Stanley 120 block plane

[chipchaser]

Found this Stanley 120 block plane when sorting out my dad’s workshop. He is not able to tell me anything about it (Altzheimers) but he was never a tool enthusiast so probably wouldn’t have known its history. As you can see from the first two photos it has a loose washer below the screw that keeps the iron in position. It’s obviously not original but is there a piece, that served a similar function, missing? The screw has only 2 of 6 turns of the thread engaged and those turns are worn allowing the screw to sit at an odd angle. Below the thumbwheel there is only a short projection of the same diameter as the thread above with a rounded end as cast.

I can think of a few reasons for the poor fit: incorrect, too thin, plane iron (although it has appropriate slots milled in the underside to engage the adjuster); incorrect cap from another model Stanley block plane; a missing part. I can’t find a picture of an original one in pieces so don’t know what’s wrong.

The iron is stamped with the Stanley mark on the top and a letter Z on the bottom. It's about 9/128" thick, varies a bit depending where you measure it.

I could improve it by making a small spacer with a close fitting blind hole for the bottom of the screw. That would get a few less worn turns of the screw into the cap and square the screw up relative to the iron.

It’s a very basic tool and I do know that it’s not worth the bother but I quite like fettling underdogs to make them useable. I would be grateful for any info as to whether any bits of the original tool are missing or incorrect.

Graham

 

[Vann]

I have the Record equivalent, their 0120. I've got two of them (one arrived broken, so it's spares for the second which was also incomplete).

Surprisingly, the Record 0120 is not an exact replica of the Stanley 120. It uses a 220 type adjuster, but otherwise it's very similar.

The lever-caps are identical to the 110/0110 (they even have '0110' cast in the underside) and no, there's no washer under the wheel. That's an added extra to overcome a problem in yours.

The Record irons are 2.00 and 2.05mm thick respectively, whereas my Stanley USA 130 (which again uses the same type of lever-cap) has a 1.75mm thick iron.

What first springs to mind is that the lever-cap might be bent, but being cast-iron (it is isn't it? edit: yes I see it is) that's unlikely. If you want I can measure the wheel assembly (say, overall; and from the wheel to the end - where it contacts the iron) to see if yours has been shortened (for some strange reason).

Any other measurements that might help, just let me know.

I assume you've looked at Patrick's Blood and Gore to get some info on the 120.

Cheers, Vann.

 

[chipchaser]

Vann, thanks for that info.

The wheel doesn’t look as if it has been altered. The bottom, by the iron still has black japanned finish on it. There are 7 turns of thread above the wheel, the first three being well worn. The overall height is 21.6mm, about 3mm below the wheel, 6mm thickness in the wheel rim and about 12mm above the wheel.

Do you happen to know what thread Stanley used on these wheels? I can’t find my thread gauge but it is ¼” and looks about 20 tpi which I think would be UNC?

The iron is 1.79 to 1.87mm thick depending where measured.

The cap has C241 cast into the underside of the bottom edge.

I did spend quite a lot of time reading Patrick’s Blood and Gore. It’s quite addictive and I can see how people get into collecting. However, although I have a 220 and will probably buy myself a new Record 060.1/2, I have to resist starting another hobby! Considering what Patrick says about the 120 and 110 I was surprised to find Screwfix sell new Stanley 110’s for £25. Thanks again for your help

Graham

 

[Vann]

I went out into my workshop a grabbed the first suitable block plane (it's 10.30pm here in New Zealand - should be going to bed!). It's one of the Record 0120s. Stanley bench planes used Whitworth profile threads, but seldom Whitworth thread counts. Record usually copied Stanley right down to the weird screw threads.

So my 0120 lever cap wheel also has a ¼” thread and appears to have 20 tpi - which surprisingly is British Standard Whitworth :!:

The overall height is 19.1mm (21.6mm), about 2.5mm (3mm) below the wheel, 5.8mm (6mm) thickness in the wheel rim and about 10mm (12mm) above the wheel. Your figures in brackets.

I'll measure the other Record and the Stanley 130 in the morning.

Cheers, Vann.

 

[lurker]

However, although I have a 220 and will probably buy myself a new Record 060.1/2, I have to resist starting another hobby! Considering what Patrick says about the 120 and 110 I was surprised to find Screwfix sell new Stanley 110’s for £25. Thanks again for your help

Graham

Whatever you do DON'T BUY NEW RECORD OR STANLEY!!! they are utter rubbish. These companys bear no resemblance to their origins.

Buy old & fettle
Or spend decent money on a premium brand

 

[Vann]

Good morning CC, or good evening in your case.

