I took the PU route instead. This seems to have resulted in a successful join I just need to colour in the buff coloured glue line that has resulted. You are probably correct in that the proper way to treat that line is by treating the whole tote - I just wondered if there was something akin to a pencil that could be used to colour in PU as a bit of a cheat.
Similar threads
