Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
JayWC

Hand plane identification

12 posts in this topic

After talking with JWatson in chat I went back to previously unused planes I inherited from my grandfather to identify what I have. I'm posting pics per JW's request. The first 3 planes are easy to identify. The larger 2 still sort of elude me and I'm looking forward to help.

The smallest is a Stanley #9 1/2.

The second smallest is a Miller Falls #75.

The third is a Bailey #3. It has the dates of Mar20-02, Aug19-02 and Apr19-10 behind the frog. What do those mean? It is also the only one with a corrugated bottom. Is that good or bad?

The 4th and 5th have Defiance on them either on the handle or blade, but the 5th has the number three stamped on the heel and nothing else.

I am also trying to figure out if I should sell the 4th one as it seems like a junker to me. It does not have all the features of the 5th one. Also...I need to tune and clean these up. I'm trying to figure out how much labor/love/rust removal to do. For some reason they all have paint spatter on them. Is it worth scrubbing them down to bare metal and repainting the bodies? What about refinishing the handles?

Lastly, with these planes is the set fairly complete? Is there too much duplication? Please post your thoughts on all my questions. Thanks!

post-3726-0-16133200-1303231081_thumb.jp

post-3726-0-99066900-1303231082_thumb.jp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
After talking with JWatson in chat I went back to previously unused planes I inherited from my grandfather to identify what I have. I'm posting pics per JW's request. The first 3 planes are easy to identify. The larger 2 still sort of elude me and I'm looking forward to help.

The smallest is a Stanley #9 1/2.

The second smallest is a Miller Falls #75.

The third is a Bailey #3. It has the dates of Mar20-02, Aug19-02 and Apr19-10 behind the frog. What do those mean? It is also the only one with a corrugated bottom. Is that good or bad?

The 4th and 5th have Defiance on them either on the handle or blade, but the 5th has the number three stamped on the heel and nothing else.

I am also trying to figure out if I should sell the 4th one as it seems like a junker to me. It does not have all the features of the 5th one. Also...I need to tune and clean these up. I'm trying to figure out how much labor/love/rust removal to do. For some reason they all have paint spatter on them. Is it worth scrubbing them down to bare metal and repainting the bodies? What about refinishing the handles? Please post your thoughts.

the 9 1/2 is the standard block with adjustable mouth. its a common plane that i believe everyone needs. the millers falls 75 is a block but without the mouth adjustment, but is still usable.

after looking at the pictures i think the #3 is a type 11 based on the depth knob and 3 patent dates. they were made from 1910 through 1918. clean it and use it.

on the two jack planes the usability depends on the frog. if the frog is a decent frog then refurbish it for use otherwise you can do what you need to with it.

on all of them as long as the knobs and totes(handles) are in tact there is no reason to mess with them. if they are cracked you can repair them for use again. clean the bodies well and if they have pitting you need to deal with the rust by removal with evaporust or some other method of rust removal. you can polish the brass parts with brasso. make sure to get the gunk out from under the frogs etc. then you just have to sharpen and hone the irons and you will be back in business.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll chip in quickly before the experts have a chance <_<

#1: The smallest is a Stanley #9 1/2.

Agreed. Lovely little block plane. How is the sole?

#2: The second smallest is a Miller Falls #75.

I wouldn't know, but the #9 1/2 is better because of the adjustable mouth. Bit of of a duplicate.

#3: The third is a Bailey #3. It has the dates of Mar20-02, Aug19-02 and Apr19-10 behind the frog. What do those mean? It is also the only one with a corrugated bottom. Is that good or bad?

Agreed. The dates refer to patents, so your plane is younger than 1910, but possibly not much younger. Corrugated bottoms were a design feature to reduce resistance. Can't stand them myself, but they make no difference in use.

The 4th and 5th have Defiance on them either on the handle or blade, but the 5th has the number three stamped on the heel and nothing else.

They're both #5's. The first (photo set #4) is a very early model (perhaps pre-1900's) because there is no lateral adjuster. The second is a Bailey #5, after Bailey fell out with Stanley he started up Defiance. Agan, what is the condition of the sole, and around the mouth?

