Stanley Bailey # 5 ID

[ZippityNZ]

All 4 handles are wood

 

[Phil Pascoe]

Stained beech, not rosewood?

 

[ZippityNZ]

I honestly haven't got a clue what they are. One plane still needs a good cleaning.

 

[Osvaldd]

Going to sound a bit rude but who cares. Both will do everything a hand plane should do. The only time I would want to deeper investigate a Stanely bench plane is if it came with a solid frog as those are the real gems.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

Who cares? Only those of us who find it interesting, obviously.

 

[Osvaldd]

well I think I formulated the sentence wrong, I meant what difference does it make in using the plane if its from 1970s or 1990s?

I too would like to know the dates of these and other stanley planes but I think its going to be impossible. thats why I went with Records. :lol:

 

[ZippityNZ]

I care!!

Otherwise, I wouldn't be posting here asking what you obviously think are useless questions

 

[Osvaldd]

Lets not go there, I apologize. I’ll try to defuse this situation by saying, me being a mild autist, having older tools was important because I always felt everything made prior to the 60s was better quality. So I did a bunch of research and came to the conclusion that the only easily identifiable bench planes are the records.

 

[memzey]

Lets not go there, I apologize. I’ll try to defuse this situation by saying, me being a mild autist, having older tools was important because I always felt everything made prior to the 60s was better quality. So I did a bunch of research and came to the conclusion that the only easily identifiable bench planes are the records.

That’s not strictly speaking true though. Here are my Stanley bench planes:

I can reliably date each of them (the youngest being over 100 years old). I think it’s just harder to date the ones that were made in the UK, which is what I think you meant.

 

[Vann]

...and came to the conclusion that the only easily identifiable bench planes are the records.

He means "...the only easily identifiable BRITISH bench planes..."

Cheers, Vann.

 

[Vann]

Here's a photograph showing the two planes with their different shaped irons

I need more info. Can you post pictures showing the frogs, and showing the bed of the planes with frogs removed?

Cheers, Vann.

 

[ZippityNZ]

Man o man. You live just a few clicks from me ☺

I'll post the requested photographs in a few minutes, once I have edited them.

 

[ZippityNZ]

[/quote]I need more info. Can you post pictures showing the frogs, and showing the bed of the planes with frogs removed?

Cheers, Vann.[/quote]



As requested, one photograph with frogs in place - the other with frogs removed.

I noticed that the Frog Screws on the"older?" rusty plane have larger heads that the plane on the left.

Also, the cast lettering on the rusty plane appears to be smaller and finer (thinner) than the one on the left.

 

[ED65]

Did a quick scan of the thread and I think nobody has highlighted it yet, possibly because it wasn't so clear in a previous photo, but your newer-looking one has aluminium handle nuts which are most definitely a later feature.

They are known to be from a smallish time window and will likely be coupled with a steel depth wheel, not brass. Plus we can see that yours also has a cast Y-lever. Put all these together and from what we know your plane is very likely from the early 70s, an unusually narrow dating by the standards of British-made Stanleys.

This is largely based on posts made by Vann so you have him to thank

I care!!(

That's all the reason you need.

However, in terms of a difference between the two functionally, there shouldn't be one. Theoretically the ribbed design and slightly shorter casting makes for a jack that is stiffer and will therefore work better. But theory is sometimes just that, because of course how many millions of planes with soles this long or longer have no ribbing and work just fine?

So both are pretty sure to do everything they're called upon to do as already stated.

 

[ZippityNZ]

Thanks for all that information. I really appreciate it.

Yes, my plane does have aluminium handle nuts and a steel depth wheel.

The rust machine has brass fittings ☺

Both have rosewood handles.

 

[Vann]

I care!!(

That's all the reason you need.

I agree.

Zippity, sorry for not getting back to you earlier. When looking at your photos there was no Eureka moment. I think the two planes aren't that far apart in terms of age.

As ED65 says, the aluminium nuts and steel wheel place the ribbed plane in the early 1970s. My No.4, bought new in 1973*, has these features. However it also has a fabricated yoke, which was introduced in the 1960s I believe. They later went back to cast yokes and I guess that makes your plane a little newer than mine (say ~1975 - very approx.)

* I bought my No.4 in Auckland during 1973, New Zealand ($7.94). Being far from UK the NZ agents will have had more stock (as it took months to restock from the UK factory), so it could have been made a year or two earlier.

As for the rustier plane. That could have been made anytime from 1950s to late-ish 1960s. It looks like it has machined tops to the sides (I can't be sure from the photos) which would make it earlier rather than later.

However, in terms of a difference between the two functionally, there shouldn't be one. Theoretically the ribbed design and slightly shorter casting makes for a jack that is stiffer and will therefore work better. But theory is sometimes just that, because of course how many millions of planes with soles this long or longer have no ribbing and work just fine?

So both are pretty sure to do everything they're called upon to do as already stated.

The only comment I'd make here is that the quality control decreased, so the newer plane has a higher chance of being a lemon.

My tuppence worth.

Cheers, Vann.

ps. Zippity, I'm now in Petone

 

[ZippityNZ]

Guys,

Am I correct in thinking that planes without any webbing are older than those with?

 

[Ttrees]

Never seen a plane with webbing, which had the older style rounded top on the iron.
Not talking about the previous laminated irons, of course.

Some other questions might be useful on dating UK planes like...

When did the production of laminated irons cease in the UK?...
I think it was here, that there was mention of women producing laminated irons in Australia, or New Zealand during the war effort, but unsure if it was Stanley UK or USA.
Did these plane irons get shipped worldwide?

Can an "original box" hold a better clue to the age of a plane?

I can't get at my UK made planes until I finish painting, but think most of mine are somewhere in the 50's era,

Apart from what's mentioned allready,
I want to check for any minute differences like raised casting around the front knob,
The raised casting on toe and heel discrepancies,
Checking the frog tabs on the back of them, lateral adjuster differences, including possible differing Stanley trademark stamp on them.
Possible differing machining marks made on the slot in the irons.
Possible cap iron differences like the shape of the bend.
Stamp codes, side wall thickness and checking for irregularities.
Possible differences in raised lettering locations
The shared iron supplier, and differing stamps on them.
And probably a heap of other things that don't come to mind.

This is not impossible, and it's about time we tried to make an effort to try and get a better idea.
Surely this has been done before, so maybe an old thread on this needs to be resurrected,
or a new one made to pick up where others might have left off.
I glanced on a Record plane dating a long time ago, unsure if it was a fully comprehensive though, so it would be interesting to know more on this.

This hand tools forum is quieter now than it was before, so no harm in making a few of these
plane dating threads if need be.
Maybe we should start a discussion on what would be better to try and organise these for clarity,
possibly something along the lines of ...
Dating UK planes using the box,
Maybe, or maybe not, having separate threads of Stanley, Record, and other brands.
Dating by serial code,
Insert your better idea here, kinda thing.

Keen to know more
Tom

 

[Vann]

Am I correct in thinking that planes without any webbing are older than those with?

Correct.

Older still are those without the low curved web across the front and back of the base. These webs were being phased in when Stanley UK started up (Dec. 1936) and I don't think any UK Stanley No.4 planes were made without them. However many of the larger sizes initially were.

Cheers, Vann.

 

[ZippityNZ]

Got a photo to show an ignoramus what you mean?