union #7

[tyler mckee]

Just got an old union #7 from my grandpa, saw it sitting on a shelf in the garage and he told me to take it, hadn't used it in who knows how long. It was completely covered in rust and crud when i got it, these shots are from after cleaning/rust removal. Anyone know around how old this thing is? is it thought to be any good, after cleaning and sharpening it sure makes some nice curls.

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4024/4267246479_417a152230.jpg
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4006/4267246505_427f50c5a3.jpg
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4054/4267246489_21055fe1cf.jpg
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4036/4267246485_269c0d6726.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2748/4267246523_7a2fd7e17b.jpg

[Jim Koepke]

The best I can do is say it predates 1915-17. That is when Union Mfg. changed the name on the planes to Union Plane Co.
I do not know about the patent date for the lateral lever or when they moved the large hole to the other end of the blades.

In 1920, Stanley bought Union Plane Co. and started using Stanley blades in the planes.

Your plane was likely made within a decade of the arrival of the 20th century. Not sure if before or after.

I am not sure if the lateral adjuster was different enough from Stanley's to receive a patent. What is interesting is the Union lateral adjuster is pushed the way one wants the blade to go deeper. Stanley's and Sargent's a pushed away from the way one wants the blade to go. It is all in the relationship of the disk to the pivot.

I am not sure if the Stanley 1888 patent on the lateral adjuster is for the disk, but it should have ran out after 15 years in 1903. Early type 9s still have the last patent date on the lateral adjuster.

So, back to the Union #7. Many people like them because they have a thicker blade than the Stanley. There is a Union #4 in my family that seemed a little better than a Stanley for the thicker blade, but there wasn't much blade left. It is currently with one of my brothers who is hanging on to a lot of the family's unused heirlooms. It was still a Union Mfg. Co. product, but its blade was narrow at the top, so yours is older than that.

jim

[tyler mckee]

Thanks for the info. Can't make up my mind if i want to clean it up and make it look new or leave it as is and just tune it up a little more, it's got 100 years of character now

[David Gendron]

Doesn't look to bad, I would fix or make a new tote for it and woud use it as is!

[scott spencer]

If it was your grandfather's, it's good. If it makes nice curls, it's good. I'd definitely make an attempt to rehab it but it's yours and is your decision. It looks to be a little rough from a collector's standpoint anyway, so I'd try to give it new life and keep it in the family.

[James Taglienti]

that is a very nice looking plane. is the iron heavier than usual? Union made a good plane and they are heavier than usual.
+1 on jim's dating of the plane. It is interesting to see how they attempted to patent that lateral lever. The lateral lever was the last thing to "go" before the Bailey type plane became complete FAIR GAME for the entire industry. I'm sure the patent application read "Improvement in the Adjustment of Planes" or something like that. Many companies and individuals would stamp a patent date on an item and give no explanation as to which part was actually protected. This was a good way to keep people from copying [I]any[I] part of the plane. but i digress.
Good plane, good user, good collector value. Don't repaint it unless you are keeping it in the family forever. (I would keep it for sure.) If you do keep it don't forget to wantonly drill a huge off-center hanghole in an absurd location on the plane. just kidding.

[Leon Jester]

... If you do keep it don't forget to wantonly drill a huge off-center hanghole in an absurd location on the plane. just kidding.

Absolutely. Must have a hole in it. Don't forget to hang it from a hook instead of a nail, makes it much easier to drop.

[Jim Koepke]

One thing was left out on my post on this. The slot in Union blades is just a little narrow to fit into a Stanley plane.

Not sure if this was a marketing scheme to make someone buy the whole plane to get the thicker blade or not.

jim