You're a lucky man.

I am also trying to figure out if I should sell the 4th one as it seems like a junker to me. It does not have all the features of the 5th one. Also...I need to tune and clean these up. I'm trying to figure out how much labor/love/rust removal to do. For some reason they all have paint spatter on them. Is it worth scrubbing them down to bare metal and repainting the bodies? What about refinishing the handles?

No, you can use #4 for rougher work like flattening the board, and #5 as a jointer/smoother.

If there are no cracks or chips around the mouth, then flatten the sole, frog surfaces, and sharpen the blade and chipbreaker. Then have at it for a while. If all goes well, you can decide if you want to do any further restoration, or get a better (Hock) blade, and so on. The damage to the tote on #5 doesn't matter too much.

Lastly, with these planes is the set fairly complete? Is there too much duplication? Please post your thoughts on all my questions. Thanks!

I'd be very happy with that set.

John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I cleaned up the #3 yesterday. It's not a restoration, but it's cleaned up enough to work again. I had a machinist near me flatten the sole. I also purchased a Hock blade and chip breaker. I sharpened it to 8k on my glass Shapton stones with my Veritas Mk II honing jig. My point to list this stuff is to recommend all of them. I followed the recommendation to round the corners too.

My #3 is now a fine performer. I'm still looking at the LN 4.5, but this little #3 functions nicely now too! I have a Hock blade and chipbreaker for the gray #5 but have to practice sharpening a camber into the blade before installation.

Again, thanks to all in the forum and chat for your help making my shop a hybrid shop!!!!

post-3726-0-79606500-1330121307_thumb.jp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If plane #4 has it's original iron, it's a stanley defiance. They were Stanley's lower quality models from the 20's through early 50's. Basically they were the Stanley Handymen before they made those.

@John, are you sure about that bit about Bailey? It was my understanding they were just the lower quality Stanleys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0



  • Topics

  • Posts

    • So I forgot to take pictures of this part, but I ended up doing a couple of setups on my cross cut sled instead of building the dog breeder jig. I didn't have a spare toggle clamp, and without a band saw to finish the cut I figure it was almost as quick. I cut a block with the 6.6 degree and for the bottom, and wedged the dogs against it for that cut. Next, I stuck down a piece parallel to the blade for the rip cut. This gave me this pile, after a couple of shallow cross cuts to free the waste. I found my gripper to be valuable through this part, because it held the pieces down very securely while keeping my fingers out of the way. It seemed fitting to use the wagon vise to finish these, so I clamped in each dog and used a large chisel to clean off the waste. A couple of them had minor accidents with too much waste splitting off, but all but one were good enough to keep. I'll clean them up a bit with a card scraper later and then install all the wooden springs.
    • Plywood doesn't expand/contract appreciably so it is best to leave it unglued in the groove so the solid wood can move. If you do glue it just put a dab on the center of one of the grooves - maybe the front panels. That will stop it moving but still allow the solid wood to expand or contract without affecting the plywood. If you are making it capable of being repaired so you can slide it in from the back then use some screws on the rear edge. If you glue the entire plywood to the solid wood sides you will find that the plywood may bend or crack. I like a nice sliding fit in the grooves. I am making some small drawers with 3mm thick plywood. I have routed a groove with 1/8" (3.2mm) router and that gives around 0.2mm to 0.3mm clearance which is about 7  to 10 thou ". 
    • Drawer bottoms suffer the most damage from abuse. I think not gluing is at least in part so that repair can be made down the road. Just one thought. 
    • First time staining and sealing something on 3 sides so I can glue it to something else. I was worried about stain transfer, I don't want that brown color getting on the cherry.     Maple scraps came in handy. One more thin strip to glue on the main piece then it's wipe on poly time. This freakish weather is awesome for letting me actually glue stuff in the shop.     Thanks, Coop. I hope it turns out cool. Shouldn't be long now.
  • Popular Contributors

  • Who's Chatting

    There are no users currently in the chat room