Another dating query (picture heavy)

[dickm]

Picked up a bit of an oddity yesterday. It's a No7, with the low front knob, but not sure of what/where/when. The only numbering/lettering is the 7 on the toe and what looks like a later STANLEY on the lateral adjuster. (sorry - doesn't show up on the picture) There are what might be the remains of two rivets behind the tote which could have been to hold some sort of metal label lengthways along the body. The yoke is a casting and the adjuster works clockwise, unlike modern planes, but no idea whether the frog belongs to it or was transplanted from elsewhere. When I acquired it it was "fitted" with a tapered Sorby iron! Tried it with a modern Stanley iron, but that is too thin to sit properly on the frog as the reinforcement round the adjuster on the cap iron is too thick for it. But found a Ross and Alexander parallel iron and this fits fine after a bit of easing of the adjuster slot.

Questions:-
1. Who might have made the body - is it actually Stanley, or if not who?
2. Does the frog belong with it, or is it some sort of Frankenplane (in addition to the tapered iron)
3. Does anyone have any information about Ross and Alexander? No idea where the iron came from (almost certainly a car boot round Milton Keynes) and the only references via Mr Google are to a fleabay sale of a Ross and Alexander (London) chisel.
Pictures below, but done in a hurry so not of the best quality.

 

[JohnPW]

Ross and Alexander was a tool dealer, I think.
http://www.gracesguide.co.uk/Ross_and_Alexander

 

[JohnPW]

An early Stanley with no patent dates on the body puts it roughly pre-1900, I think.

http://www.hansbrunnertools.com/Stanley ... Planes.htm

 

[dickm]

Thanks guys - gives me a bit of a start on more research. What puzzles me is the absence of the Stanley name from the body of the plane. Presumably they did normally put their names more prominently than just a little line on the lateral adjuster?

The Ross and Alexander ref is short, but I do like the idea of that metalworking lathe for 4 guineas!

 

[memzey]

I have a number of pre 1900 Stanley Bailey pattern bench planes and you often have to look pretty hard for the makers name anywhere on the casting or the peripherals. One thing to check for that will help date it is if you remove the tote, in the raised part of the casting designed to receive it there might be a letter "S". That would make it 1890's or thereabouts. There should be some lettering on the lateral adjuster irrespective of age although this is often lost to rust damage. Have a really close look - can you see the word "Stanley" and possibly a number of dates?

 

[memzey]

Here is a pic of what to look out for in the lateral adjuster. Some versions don't have all or any of the dates but I suspect yours should (if it is a Stanley frog) but they do generally have "Stanley" on there:

 

[Corneel]

Here you can have a look for yourself and see if it matches any of these types:

http://primeshop.com/access/woodwork/stanleyplane/pftsynch.htm

 

[dickm]

Thanks, Corneel, that looks like a very precise and comprehensive checklist, if a bit daunting to use. The lettering on the lateral adjuster is probably the same style as the one Memzey shows, but without any additional dating or other information. Without going through the dating table in detail, I wondered if the rather plain styling and lack of lettering might be something to do with wartime (WW1) economy.
But a bit more research on Ross and Alexander turned up this,
http://www.backsaw.net/forum/index.php? ... ander.213/
which suggests that the iron which I had lying around could well be contemporary with the body. Gave it a quick run over the oilstone and it cuts pretty well, so if nothing else, this has the makings of an excellent user.

Anyone now want a modern Record No7 - can't justify keeping two No 7s?!

 

[bugbear]

Could you post a picture of the cap-iron, especially the "extra" lugs that engage
the 'Y' lever?

This modification has been much discussed in modern times,
but I've never seen an old instance.

Here's our own Jarviser (via the Wayback machine) soldering up a storm:

https://web.archive.org/web/20090221132 ... lash1.html

BugBear

 

[dickm]

The one pic I didn't take this afternoon was one to show that reinforcement. Will do it tomorrow, as the plane is safely packed away for the night now!
But have done a bit of fettling with citric acid to get rid of the bits of rust, and here are some pics of the results.

Ross & Alexander iron mark. The iron takes a really good edge, as the slice out of my finger will attest!

Base for frog

Lateral adjuster - there is a patent number to the left of the Stanley but it's difficult to read

Frog upper surface

Lever cap - no writing in it

Lever cap rear.

Complete plane with a Bailey-labelled No 6, 'orribly pitted with rust and bit missing from tote, but takes a really good edge so very useable, if not very pretty.

 

[memzey]

Very nice DM. It's definitely an early Stanley. By the way did you ever stop and ask yourself why you needed a No.6 and 7 (or two) or did you just reconcile yourself to the fact that you wanted them and that was enough! To be fair I did ask myself do I really need No's 6, 7 and 8 but that didn't stop me getting them either!

 

[dickm]

By the way did you ever stop and ask yourself why you needed a No.6 and 7 (or two)

Sorry, don't understand the question

To answer Bugbear's query, here are a few more pics, this time of the reinforcement around the depth adjuster slot in the cap iron.

From blade side

Slight problem - you can't quite slide it far enough up to remove cap iron screw through the big hole.

Outside face of cap iron

Inside face.

 

[bugbear]

Wow - they appear to be riveted/peined in place, but the holes are really close to the slot.

I'm surprised someone capable of that kind of precise work made a bit of a hash of the subsequent clean-up filing.

Thanks for the photos.

BugBear

 

[AndyT]

Wow - they appear to be riveted/peined in place, but the holes are really close to the slot.

I'm surprised someone capable of that kind of precise work made a bit of a hash of the subsequent clean-up filing.

Thanks for the photos.

BugBear

Maybe they riveted on a small piece of bar, using two rivets, and then drilled through and filed out the slot afterwards. That would be an easy way for the rivets to end up rather close to the edge, and would have needed some heavy hacksawing to get right to the bottom of the bit of bar, to make the cut.

 

[dickm]

Seems like an awful lot of work for a questionable gain. It does possibly help with backlash, which is certainly minimal, but on this plane it means that a thinner iron can't be used because the cap can't sit any closer to the frog. My thought on construction is slightly different - two separate pieces each with a projection passed through a hole in the undrilled cap iron and rivetted, then the slot drilled out and filed to size. But as noted, the filing was a bit ham fisted, unless some earlier owner was trying to ease something to fit a thinner iron. There's an indecipherable name badly stamped on to the front knob with what was obviously a nicely professional stamp badly used,, which might support the clumsy version.

Using the spreadsheet linked above, the plane seems to be consistent with the period 1890 to 1900, so isn't a cut-back "war standard" version. Quite pleased with it, especially as the "found" iron is probably contemporary

 

[Corneel]

It's a nice plane with an interesting history. Thanks for showing all the pictures.

 

[bugbear]

Wow - they appear to be riveted/peined in place, but the holes are really close to the slot.

I'm surprised someone capable of that kind of precise work made a bit of a hash of the subsequent clean-up filing.

Thanks for the photos.

BugBear

Maybe they riveted on a small piece of bar, using two rivets, and then drilled through and filed out the slot afterwards. That would be an easy way for the rivets to end up rather close to the edge, and would have needed some heavy hacksawing to get right to the bottom of the bit of bar, to make the cut.

Good analysis, seems to fit all the observed facts.

BugBear