Santa came early, left a dog poo

[jim_hanna]

A dog poo handle that is. I fear I may be beginning a plane collection problem, although I’m nowhere near the stage of some of the members here.

I bought one of the later 70s era Stanley 13-050 models. Unlike the vintage planes there’s not a lot of information about these on line. What there is always mentions that the handle looks like a dog poo. There was a bit of a mishap with the fleabay bidding and I found myself bidding on two similar items, result is that I ended up with a second 13-050. I tried extending the dog analogy by telling the wife that it followed me home but she wasn’t impressed.

First impression of the 13-050 is that it looks awful and works really, really well. Not as collectable as earlier 50 series planes but an excellent user, which is not surprising if you think about it. With close to a 100 years of development by this time all the problems with the earlier 50 series should have been identified and ironed out. Easy to use spurs for cross-grain work, easily sharpened and deployed with a simple turn of a screw. No more fiddling about with tiny, tiny screws* to install the cross grain spurs or trying to fettle and correctly seat a chip deflector to cut a tongue. The left blade holding section still has to be removed to hold the smaller blades but all the sliding sections seem to have precision machining and move easily. The quality of machining is evident in other areas as well, compared to my earlier planes the depth adjustment is precise, easy to use with minimal backlash. Metric cutters are a bonus.

I would have a query for anyone with one of these planes. The original manual supplied with the plane, back page pic below (identical to the manual on Alf’s combi plane site), lists 3 flute cutters 3/16 – 3/8”numbered 13-386, 13-387, 13-388 and a sash cutter numbered 13-389. Yet I have a ½” flute cutter stamped 13-389. Clearly the available cutters changed at some point. Would anyone have a later manual with a fuller list of available cutters?

If the mods will permit a brief heads-up, the purchase of the two new planes prompted an investigation by the internal auditors and a determination of a sale-prompting overstock situation. (The wife looked in the shed). If you’re in the market for a plough(044), combination(vintage 50), wooden sash fillister, coffin smoother or shoulder(93) then I’ll probably be listing these shortly in the for sale section.

Jim

*If you try to work on anything on top of a bench with dog holes then be prepared to spend some time on your knees with a magnet looking for screws and other dropped parts. Some mysterious force always seems to attract dropped items into a dog hole, can’t be gravity because the attraction seems greater if the item is small, difficult to see or difficult to replace.

 

[swb58]

Sorry can't help with specific questions but thanks for raising the subject of the 13-050. I've been looking at these and the 050C for a while but not got around to taking the plunge. Just watched an 050C finish this evening at a surprisingly decent price (and a better colour handle!).

I've read that the 13-050 lacks a bit in the looks department but works very well, which must be the most important aspect.

I'd be interested in reading more as you get to grips with it.

Cheers.

 

[AndyT]

I don't know about two cutters with the same number but I can confirm that extra cutters with similar markings were still available singly as extras in the late 80s. I remember buying some to use in my new Record 044C.

And seriously, don't rush to sell your other planes. Even planes which appear to be for the same job have individual strengths and weaknesses which you will notice over time.
And with your shoulder and smoothing planes there is no overlap.

You wouldn't sell your Wellington boots just because you had a new pair of sandals!

 

[Cheshirechappie]

The Record offering from about the same era - the 045C - is also a very creditable performer, but - oh! - that horrible blue wierd-shaped plastic handle really lets it down!

 

[jim_hanna]

And seriously, don't rush to sell your other planes. Even planes which appear to be for the same job have individual strengths and weaknesses which you will notice over time.
And with your shoulder and smoothing planes there is no overlap.
You wouldn't sell your Wellington boots just because you had a new pair of sandals!

Unfortunately the wife thinks I’m Imelda Marcos (for younger readers - because this lady was famous for her extensive collection of shoes, not because I’m getting in touch with my feminine side)

Maybe I was becoming a collector.

Hi, I’m Jim and I’m a plane-collectaholic (All chorus, hi Jim!), although lurking on a Hand-tool forum might not be the best first-step.

I’m not losing any function selling the smoother and shoulder, I do have others. I’m not entirely dependent on the 13-050s either, I’m also waiting on delivery of a 405 (with a 778 ear-marked to be sold against this to keep the auditor happy )

 

[Racers]

I have used two Record 43 set to different depths/widths when making some architrave, its handy not having to reset a plane just pick up the other one and off you go.

Pete

 

[bugbear]

I have used two Record 43 set to different depths/widths when making some architrave, its handy not having to reset a plane just pick up the other one and off you go.

