Rust on plane bodies

[Bedrock]

I have a Stanley 50(?) - full width plane blade - not that old, probably dating from the 90s/early 2000s, with white metal blade adjustment wheel, etc.
The steel body just looks different to my other older planes, even the no. 5 I bought in the late 70s, and picks up surface rust more quickly than my other older Stanleys and Records. It is in the same cupboard on one of the brown anti-rust papers, but seems to be more susceptible than anything else kept in the same place. It doesn't get much use at the moment.

Is it right that some vintages are more susceptible to rust? I can't say that it is the greatest quality of plane, .the front section of the sole is not in the same plane as the rear, and the varnish is flaking off in chunks. May not be worth persevering with.

Any advice on rust proofing, please


Mike

 

[Evergreen]

Hi Mike

I'm not sure which model your Stanley is. When you say it has a "full width blade", do you mean it's a rebate plane? Or a shoulder plane?

I don't know if some vintages of plane are more prone to rust than others but I do find that rust appears on certain parts of tools stored in my garage for no obvious reason. For example, the tommy bars on my sash cramps tend to develop rust but not the bars themselves. One side of my Record 05 jack plane develps a little rust but not the other side. I convince myself that I treat all metal parts in the same way but I must be missing the odd patch of bare metal here and there.

I use GT85 spray on large areas like saw blades, Renaissance wax on metal parts that I'm likely to handle and white lithium grease spray for metal items in longterm storage.

By the sound of it, your Stanley is a bit iffy if the sole isn't true but only you can decide if it's not worth keeping.

Best wishes.

Evergreen

 

[Bedrock]

Evergreen
Sorry - Friday night brain fade. No 10 carriage makers plane.
It's in a cupboard with a several other planes of different ages, mostly at least 60/70 years old, but includes a LN block plane. The workshop is well insulated and has an oil filled heater which I can recommend for winter working.
From time to time the others may suffer a small rust outbreak, but the no. 10 seems to pick up the worst. It probably gets the least use, but just looks a poorer quality steel. The oldest, a Norris, doesn't seem to have a problem at all.
I had another play with it last night and probably I was a little harsh. It will be a user with a bit more fettling, but I am interested if anyone has any knowledge of a particular susceptibility of later planes to rust. My best guess is that it is 15-20 years old. Maybe things have improved.
Thankyou for the recommendations. I have just bought some Ambersil 40+protective lubricant, and will see how I get on with that, but I will buy some Renaissance wax, for comparison.
Mike

 

[finnberg]

Bedrock,
If your no 10 is from the same period as the ones I've had, i.e. later era UK made then I do think the bodies were much more prone to rust than most others. If your no 10 has one cheek thinner than the other, has a depth adjusting wheel made of steel and possibly also a misaligned mouth and/or uneven frog base, then we are talking about the same plane. This version of the no 10 is by far the worst made hand plane I've encountered and most of the five I have restored have had substantial rust issues.
No idea about humidity in your workshop but a coat of Autosol paste keeps the rust off my tools.

 

[GLFaria]

As far as I am concerned, Stanley stopped making good hand planes since the late 60's! Yours being 90's or later...

A few months ago I needed a block plane. Just to show you how I rate Stanley these days, I went for one made in China (bought it from Dieter Schmid in Germany). I did not even bother looking at the modern Stanleys on sale.

 

[JimF.]

Just to show you how I rate Stanley these days, I went for one made in China (bought it from Dieter Schmid in Germany). I did not even bother looking at the modern Stanleys on sale.

So, if Stanley had improved in any way, or offered a premium range like the Sweetheart (which by many accounts are fine), you wouldn't know. You'd prefer to remain with your eyes closed and ignorant?

 

[Bedrock]

Thanks Finnberg, for you comments. It sounds that our planes are from the same period. Will bear in mind the Autosol suggestion, although don't you find the paste turns black very quickly?

It was my own damn fault I bought the thing. There were 2 No.10s on offer at the auction, one after the other. The first, an older Stanley, went for more money than I wanted to pay, so I stuck my hand up when this one came up, without properly looking at it, as I wanted a No.10. I should be old enough not to make this sort of mistake.

I will try a bit more fettling, but will offload it if I cannot get it working properly. Incidentally, the Ambersil seems to be working so far.