My other Record 0120 lever-cap wheel measures:-
Overall height: 21.0mm (21.6mm), about 2.5mm (3mm) below the wheel, 5.7m (6mm) thickness in the wheel rim and about 12.5mm (12mm) above the wheel. Again your figures in brackets.

For the Stanley (USA) 130:-
Overall height is 21.7mm (21.6mm), and about 8.5mm (12mm) of thread showing above the wheel. Your figures in brackets. The wheel itself on this one is a bit odd. Rather than a round wheel, it's got six 'lobes' in a circle, and has a machine screw through the centre with it's slotted head tightening against the iron. I've no idea if this is original or a mod.

Both are ¼” 20 tpi.

The 130 lever-cap has 241 cast into the underside (yours C241). The iron has a Z stamped on it and is a Sweethart, made in Canada.

HTH

Whatever you do DON'T BUY NEW RECORD OR STANLEY!!! ...Buy old & fettle
Or spend decent money on a premium brand

What he said :!: :!:

If you want new, and can only afford Chinese (modern Record are Chinese or Indian made) at least consider a Quangsheng. Wait, did I really recommend Chinese , erk !! I'm off to wash my mouth....

Cheers, Vann.

 

[chipchaser]

Good morning and thanks for the comments.

Vann, thanks for the very useful info from your planes. Interesting that your 130 has a screw that might be a repair as that is where I am leaning towards. Thanks for confirmation of Whitworth not UNC. As a quick fix I will try a 1/4" Whit round head machine screw with wing nut fixed by loctite in place of the original. If that works ok I will make a wheel for that screw.

Thanks both for comments on new Record and Stanley. Did Irwin move manufacture to the east when they bought Record? I see Stanley now offer Premium models which they claim are in the same range as Veritas etc, any thoughts?

Looks like I need to have a root around car boots and junk shops! Thanks for all your help.

Graham

 

[bugbear]

Thanks for confirmation of Whitworth not UNC.

1/4" x 20 TPI is both UNC and BSW. The only difference between them is thread shape.

For low precision use, they are completely interchangeable.

BugBear

 

[chipchaser]

Thanks BugBear,

as Vann has been kind enough to confirm the original was BSW and as I know where to pick up a packet of 10 at a reasonable price I'll stick to those. The thread in the cap may be as poor as that on the wheel and that 5 degrees difference may be the straw that strains this particular camels back just too far.

I might have some 1/4" BSW bolts in my box of bits for keeping Triumphs and BSAs going but probably quicker to just buy a packet than start an archaeological excavation in the shed!

Thanks

Graham

 

[chipchaser]

Vann you were right about the thread counts being irregular.

I did dig a 1/4" BSW bolt out of my box and it doesn't fit! Had a quick measure over the only three good turns of thread and it looked like 18tpi. Hunted down my thread gauge and yes it is 18tpi BSW but not 5/16". This will have to go on the back burner for now until I have time to turn a 1/4" 18tpi thread.

The thread is almost fully wound out and only engaged on the very worn part so I can't tighten the iron as much as I would like but it still works! Fortunately the 220 is in better condition.

Graham

 

[Vann]

Vann you were right about the thread counts being irregular.

I did dig a 1/4" BSW bolt out of my box and it doesn't fit! Had a quick measure over the only three good turns of thread and it looked like 18tpi. Hunted down my thread gauge and yes it is 18tpi BSW but not 5/16". This will have to go on the back burner for now until I have time to turn a 1/4" 18tpi thread.

The thread is almost fully wound out and only engaged on the very worn part so I can't tighten the iron as much as I would like but it still works! Fortunately the 220 is in better condition.

Graham

Hi Graham,

It looks like my info wasn't entirely correct .

I've had another look at my lever cap threads and also those of a friend who has an English Stanley 110 and parts of an USA Stanley 110. In every case the English wheels are interchangeable (even between the Stanleys and Records). However the English wheels will only screw into the USA lever-caps about 3 turns before they bind.

A closer look at my USA 130 wheel suggests that it is a repair (the bolt appears to be brazed) and the threads butchered to screw into the lever-cap.

So I conclude that English Stanleys and Records used standard ¼" BSW (20 tpi). USA Stanleys appear to have used something different, which would most likely be a ¼" Whitworth thread with a non-standard pitch such as the 18 tpi you measured. (the majority, if not all, early USA Stanley threads were Whitworth profile)

Sorry for not getting that right first time around.

Cheers, Vann.

 

[chipchaser]

Hello Vann,
sorry I didn't see this post till today, I haven't been ignoring you.