Pete

Just like having more than one marking gauge; an eminently practical suggestion. :wink:

BugBear

 

[bugbear]

First impression of the 13-050 is that it looks awful and works really, really well. Not as collectable as earlier 50 series planes but an excellent user, which is not surprising if you think about it. With close to a 100 years of development by this time all the problems with the earlier 50 series should have been identified and ironed out.

Well, you can't rely on that - cost cutting was eventually a problem. But I've always wanted
to try a 13-050, since I've never heard a bad word about their performance.

It is ugly though.

BugBear

 

[Racers]

There is a saying about not putting all your tractors in a row!

Pete

 

[jim_hanna]

First impression of the 13-050 is that it looks awful and works really, really well. Not as collectable as earlier 50 series planes but an excellent user, which is not surprising if you think about it. With close to a 100 years of development by this time all the problems with the earlier 50 series should have been identified and ironed out.

Well, you can't rely on that - cost cutting was eventually a problem. But I've always wanted
to try a 13-050, since I've never heard a bad word about their performance.

It is ugly though.

BugBear

The only information about prices I’ve found on the web is on an Australian forum here.

http://www.woodworkforums.com/f152/stan ... nes-137586
There is a post here with Stanley Australian price lists from 1985 which included the 13-050. The poster reckoned that, using online figures to allow for the inflation of prices and wages, the comparative cost of a 13-050 in 2011 would have been £230 sterling.

Not cheap, and probably not targeted at the home/hobbyist. The poster notes that the 45 had been discontinued in the 1960s. The 13-050 might have been Stanley’s last attempt at a combination plane for a professional woodworker. Aimed at that market and at that price this may have pre-dated the cost cutting.

Definitely ugly, but I'm smiling every time I use it.

 

[bugbear]

First impression of the 13-050 is that it looks awful and works really, really well. Not as collectable as earlier 50 series planes but an excellent user, which is not surprising if you think about it. With close to a 100 years of development by this time all the problems with the earlier 50 series should have been identified and ironed out.

Well, you can't rely on that - cost cutting was eventually a problem. But I've always wanted
to try a 13-050, since I've never heard a bad word about their performance.

It is ugly though.

BugBear

The only information about prices I’ve found on the web is on an Australian forum here.

http://www.woodworkforums.com/f152/stan ... nes-137586
There is a post here with Stanley Australian price lists from 1985 which included the 13-050. The poster reckoned that, using online figures to allow for the inflation of prices and wages, the comparative cost of a 13-050 in 2011 would have been £230 sterling.

Not cheap, and probably not targeted at the home/hobbyist. The poster notes that the 45 had been discontinued in the 1960s. The 13-050 might have been Stanley’s last attempt at a combination plane for a professional woodworker. Aimed at that market and at that price this may have pre-dated the cost cutting.

Definitely ugly, but I'm smiling every time I use it.

Apologies - I expressed my self poorly.

I meant that cost-cutting was a general issue for the big plane makers, eventually.
It was meant as a general comment on your "With close to a 100 years of development ... ", since the passage
of time (w.r.t. planes) can indeed fix faults, but also (historically) eventually ended in cost driven quality decline.

I don't know where the 13-050 fit between those two factors.

BugBear

 

[jim_hanna]

It was meant as a general comment on your "With close to a 100 years of development ... ", since the passage
of time (w.r.t. planes) can indeed fix faults, but also (historically) eventually ended in cost driven quality decline.

I don't know where the 13-050 fit between those two factors.

BugBear

There does seem to be a shortage of information available for this era of tools. Earlier pre- 1960 models seem to have been sufficiently plentiful that a lot of the price-lists and documentation have survived to be scanned and uploaded, once manuals started to go online in the 90s then again there are price lists and manuals widely available.

It seems hard to easily find online information for anything in the gap 1960 – 1990. Since this covers the period when a lot of manufacturers did enter the cycle you describe of cutting prices at the expense of quality then perhaps some useful tools from this period are destined to be ignored.
The numbers available on ebay suggest that both the Record nnnC planes or Stanley 12- or 13- series were sold in small numbers compared to previous models.

Regards

Jim

 

[AndyT]

Back in the dark days before UKW I sometimes used to buy a woodworking magazine. In November 1995 I bought "Good Woodworking" because it included a group test billed as "Routing by hand - common sense or just nostalgia?"

It covered several quaint hand tools that were just about still available to buy new, so I can offer a few price points. I've included discounted prices asked by Benmail, a good mail order supplier, in the same issue, in brackets.

Stanley 12-030 3 blade alloy plough. £44.25. (£29)
Stanley 12-250 - the combi plane version of the OP's plane (I think) with 12 straight cutters, 5 beading and 1 tonguing. £138.55 (£90)
Clifton 450 Multi plane (=Record 405) £428.88

The Benmail ad also listed a Stanley 052 10-blade plough at £60, which may have been close to the 13-050 but the later Stanley numbers are not exactly intuitive!

