Stanley Plane Advice for New Member
Welcome! / Forums / General Woodworking Discussions / Tools and Tool Maintenance/Restoration / Stanley Plane Advice for New Member
Tagged: Stanly Plane Restoration
- This topic has 6 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 6 years, 9 months ago by Larry Geib.
-
AuthorPosts
-
Hi everyone,
I am a newbie here. I have always been a “handy” man and a very “do it yourself” type of guy but have strayed away from woodworking (beyond anything simple and basic) because of the great expense and time associated with the overwhelming amount of power tools needed to build even something like a coffee table. When I stumbled across Paul Sellers method of simplicity I was hooked on the idea. I have been watching his videos for about 6 months now and finally have been able to put aside some time to take action and get my hands dirty. My goal is to assemble the tools needed to build a the Sellers workbench and go from there. I took Sellers advice from his plane restoration video about any Stanley / Bailey plane being able to be restored and bought a real junker for a good price. I have gone about restoring it and now have some questions for some more experienced people.
First: I am curious about which type plane I actually have. Everything on the plane leads me to believe that it is a type 16 except for one curiosity… it has no frog adjustment screw. I was wondering if 1) anyone can identify this plane, and 2) whether this is adequate as an all-around no. 4 even though it has no frog-adjustment screw.
Second: It has some significant pitting and I am wondering if this will be detrimental to performance. Someone obviously has attempted to paint it in the past and I have had to remove a lot of paint to try and restore it (the whole frog was covered in paint).
Third: I don’t know what I should be looking for. If anything odd stands out to anyone please let me know. I can see that the iron is a non-original as it just says “Made in Canada.” I assume there’s nothing wrong with that? I think it was new because it had a really nasty caked-on yellow film all over it that I had to sand off.
I have bought everything needed to restore it including a perfectly flat piece of granite from woodcraft. So far I’m enjoying the process but just wanted some advice from anyone offering their time! Thanks in advance!
Steven
Attachments:
You must be logged in to view attached files.1) I don’t know what type you have, but as to whether or not it is adequate, the only answer is if it performs adequately.
2) The pitting on the face of the frog isn’t optimal, but as long as the face of the frog is co-planar and you can get a good seat for the blade, it’s probably OK. The pitting on the wing isn’t optimal, but if you’re not using it for shooting then as long as you have ensured that you’ve stopped any active rust it’s probably not an issue.
If you are using it for shooting (and that’s the side that goes down…IOW you’re a righty), then you just want to ensure that the pitting hasn’t compromised the strength of the wing and that the wing is dead square (as Paul might say) to the sole.
3) What you should be looking for are good results. Will the plane, with the blade properly sharpened and set, take a full-width, .001″ thick shaving from hardwood? If so, then all is probably well. You didn’t post a picture of the most important part — the sole — so I’m assuming that’s in great shape, which is good news.
There are a lot of little things that might need tweaking for optimal performance, and there are some small things that can go wrong, but those can be addressed as they surface during your time using the plane. Right off the start, just get the plane clean, free of rust, flatten the sole (if needed), sharpen the iron and take it for a test drive. The performance of the plane will tell you if you need to take any further action.
If you feel the need to fettle, Mitch Peacock has a long and detailed video about setting up a flea-market Stanley which has a lot of good tips: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZtfS-EMtBho&t=2139s
Edmund,
Thanks for the reply. I have no plans to use a shooting board in the immediate future but I will keep that in mind. I had meant to post a picture of the sole, I’ll attach one here though. It is pretty good relative to the wing, with only minor pitting, so I hope that’s alright.
I’m getting my honing guide in tomorrow and as soon as I do I’ll sharpen it up and see how it preforms. Thanks for the advice.
Steven
Attachments:
You must be logged in to view attached files.It all looks perfectly “restoreable” to me. Other than the minor pitting and the reddish Jappaning (I’m a fan of traditional black), I don’t see anything that would suggest you don’t have your hands on a perfectly good #4 that shouldn’t require too much effort from you to get tuned up nicely. Not sure about the frog adjustment screw on your particular #4–I’m too ignorant to know what that means as far as which specific model you have but I don’t think it should be a big deal either way, provided you are able to mount the frog sturdily with the blade appropriately positioned at the mouth.
So get yourself some chisels and a saw and a bunch of harbor freight clamps and you should be ready to get started on the bench. Enjoy!
20 July 2017 at 12:13 am #313880Hey Steven, the plane is certainly a Stanley No 4 and looks fine. I have restored about a dozen Stanley planes over the last 18 months so I can address a few of your concerns.
1. No frog adjustment screw is no big deal. To be honest I don’t use them anyway as I line the frog up with the mouth by eye and feel then tighten the frog holding screws and I have to say it is very rare that I then need to adjust the frog again. I’ve never felt the need to move the frog back and forth; once set and once I’m happy with the way it works I leave it as is.
2. Pitting on the frog face doesn’t look nice but so long as the blade sits flat on the frog it won’t make a scrap of difference. I have a nice wide, flat file that I use to lightly run across the face to remove any high points – they are the problem. You’ll see where the file ‘hits’ the surface – you should get a nice sheen across the entire face (except the pits but don’t worry about them).
3. The pitting on the side and sole, once again, don’t look great but won’t affect how the plane performs. As Edmund points out, deep pitting will weaken the wings but so long as you avoid the temptation of throwing the plane across the room when you do something wrong it should be fine 🙂
I have a plane (Stanley No 6) that is in far worse condition than yours and is my second favourite behind the No 4. I use it as a ‘jack’ plane; I do a lot of hand planing of stock so I pile up the timber and have the No 4 and the No 6 beside me and off I go – couple of hours of that and I don’t need to go to the gym for a month 🙂
Welcome to the community and I hope you enjoy your woodworking as much as the rest of us.
20 July 2017 at 7:37 am #313887Steven.
I don’t think you have a type16, but rather a plane very near the end of Stanley production. The red color is a first clue, as Stanley brilliantly decided that painting planes red and blue would miraculously boost sales sometime in the 60’s. The lateral adjuster with the folded end instead of with a two piece construction and that it has an open instead of solid rivet holding it on also smacks of a type 20-21. So does the two piece wishbone depth adjuster instead of a cast one. And lastly, the totes of indeterminate wood ( birch?) stained rather light is also late.
And at the very end of production, Stanley stopped installing the frog adjuster screw ( as they did on some type 17’s during WWII).
My plane doesn’t have one either.And the rounded cutter tops started appearing in the 1950’s.
I started building boats in 1960 at age 12, and my dad uncharacteristically bought me a brand new one of these beauties to get help me along, once it was clear I had a passion. I still have the plane and despite its somewhat crude devolvement from the Stanley norm it can be fettled into a fine working plane. I used it all through my career as a my day box plane and fettled it up a notch every few years. It functions just as well as some antiques I consider more aesthetically pleasing that never left my shop.
I did strip the odd color ( mine was blue) at some stage and painted it engine black. I just couldn’t look at the day-glo blue any longer.
( I also have a 60 1/2 block plane in that same red from the 60’s. )
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.