Stanley 50 paperweight or heavyweight?

[NickN]

Got offered this yesterday at my local woodturning club for £15, seemed like an interesting thing even if it was all just a messed up heap in the cardboard box, but I spent a bit of time today sorting through, digging all the cutters out and seeing what was there or not.

Looks to me as if by some miracle there may not actually be anything missing, going by a diagram I found in Google Images, but there are no instructions and I've never used or owned one of these before so not 100% sure. Anyone here care to comment on whether this is actually a useful plane, and if so what is it best at, and what is to be avoided? Or in other words, is it a heavyweight and essential (well, ok, useful then) tool in the woodworker's cupboard, or is not much more than a pretty paperweight, and others do a better job?

I'm afraid I may have started falling down some very slippery slope... as even if consensus is that it's not a particularly good user tool I will probably keep it for the, *cough*, collection... (y'know, the collection that started out being just one or two bailey-style planes and an old saw) (hammer)

 

[AndyT]

It's a useful tool, especially at that price. Best for ploughing grooves, like you might need on a cupboard door.
Years ago, Alf was a prolific poster on here, and her website remains a good source of detailed 'how to' information:

http://www.cornishworkshop.co.uk/combinationplanes.html

The Stanley 50 includes beading cutters, and although these are not necessarily as good as dedicated wooden beading planes, Derek Cohen recently posted some advice about the benefits of a back bevel on beading plane cutters here

veritas-small-plow-as-a-beader-t100643.html

(Don't be put off by the misleading subject line - it's useful info for any make of combination plane.)

 

[Bod]

Well worth the money, if you don't I will!

Bod

 

[deema]

When assembled, if the two skates are parallel with each other and the fence you have a really super tool. I have a Record 405, which is a very similar tool. I use it often. There was a set of metric groovers made for it if you don't have them in your set - which I managed to get a set from eBay - which means that making draw bottoms or any groove for a panel far easier and simpler than setting up the Spindle moulder - I'm not a router fan!

 

[D_W]

I had a Stanley 50 eon's ago that used the side grip type hold to keep irons set. It didn't work with a 1/8th iron and it didn't get a very good grip on the other irons. I think the latter could've been remedied (I didn't try, can't remember if it had nickel plate where it held irons).

I have since purchased a Marples M50 and it has a small blade attachment, and I don't know if that may be what I was missing with the original 50 as the blade set it had came with a 1/8th iron.

The best thing about the 50 at the time is people were willing to buy the side grip type despite the fact that it didn't hold the iron that well, so I got my money back when I sold it.

 

[NickN]

@ Andy: Thanks for the pointers to the information. Found the idea of Derek from Perth of creating a 15 degree back bevel very interesting if it helps prevent one of the bigger problems with using these 'soul-less' planes.

@ deema: I haven't checked that yet, the parallel set, I'll have a look now. What are the metric groovers normally listed as, and were they sold specifically for the Stanley 50 or for one of the others? I'd be quite keen to get hold of a set of those if I can. It seems that the 13-050 certainly has a set, but that uses a different depth setting system.

@ D_W: This one has a screw which apparently replaces the sliding skate for the narrowest cutters, and holds them firm - I suppose being so narrow means the second skate would be redundant anyway. Or did you mean the depth adjusting mechanism? And yep, at least even if I decide to get something else, perhaps like you a Marples or some such, I'm sure I could get the money back! Having a bit of fun for now anyway working it all out. Found a reprint of the instruction manual available too.

 

[D_W]

If there's a depth adjuster on this one, I think you're good to go. Mine didn't have a depth adjuster on it, and I think that was probably the problem. The grip wasn't tight enough, and there was no other mechanical fixture to keep an iron in place. Just guessing, mine was an older type by that by some fair amount (I'm not a stanley collector, so I don't really know for sure how many 50 designs there were, etc).

 

[Eric The Viking]

My #50 came from Father-in-Law, and I was delighted when he offered it to me. It's complete, and I'll scan the instruction sheet and post it up if you like (yours doesn't seem to have one).

In response to a question I asked a few years ago, on sharpening the beading irons, Dodge (of this parish) says he doesn't attempt to hone the curves, but just flattens/polishes the backs and keeps them touched up. I must admit that, although I did eventually produce an acceptable 5/16" bead in softwood, it didn't look very nice, and a lot of trees died in vain. I'm sure my technique is rubbish (yes, I did go "backwards"), but difficulty of getting and keeping the iron sharp was certainly part of the problem.

And yes, the irons aren't clamped or adjusted very easily. The other combination planes, with screw adjusters must be a lot better (what were you thinking, Stanley???). I've wondered about a mod, but without decent metalworking kit it would be hard to make a good job of it.

The other big problem is getting the two sides of the plane parallel each time. It's very difficult! How people got on before digital calipers...

So mostly I resort to mobile electrons and Mr Trend's chunky apparatus. Noisy, messy, consumer of resources, but more predictable. I know: Catch #22 - I don't get better because I don't practice, and I can't use it because I'm no good with it...

:-(

 

[NickN]

@ Eric: Thanks for the offer of scanning the 50's instruction manual, as it happens I found someone on Ebay selling repro prints of them so have now got one, but I appreciate the offer.

I think for the beading and any other curving irons I might use I will try and find a set of needle diamond files at about 400-600 grit, that should be all that's really needed, and with care I expect the shape can be maintained. However, most likely easier said than done!

I do have a Record 405 so for actual using one of these planes I will probably stick to that, and keep the Stanley for practicing with.

And as a last resort there is an ELU router sitting in a box...

 

[AndyT]

Re instruction leaflets - there's no need to go to eBay - the link to Alf's website that I posted earlier includes scans of a wide selection of them, from Stanley and Record.

 

[Vann]

If there's a depth adjuster on this one, I think you're good to go. Mine didn't have a depth adjuster on it, and I think that was probably the problem...

When the Stanley No.50 first came out (1884 according to Patrick's B&G) it didn't have a depth adjuster. Record copied the design in 1932 (according to the late David Lynch), but in 1933 they decided to add a screw depth adjuster to their 050. In 1936 Stanley added an adjuster, not a screw adjuster like Record, but a lever adjuster like their own No.78.

As a result, early Stanley cutters don't fit the later Stanley, and only fit the Record if the screw adjuster knob is removed. Similarly, Record cutters don't fit the later Stanley. Everything fits the early Stanley, but of course without depth adjustment.

This must be the most frustrating plane to find replacement cutters for (hammer)

Cheers, Vann.