If it can be improved, I will replace the handles with some old walnut, so that at least it will be more comfortable and look a bit more attractive. This plane will never become a collectors item, so I have no compunction in changing handles, blade or whatever. I have temporarily put in a Ray Iles blade and will compare the original with this. If the original blade (which was somewhat rusty when I bought the plane) lives up to the quality of the rest of the plane, I don't hold out much hope of a lasting edge.

 

[GLFaria]

Just to show you how I rate Stanley these days, I went for one made in China (bought it from Dieter Schmid in Germany). I did not even bother looking at the modern Stanleys on sale.

So, if Stanley had improved in any way, or offered a premium range like the Sweetheart (which by many accounts are fine), you wouldn't know. You'd prefer to remain with your eyes closed and ignorant?

I can't afford premium ranges. But the simple fact that they feel the need to offer a premium range makes me wonder about their remaining products. I don't look just for planes - whenever I have looked at other products from their range, I always felt they were not worth spending my money on. They have been going from bad to worse for 40 years. Why should I waste my time?

 

[MMUK]

Just to show you how I rate Stanley these days, I went for one made in China (bought it from Dieter Schmid in Germany). I did not even bother looking at the modern Stanleys on sale.

So, if Stanley had improved in any way, or offered a premium range like the Sweetheart (which by many accounts are fine), you wouldn't know. You'd prefer to remain with your eyes closed and ignorant?

I can't afford premium ranges. But the simple fact that they feel the need to offer a premium range makes me wonder about their remaining products. I don't look just for planes - whenever I have looked at other products from their range, I always felt they were not worth spending my money on. They have been going from bad to worse for 40 years. Why should I waste my time?

Well they are owned by Black & Decker....... The kiss of death for any firm in terms of quality.

You may be surprised to learn that the Sweetheart range are not actually made by Stanley.............

 

[caroleb]

I was under the impression that the no10 carriage makers rebate plane ceased production some time ago, like 1957, so am a little surprised there are quality issues. Of course there would be the odd lemon, I guess, but I would have thought it would be well worth restoring, even so.
I have a modern-ish record no10 which is appalling. And yes - it does seem to attract rust. Maybe its rebate planes in general :lol:

Caz

 

[Bedrock]

I have a no. 5 I bought around 1975, and which is a much better quality. There were certainly some issues with it, but never the rust problem. It is a surface rust rather than a deep seated rust which you might find if it had been stored in damp conditions, and seems to reoccur after about 2/3 weeks. As I have said, other planes stored in the same cupboard don't have the same problem.
The no.10 just looks more recent, and certainly doesn't have the "feel" of being from the 50s. I don't think it can have had a lot of use before I bought it, but I thought that if there was a common rust problem for planes made in say the 1990s, it would be useful for us all to be aware

 

[AndyT]

Just thinking aloud here, but I'd be amazed if Stanley used exactly the same sort of cast iron for their plane bodies from the middle of the nineteenth century through to the end of the twentieth. I don't know much about metallurgy, but I believe there was quite a lot of progress made over that period!!

So if the metal on some planes rusts in a different way, that's no great surprise. Maybe the rusty plane is steel not iron - does anyone know if there is an easy way to tell, without a laboratory and microscope etc?

 

[DMF]

Maybe the rusty plane is steel not iron - does anyone know if there is an easy way to tell, without a laboratory and microscope etc?

Hi, been having a little google here and there about welding lately and off on a course soon so interested in folks answers / experience as well please, tangent I know but useful too info to have. Last thing I saved in my favourites on the subject was this thread (other googling is available!) http://www.shopfloortalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=187220 where the fella sums up a few things well (as far as I know), laboratories and microscope not needed but apart from the magnet I think the methods not suitable for a plane you like, spark test, file test, maybe the ring test as well I suppose! Its seems it's one of those things most use a triangulation of data for unless you have experience and faith in one method that suits whatever tasks you undertake?

Dean

 

[Bedrock]

I agree that it is unlikely Stanley or any other mass toolmaker, is likely to be using the same cast iron recipe as they did 50 years ago. You only have to look at the changes in the casting designs, with extra webs supposedly giving extra rigidity, or compensating for shorter seasoning times, at the behest of the accountants, as evidence of "progress".

I seem to recall a different surface rust pattern appearing on a couple of original, say post 1980, Stanley plane blades, than on earlier, say pre war vintage. More of a spiders web pattern than I remember. As I discard these blades for something thicker, this hasn't really been an issue.

I don't know whether it is possible to narrow down the years when this problem seems to be more prevalent. Does anyone have experience of post 2010 Stanleys, Sweeheart or otherwise, or newer Records?

