1902 Stanley 41/2.

[Phil Pascoe]

I've turned replacement knobs larger and flatter across the top than the original and found them more comfortable to use. I use my tools and don't spend my life looking at them or worrying about their value as collector's pieces, so it doesn't matter that they are not as original.

 

[ED65]

Final smoothing on something round like this I'd scrape as much as I could, but where sanding is required I'd use strips of the same strong abrasive backed with duct tape (helps prevent snapping) used shoeshine-fashion, which really helps smoothing fair curves.

I use this stuff. http://cleanfit.com/abrasive_cloth_prof ... 0090.shtml
Sold as Clean Fit in the U.K and can be torn into narrow strips for the finer curves.

Thanks for that, new to me. I'll add it to the list of things to try out sometime.

The low rider front knob seems to be the key – to my hands at least. I am almost tempted to beg some time on a mates lathe and turn up some similar, at least for the four and the five – just to see how it works out.

If need be you can use a drill or bench drill to do rudimentary turning, either horizontally or on the vertical axis. A knob or two would be easily tackled this way. Worth making a cardboard template to check progress against if you want to get them consistent.

 

[Sam_Jack]

Last words on subject.

D’you know; the first ‘box’ I ever owned was made by a colliery joiner in 1956 – it followed me through boarding school and has been used to house and care for ‘items’ of interest for over 60 years now. Presently, it houses my modest collection of ‘old’ but functional bench planes and it cares for them very well. I care not that the latest handle on the 1902 Stanley does not quite ‘fit’ or; is not crafted in some ‘original’ wood. I care that when I open the box and reach for the old 41/2 that it functions. Back in the day, the cost of such an item was probably prohibitive to all but a craftsman on a good wage. Someone who ‘cut wood’ for a living and was, in all probability, very good at doing so.

I have no intention, whatsoever of ‘selling’ it along, nor, delusions of ‘improving’ the thing. As it sits now, with a new ‘accurately’ fashioned ‘tote’ it is, IMO, functional; it cuts wood. I smile every once a while, using the thing – perhaps the original owner guides my clumsy attempts at precision, simply because I cared enough to restore to working order a work tool on which he relied. You never know; but, I reckon that old plane has a magic above my humble skills. Makes me wonder – just a bit – of old spirits, old hands, old skills and, above all; at old school patience in setting the tool to rights, to do the job, quickly, efficiently and accurately.

I know, it’s a ramble; but that is a seriously good, working plane – now. Somehow, it just matters to me that a 60 y.o box and a 115 y.o plane made it this far, functional and effective. Who needs a ‘throw away’ society? Certainly, not I Aye, it’s the Guinness – but what is wrong with that?

 

[dickm]

Always get much the same feeling with my Spiers Coffin Smoother. It's worked hard all its life somewhere up here in North East Scotland, has all the scars, but it keeps on working.

 

[Sam_Jack]

Well. After ploughing my way, with a rapidly dulling blade through the ‘mortise v bevel’ in Pine debate; I thought that I’d post a ‘twiddle’ which I had discounted as some-thing nothing.

I managed, after some welcome coaching, to reproduce three very nice replicas of the front knob for my old 4½ Stanley, to fit my 4, 5 and 5½.

Now; I’ve no idea why they seem to improve the plane performance – perhaps it’s just me. In my ‘trade’ left and right (hands and feet) coordination is an essential; as is a sense of balance and ‘hand-eye’ coordination. But that’s me. I simply cannot believe, even with the shavings in front of my eyes, the difference that small – seemingly insignificant modification has made. I would however love to understand why. For instance, many wooden planes had/ have no front knob. None of my moulding planes have one, my home made rebate and plough plane don’t have one; and, (lamentably) my only wooden jointer (sans knob) is a pleasure to use.

I can understand the ‘dynamics’ and reasons for Bailey designing a fore-knob – there was no bulk of material to grip – hence the knob – logical. The short one feels and IMO works so much better – I’ll never go back to the ‘tall’ version – not for a million.

What say you?

 

[StraightOffTheArk]

That's a very interesting observation - unfortunately I've not had the chance to try one, however I do have a variety of bailey type planes that I could modify if I felt the urge - what are the dimensions?

