Low Angle Block Plane Type Study... Sort of?

[Jim Koepke]

Someone mentioned in another thread the desire for a type study on block planes.

There are type studies on the #9-1/2 and the #18/#19 standard angle block planes in the John Walter book. If there is a type study on the #60/#65 low angle block planes, it is well hidden.

Always the curios one, my time this morning was spent looking at different images of, yep, low angle block planes.

My main interest was in a way to determine when the area of bedding changed on the #60 from a pretty decent size to its minimalist size.

It comes down to not only having access to a lot of images and or holding the planes, but how does one determine when a plane was made without some kind of conclusive evidence? What should be considered as conclusive evidence?

Finding a progression of changes is not real difficult. The ease of this comes from an understanding that many changes came about to lower the cost of manufacturing.

Then how does one deal with changes that overlap?

Here is just one item that changes throughout the years of production of low angle block planes, the blade depth adjustment mechanism.

In the beginning, the slide and the knob were cast.

131415

Then came the stamped/folded metal slide, first with a knurled knob that has a recess machined on the side of the threaded rod, then with a flat surface on this side. This is the time period when the blade support at the mouth changes. I have only seen the knobs with the recess on planes with the larger blade support area. I did see one image showing a non-recessed knob on a plane with a large area. Most of the non-recessed knobs were on planes with the minimalist blade bed. No way of knowing if the parts were replaced. Also, the image was not as sharp as would be wanted to make this a definitive marker.

131416

This looks like it may be a later production with the slide's metal not doubled at the threads, but stamped through, then treaded.

131417

The final change seems to be another lowering of cost. The slide is now just a stamped piece of metal that is slung over a slot on the adjuster shaft. Less threading, less cost and less plane.

131414

The images quality could be a lot better, but this is just for fun, right?

jim

[Dave Matson]

keen observations! Perhaps what we need in lieu of a type study is a list of features that indicate a quality plane.

These might be:

Size of machined bed
type of adjuster shoe (cast or stamped etc)
Length of cap iron.

After seeing your post i ran down and looked at my 60 1/2 which has the larger machined bed and saw that it had the second type of adjuster that you picture.

These two Millers Falls 57s (similar to the Stanley 65 1/2) both have large machined beds and cast adjusters. One of them appears older and has a lever cap that extends farther towards the mouth giving the iron better support. I get the feeling that MF tried to not cut manufacturing corners as much as stanley did (which is probably one of the reasons why they are no longer around)

[Sam Takeuchi]

Here is the SW era #60. It already has a stamped steel slider. Also there is no number or letter cast onto the body. Bed is wide.

I have another one, a #60-1/2, from right after SW era I believe, identical characteristics as the SW one, except depth adjuster wheel is of that blocky type as in the second picture in Jim's post. It doesn't have '60 1/2' cast onto the side like later model.

[Jim Koepke]

I get the feeling that MF tried to not cut manufacturing corners as much as stanley did (which is probably one of the reasons why they are no longer around)

One of the other things I have read in the history of Millers Falls is the president of the company was very conservative and did not feel it was right to buy surplus machinery and tooling from the government at a discount after WW II.

Other manufacturers were buying the modern technology tooling for pennies on the dollar and were able to out produce the company that stuck to its principles.

After the war so much was changed. There was a pent up demand for everything, that was driving a booming economy.

At the same time the tool world was changing. Employment was not quite as sporadic as during earlier times. People were able to find work for life in a single trade. Earlier in the century, a laborer had to know a few different trades as lots of work was seasonal or sporadic. Machines began to replace hand work at a much more rapid pace. Homes were no longer built by craftsmen and apprentices, they were built by framers, sheet rockers, plumbers, electricians and finish carpenters. Crews were no longer going out to build a half a dozen homes, they were coordinated to build tracts of hundreds of homes.

We may be the fortunate ones living in a period embracing a renaissance of the manual arts.

jim

[Jim Koepke]

Got so nostalgic about the Millers Falls story, my intention to address the other point of Dave's post slipped right on by.


keen observations! Perhaps what we need in lieu of a type study is a list of features that indicate a quality plane.

These might be:

Size of machined bed
type of adjuster shoe (cast or stamped etc)
Length of cap iron.

After seeing your post i ran down and looked at my 60 1/2 which has the larger machined bed and saw that it had the second type of adjuster that you picture.

My thoughts are pretty much the same about indicating features. If one has the chance to study the plane in person, that is one thing. But it may be sitting across a room or on eBay. If you can see the adjuster is the cast knob, then it is likely on a body with a full sized bed for the blade. The solid knurled knob with the machined recess is most likely on a body with a full sized blade bed. If you can see the knob is flat on the inside it is not as likely to have the full area for the blade bedding. If it has the sheet metal forming the slide all the way back to the knob, it is likely like my $1 special. The plane works OK, but it is a bit twitchy to adjust and just does not have the quality of the earlier examples.

My plans for the near future is to try and get one of the earlier examples of a #60 or #60-1/2 with the full blade bedding and try it out to see if there is much difference. I suspect the difference may be why my #65 & #65-1/2 are used more often in my shop than the smaller planes.

Some of the subtle differences in feel most likely do influence our choices.

jim

[Sam Takeuchi]

One of the things a lot of people overlook is that often vintage block plane's bed doesn't actually fully support the blade. It is because sometimes tiny amount of metal stick out little higher (like you pointed out in tuning block plane the other day) along the sides, and also, by design or machining oversight, depth adjustment slider actually lift the blade slightly higher than then angle of the bed. So if you look into the bed while blade and lever cap are on, often there is a gap in between and probably the blade is supported by a lot smaller area than it appears, presumably from the tip of lever cap to the back of mouth, by flexing the blade.

So plane with smaller bed doesn't really work any worse than the wide bed, unless it was badly machined.

[Kurtis Johnson]

Thanks Jim for pointing me to your OP on small block pane typing.

Here are my very small contributions with photos of my No 65:


322897
Thumb indents, forward hump, no model number stamped on side of body


322898
"Stanley" only on knuckle joint cap

322899
Cast knob of thin thickness, cast depth adjuster nut

322900
No bed stamping from toe to heel, no dates, no foundry marks, Downturned eccentric throat lever

322901
Large bed with machined surface with crosshatch pattern

The latter is interesting. Of the large bed examples I sampled, I noticed the crosshatched bed surface on only mine and one, maybe two other examples. All others seemed machined more cleanly or finely. I've not seen it brought up elsewhere.

[Bill Houghton]

You might find this useful: http://virginiatoolworks.com/tools/stanley-planes/date-your-block-plane-type-study/

[Kurtis Johnson]

You might find this useful: http://virginiatoolworks.com/tools/stanley-planes/date-your-block-plane-type-study/

Thanks Bill! I already knew of this site and have appreciated that particular page ever since he posted it. In fact, I borrowed some of his terminology in my post. I have no idea how he got the info he did. It's pretty detailed. But it still leaves a lot of question marks for me.

It's probably helpful that link now exists in this particular thread. Thanks for posting it.