As a general comparison, a Stanley 4 was £28 and a no 7 was £57.50, from Benmail.

The article included a cost comparison with the electric router, described as costing £100 to £130 for a diy grade tool from Bosch, B&D or Ryobi, with cutters £10 to £45 each.

The magazine was £2.25!

 

[bugbear]

Continuing Andy's helpful theme, does anyone know all the model numbers/meaning for the various
post #50 Stanley combo planes?

I'll edit as I get info

• 12-030 Aluminum Body, 3 cutters, black plastic handle
• 12-052 Nickel plated cast body - 10 blades, black plastic handle
• 12-250 Cast Iron Body (nickel plated) 18 cutters, black plastic handle
• 13-030 3 blade plough plane, brown plastic handle
• 13-050 (18 blade, consensus on eBay), brown plastic handle
• 13-052 10 blade plough plane (printed on box), brown plastic handle
• 13-055 8 blade kit, turns a 13-52 into a 13-50

(info on 12- series from American Woodworker Mag, Apr 1995)

Oddly I think the 12- series came later than the 13- series.

BugBear

 

[jim_hanna]

A recent post on thread sizes on a 71 prompted me to look at the 13-050 to see if it continued the Stanley tradition of using multiple difficult to find sizes.

I was amazed.

Every thread on the 13-050 is the same and is M5.

 

[jim_hanna]

(info on 12- series from American Woodworker Mag, Apr 1995)

Oddly I think the 12- series came later than the 13- series.
BugBear

Fascinating. I’m not doubting Bugbear, he’s been writing and researching old tools for a long time and Andy’s 1995 ad advertising only the 12-series planes certainly supports the 12- as being more recent than the 13-series.

Patrick (of Blood and Gore) does describe the Stanley numbering scheme as “bizarre” so the numerical sequence may not be significant.

What is confusing is that the 12-series seems to sit between the vintage 50s and the 13-series (also the 13-series has features similar to modern planes).

A recent sale on ebay of a 12-250 included a pic from below of the skates. ( I copied it at the time for my own reference but I’m not sure what copyright exists in ebay pics so I haven’t included it). However in that pic it could be seen that the spurs were the small cloverleaf three bladed pattern similar to the older planes, and presumably the same spur holding screw and unusual thread. The spurs on the 13-050 are large flat knives (similar to the design on the Lie Nielsen 10 ¼ bench rabbet plane) and everything is a single modern M5 metric thread.

Also visible on the 12-250 is a skate alignment screw to tweak the skates parallel, looking identical to the similar screw on my vintage Stanley 50.

The 13-050 doesn’t have this tweaking screw but the machining seems good enough that it isn’t required.

Blood and Gore does note that Stanley were famous for never chucking anything away, reusing old boxes and parts for newer planes.

Pure speculation on my part but with the 13- and 12- series could we be seeing the transition here to the bean-counter cost-cutting. One scenario could be that Stanley produced the 13-series as the successor to the 45, a high quality design but costly to produce. The technology certainly existed at that time for high accuracy machining but perhaps not at the price point Stanley needed for bulk production and bulk sales. The limited numbers for sale on Ebay today suggest that the 13-050s were not sold in big numbers.

The 12-250 could then be a response to poor 13-050 sales, cost-cutting in the machining and therefore requiring and reusing old stock skate alignment screws (seriously I looked at the pic and immediately thought that’s exactly the same alignment screw as my 50, possibly the same thread and a like for like replacement) and old stocks of three bladed spurs.

Enough with the speculation, some firm information now.

I got a chance to compare 13-050 cutters with Record 405 cutters. Identical thickness, the 405 ones are slightly longer but there is sufficient adjustment in both planes that each can use the standard plough and bead cutters from the other.
The two pics below show a 405 cutter in the 13050, bottom of the cutter aligned with the skates and the notch on the adjustment nut. The second shot shows the nut removed to illustrate that there was still plenty of thread length in the nut when using the longer cutter. It would appear that the 13-050 was deliberately designed with sufficient adjustment to be able to use the longer 45/405 cutters.

More specialist cutters might not be interchangeable. The 3/16 tongue cutter for the 405 is asymmetric compared to the 13-050 which might limit the width of stock which could be worked without shavings clogging. More serious, the second pic shows a 13050 3/16 cutter sitting in the 405, the 405 depth adjustment pin has enough travel to engage with the cutter slot but at maximum depth setting the tongue depth stop slider would foul the 405 cutter holding bolt.

A 13-050 flute cutter clamps in the 405 and aligns centrally with the skate.

Regards Jim