I found the same, that is only three turns of a 1/4 BSW bolt into the cap before it binds. I have some 1/4" BSW bolts with a useable unthreaded length and a Myford lathe with changewheels for 18 tpi. At the moment I only have 60 degree tools in my collection but will pick up a 55 degree tip when I see one. I like steam rallies and they always have some tool stands so I have an excuse for a day out!

Would you think a 5mm crack, at the mouth, in the sole of a Stanley 60 1/2 makes it unuseable? I'm not a collector so anything I buy only has to be useable

Thanks

Graham

 

[Vann]

Would you think a 5mm crack, at the mouth, in the sole of a Stanley 60 1/2 makes it unuseable?

I'm not an expert (I've mostly been gathering planes to fettle, but getting little fettling/bench time), however I would suggest that it depends on how much the plane moves when you tension the lever cap. If the crack is stable then you should be able to true up the sole. If the crack increases with each tensioning then you'd best think about selling it for parts...IMHO.

I like steam rallies...

Hah ! I love steam locomotives, but I think this is off topic Now if someone could just develope a steam powered woodplane...... fired on wood shavings of course !

Cheers, Vann.

 

[Eric The Viking]

Now if someone could just develop a steam powered woodplane... fired on wood shavings of course !

This is exactly that, but converted to what looks like a two cylinder petrol engine (bolted on top). It would have been belt driven, and the
engine would most definitely have been fed on shavings, or at least offcuts from the mill.

I think they were hedging their bets regarding the petrol power: there are big trunnions front & back at low level, and the one nearest the camera has the remains of a belt-drive shaft sitting in it. I suspect the bevel gear at the bottom centre was probably for depth of cut adjustment (it looks like quite a bit is missing). It also looks like it might have doubled as a thicknesser.

It's a shame to see it like that, but "bl**dy lethal" springs to mind as an auctioneer's description. I love the huge weights for applying pressure to the rollers. They look Heath Robinson, but in practice I imagine you could fine tune it pretty well.

Hope this helps (ducks and runs for cover)

 

[Vann]

This is exactly that, .........and the
engine would most definitely have been fed on shavings, or at least offcuts from the mill.

But... but... but, I can't see where the tote is. How am I supposed to push it if I can't find the tote?? :lol:

Cheers, Vann

 

[chipchaser]

Thanks for posting that Eric.

As a pre-teenager I saw a few old belt driven circular saws with very big blades standing in farm sheds. Also threshing machines and other things I didn't recognise. I lived in rural Essex then. I expect they have all gone to the scrap yard now.

I saw a belt driven portable mill for converting timber demonstrated at a show last summer. I can't remember if it was driven by a traction engine or by belt pto on an old tractor. I will see if I have a photo.

Graham

 

[Mr_P]

Apologies for reviving an old thread, seemed better than starting a new one especially when I have such a stupid question to ask.

Have a few of these old block planes with wooden knobs at the front that need a swim in corro dip but can't get the wooden knobs off.

Tried brute force and ignorance without success so about to ramp it up with mole grips. Before I dig them out is there a better / easier way ? Or should I leave well alone, no point in having a rust free block plane with a lose knob ?

 

[Jacob]

....
But... but... but, I can't see where the tote is. How am I supposed to push it if I can't find the tote?? :lol:

Cheers, Vann

Good point.
The whole point of a low angle plane is to make it convenient to work one handed - 120, 220, etc. so a tote would get in the way.
I also have the cheapest plane in the universe the Stanley 110 which is similar. It's actually very useful every now and then.

 

[Jacob]

...

Whatever you do DON'T BUY NEW RECORD OR STANLEY!!! they are utter rubbish. These companys bear no resemblance to their origins.

.....

With the exception of the new Stanley SW no 4 which cuts just as well as the LN,LV, Clifton, equivalents at a fraction of the price. Best value for money by far if it's woodwork you are into and not just tools. I don't know about the others not having had hands on. The 110 is OK for the money.

 

[G S Haydon]

Apologies for reviving an old thread, seemed better than starting a new one especially when I have such a stupid question to ask.

Have a few of these old block planes with wooden knobs at the front that need a swim in corro dip but can't get the wooden knobs off.

Tried brute force and ignorance without success so about to ramp it up with mole grips. Before I dig them out is there a better / easier way ? Or should I leave well alone, no point in having a rust free block plane with a lose knob ?

Hi Mr P,

Working on a Record 120 myself at the moment. Lucky for me the wooden knob came off easy. Gentle persuasion with mole grips sounds ok as long as you protect the wood from the aggressive jaws. Try tightening very slightly before undoing, sometimes works. Good luck.