Moderators: Random Orbital Bob, nev, CHJ, Noel, Charley

 Reply
User avatar
By ZippityNZ
#1343029
My new $10 purchase arrived during the week, and after checking on rexmill.com I thought I had a Type 6 (1888-1892)

After a quick cleanup, I became more confused with its lineage. For example, I noticed a stamp that I had never seen before on the iron cap and the letter "S" on the plane's bottom, behind the frog.

The adjuster nut has a right-hand thread.

Maybe I have a "bitsa" :)

Type6.jpg


IronCap.jpg


Knob.jpg


AdjusterWheel2.jpg


LateralAdjustingLever.jpg
By Vann
#1343043
ZippityNZ wrote:...I noticed a stamp that I had never seen before on the iron cap and the letter "S" on the plane's bottom, behind the frog...

Do you also have the "S" on the base of the frog? And on the back of the lever cap?

Cheers, Vann.
By Vann
#1343084
From what I can see the base is Type 7.
The frog is Type 6 or 7. Probably Type 6 - but the RH thread seems out of place - are you sure it's RH?
It could be a transitional plane (using the last of the Type 6 bits on an early Type 7 base). Or it could be a bitsa.
Irons and lever-caps get swapped (so you can't base anything on them). But that cap-iron stamp "L Baileys Patent, Dec. 24, 1867" is as shown for a Type 5 (apparently in use from Type 1 to Type 5 and maybe beyond).

Don't stress too much about getting it to fit any type exactly (it's not worth loosing hair over). From what we can see it dates to the 1890s.

Enjoy.

Cheers, Vann.
User avatar
By ZippityNZ
#1343089
Thanks Vann.

You have confirmed for me what I thought from browsing rexmill :)

The right-hand thread on the adjuster nut has really got me wondering.

Still, once the blade has been sharpened, I think it will be a keeper.
User avatar
By G S Haydon
#1343118
I have just picked up a similar age plane and learned the "S" is because it was from the Sessions Foundry. I think I'm right in saying you'll see some UK and Stanley and Record Planes with "Q" for the Qualcast Foundry. Others will put me right if I'm off topic.

I like these planes, and my role will be saving them from being thrown away as the condition of the planes are so poor. In a question posed on another forum, people were asked what their favorite Stanley type was.

I learned after contributing that our UK post war Stanley planes look a bit different than the US types. I would say Stanley UK did a better job for longer. So much so I would say Stanley planes from the UK (up until the introduction of plastic handles) are my favorites. So much so I don't know what the fuss about the early Stanley planes aside from the joy of owning and using various tools.

It's likely I'm bias as I'm very used to my post war Stanleys. I'll try to post some photos of my Type 6/7 when I'm done.
User avatar
By AndyT
#1343122
Some good sense there from someone who earns his living as a joiner. It bugs me too when I see disparaging remarks repeated about all post war planes being rubbish. There was good stuff still being made in the 70s before so many UK factories were shut.
As for subcontracting the casting work, this certainly did happen. This thread provides a reminder that capacity to do that sort of work was not only in Sheffield.

stanley-planes-made-in-wolverhampton-t109749.html
User avatar
By thetyreman
#1343227
I have a similar era no4 and it's a very nice plane to use, great find there, I'd predict type 6/7 as well.
By D_W
#1343557
G S Haydon wrote:I learned after contributing that our UK post war Stanley planes look a bit different than the US types. I would say Stanley UK did a better job for longer. So much so I would say Stanley planes from the UK (up until the introduction of plastic handles) are my favorites. So much so I don't know what the fuss about the early Stanley planes aside from the joy of owning and using various tools.

It's likely I'm bias as I'm very used to my post war Stanleys. I'll try to post some photos of my Type 6/7 when I'm done.


I can't say much about US vs. UK, but my favorite smoother is this one (type 19 ? - odd beech modern handles that are rounded on top):
Image

The iron wasn't very good, but it wasn't difficult to find or make another better one.

I've had a lot of premium and infill smoothers, but none that I've ever liked better than this one for daily work.
User avatar
By G S Haydon
#1343624
Yes, ones like that are perfect, and in my opinion the best. Just having a large adjustment wheel is a big improvement over the earlier planes. It seems a type 19 is a type 19! My lateral adjustment lever is "nicer" but does not make the plane operate any better.
By D_W
#1343652
The adjuster on this plane is kind of loose in two dimensions and not just one, but it works OK. the wheel is great. After planing about 8-10 miles in an iron test last year, I like the precision of something like an LN plane for that, but the amount of friction above and beyond this plane is mind numbing. The sole of the LN plane got warm (despite waxing every 80 feet) and became very easy to wax during that test because it was something just above the melting point of paraffin. I'm not sure that's a target that one wants to shoot for!!