Cheers,

Carl

 

[Sam_Jack]

Cheers Carl – I regret not having suitable equipment to provide a detailed ‘drawing’ with specs. It even took a while to find the Vernier doovalacky to measure up the thing. I made a profile (as advised) and turned the blanks to that – give or take a red hair. Best I can offer is the following, but you will need a picture of the plane to fathom what I’m relating to. So; and with sincere apologies to the purists:-

Starting at the base, where the knob sits – the diameter is 30 mm: this reduces to 24.5 mm over :: the next 11mm – the waist (middle of the lower part). From the 'waist' the curve flairs ‘outward’ to be at 46 mm (diameter) about 12mm from the top. The top is at about 50mm high. The top ‘falls’ away toward the bottom curve over about 7 mm. This 'dome' is separated from the bottom of the upward curve by about 12mm; (IMO) the crucial part, to form a rim (for want of better) slightly rounded over, which seems to almost magically fit the hand.

Sorry – best I can do; I’m certain some of the wizards posting can define it nicely; accurately. Maybe even a diagram with ‘proper’ dimensions. But, seriously, if you can, get a hold of one and try it. I have just finished (well cleaned the workshop up and poured a beer, obviously) turning a cranky Oak floor board off cut (1200 x 180 x 25) into a useful thing; four square, in wind and a thing of beauty now. Firstly, I used the #4 with the original front knob, hard work. Then I switched to the ‘new’ low (original) knob – half the work. Then I fired up the 4½, low knob – a breeze and a pleasure. It seems, to me at least, to be a balanced thing; the additional weight, the ‘lower’ centre line of ‘action’ and the wider blade make life easy. It was about 40˚C in the shade here today – hot and humid – and anything which can turn hard Yakka into a pleasure is worthy of consideration.

That’s about it; I hope some of the wise owls can assist in explaining and provide you a pristine drawing to work to. It is worth the time – I believe.

I now intend to drink a very cold Guinness while standing in the shower; that, is also worth a try. Cheers.

 

[StraightOffTheArk]

Thanks for that - the measurements are very helpful indeed - at some point this week I'll give it a whirl,

Cheers,

Carl

 

[IWW]

........Now; I’ve no idea why they seem to improve the plane performance – perhaps it’s just me. In my ‘trade’ left and right (hands and feet) coordination is an essential; as is a sense of balance and ‘hand-eye’ coordination. But that’s me. I simply cannot believe, even with the shavings in front of my eyes, the difference that small – seemingly insignificant modification has made. I would however love to understand why. For instance, many wooden planes had/ have no front knob. None of my moulding planes have one, my home made rebate and plough plane don’t have one; and, (lamentably) my only wooden jointer (sans knob) is a pleasure to use.

I can understand the ‘dynamics’ and reasons for Bailey designing a fore-knob – there was no bulk of material to grip – hence the knob – logical. The short one feels and IMO works so much better – I’ll never go back to the ‘tall’ version – not for a million.

What say you?

Sam-Jack, many years ago, I was given a very old (pre lateral-adjuster) Stanley #4. It was a bit of a sad case, someone had used it to drive railway spikes, or something equally sensible, and knocked out a goodly chunk of one side. However, cleaned up & fettled a little, it performed ok & I used it as a scrb plane until I eventually weakened & bought a 'real' one. But I very quickly fell in love with that low knob! Perhaps the main reason for me was that it encourages a different way of holding it, I place my palm flat on the knob instead of gripping it in my palm as I see so many do with the 'tall' knobs. With the left hand flat on the knob, I bear down on the toe at the start of the cut, and ease off during the stroke, transferring any weight to the rear tote. Not only does it prevent the blisters I would get with my other, tall-knobbed #4 due to my pinkie rubbing on the side web, it counters the tendency to plane a convex instead of a flat surface (particularly with shorter boards).

So I long ago converted all of my Bailey type planes to flat-topped knobs. Mine are a little flatter & mostly a little larger diameter across the top than originals. This is my most-used bench plane, an old 5 1/2 with She-oak (Allocasaurina torulosa) tote & knob. She-oak is one of several Oz woods that make excellent handles, imo.

[Edit: this is an old pic & I have since lowered the knob. I was reluctant at first to cut down the stud, but eventually I thought 'what the heck' and went ahead & shortened it..]

There is no doubt in my mind that having a tool that 'pleases' your hand not only makes it easier to use, the results are invariably better that you can achieve with just as well-fettled & sharp a tool that you don't find so pleasant to hang onto. It's all in the mind, of course, but that's where all "reality" is, after all.....

Cheers,