My planes have fairly regular wipe overs with Camelia oil, but with this particular plane, the problem recurs, regardless. Hence I am experimenting with other anti rust products.

 

[Vann]

I was under the impression that the no10 carriage makers rebate plane ceased production some time ago, like 1957...

The Yanks stopped making them in 1957 (according to Blood & Gore), but they were still in the Stanley catalogue we were given when I started my apprenticeship in 1973 (presumably UK made).

Unlike most other planes the carriagemaker's No.10 and No.10 1/2 (and, I presume, the No.10 1/4) were made from a malleable iron. Maybe that accounts for the differing rust characteristics?

Cheers, Vann.

 

[Bedrock]

Thanks Vann - a logical explanation. Were they always made from malleable cast iron, do you know? Given the cut away sides to allow the full width cut, I might have expected thicker sides to compensate for the lack of material to prevent the front end from distorting/cracking, but that does not seem to be the case.
The dating of mine is unclear. As I have said it does not look that old, but it does not have the extra diagonal webs that appear on say no.5s, from the 70s.

 

[Vann]

Were they always made from malleable cast iron, do you know?

I don't know. If my memory serves me correctly, the 1970s catalogue mentioned malleable iron for these planes. As for Blood & Gore - it's not mentioned at all. The only clue is "The earlier models, with their tapered side walls, are more prone to this chipping/cracking than the later ones are." which could possibly suggest a change in the cast iron used - or not.

http://www.supertool.com/StanleyBG/stan2.htm

Cheers, Vann.

 

[Benchwayze]

caroleb...

I bought my first, new carriage makers' rebate plane in the 1970s. It isn't as nice as the Record pre-war example I bought from Oldtools, but it's done me proud and still is in use.

HTH for dates of production.

 

[Bedrock]

I spent some more time on this damn piece of scrap iron. I think now know why it seems to have had so little use. It has proved difficult to get the blade to sit square in the plane, and despite fiddling about with the frog, the blade will only sit square with the lateral adjuster pointing about 15 degrees to the right.
I have had the frog out and checked to see that it sits square. The frog does not have the fore and aft adjustment screw, so is a bit fiddly to adjust. Getting it to sit square across the line of the side cut outs, does not solve the problem. The blade edge is square and the blade is not twisted.

Checking the position of the lateral adjuster against the sides of the frog, shows a difference of c.1mm., although the frog sides are not machined and really don't provide an accurate datum. The frog screw holes are also out by a similar amount.
The overall effect is that although the plane can be brought to cut square, it is not possible to get the plane blade to align with the left side of the plane body, whereas it will project outside the line of the RH side, by default.
Apart from being appalled by the poor quality of production from a supposedly reputable maker, I am now sufficiently bugged by it that I am determined to make the thing work properly. I will not pass it on to some poor sucker who may be a relative newcomer and be put off, assuming that the problems are caused by his/her lack of ability.
I have an old Acorn No3, which is not used, and I will see if that frog will fit, so at least I can make some comparison.
Otherwise, I would welcome any comments/advice as to what else might be causing these problems.

 

[Benchwayze]

I spent some more time on this damn piece of scrap iron. I think now know why it seems to have had so little use. It has proved difficult to get the blade to sit square in the plane, and despite fiddling about with the frog, the blade will only sit square with the lateral adjuster pointing about 15 degrees to the right.
I have had the frog out and checked to see that it sits square. The frog does not have the fore and aft adjustment screw, so is a bit fiddly to adjust. Getting it to sit square across the line of the side cut outs, does not solve the problem. The blade edge is square and the blade is not twisted.

Checking the position of the lateral adjuster against the sides of the frog, shows a difference of c.1mm., although the frog sides are not machined and really don't provide an accurate datum. The frog screw holes are also out by a similar amount.
The overall effect is that although the plane can be brought to cut square, it is not possible to get the plane blade to align with the left side of the plane body, whereas it will project outside the line of the RH side, by default.
Apart from being appalled by the poor quality of production from a supposedly reputable maker, I am now sufficiently bugged by it that I am determined to make the thing work properly. I will not pass it on to some poor sucker who may be a relative newcomer and be put off, assuming that the problems are caused by his/her lack of ability.
I have an old Acorn No3, which is not used, and I will see if that frog will fit, so at least I can make some comparison.
Otherwise, I would welcome any comments/advice as to what else might be causing these problems.

PM sent with what I hope is an answer.

John