Type 9 variations

[Jim Koepke]

The type studies found online or in books are an interesting look into the history of Stanley hand planes.

Often, they become rigid in their interpretation or use. Hand planes were not put out like a new year model of an automobile. Once a type study is put together, it gets distributed and becomes difficult to make changes.

For my own enjoyment, I modify an old type study. But even that becomes inaccurate as some information is not entered or I may have multiple copies and forget which is the main copy. It is mostly just for fun.

Here are variations in the type 9's evolution into the type 10.

From all I can tell, they date from early type 9 to type 10 viewing from left to right. I suspect there are type 9s that look like the type 10 on the right, it is just that I do not have one, yet. The planes are a #4, #6, #5 and a #4. I almost threw my #5-1/2 in the picture, but it had a rib somewhat like the #6. Now I am going to have to go make sure it has the neck around the lateral lever.

140017

Notice the notch at the bottom of the frog and how the rib in the notch goes from low, higher, then the rib has bosses on the side and finally the frog is necked to meet the bosses. The arrangement of the bosses on the rib and the necking of the notch make frog adjustment fairly easy on the Bailey style plane on type 10 and later. This started out with the type 9 to lessen the amount of metal under the frog to help increase the yields from the casting process. The old frog seat had a lot of metal that could cause warping when it was cooling.

Also notice the changes at the top of the frog around the lateral lever. The first two have the cavity necked, the second two have the cavity open at the top.

140018

Finally, the first plane in this group is the only one to still have the 1888 patent date on the lateral lever. It is kind of hard to see on this one, it is a bit worn. Most of the type studies say that this patent date is not on the type 9s. If my memory is serving well, patent dates usually stayed on an item for 15 years. So this date was likely either because of left over parts or was removed in 1903. The blades for type 9 had the 1892 patent date. Type 10 is said to have began around 1907. There is a blade with just STANLEY stamped on it from this time period.

Lot of room for speculation while lifting a brew with some plane toting friends.

jim

[Jim Koepke]

Here is another variation on the type 9. This is a #5 kind of in the cross over between the necked lateral cavity yet still has the small notch.

No patent date can be seen on the lateral lever.

140103

jim

[Dave Anderson NH]

Hi Jim,

I always take type studies with a grain of salt for several reasons, some of which you have already mentioned. I think they are good guide to give a rough idea of the age of a plane within 5-10 years, but I would be very suspicious of trying to nail it down closer than that. Among my prime objections is the fact that the type studies for Bailey planes are all based on the #4 which was, if not their best seller, then pretty close to the top. Different sizes (model numbers) sold at different rates, had many of their castings made by different and and often multiple suppliers, and therefore used up the various parts at varying rates. All this contributes to confusion on accurate dating. Baileys have somewhat of a mix and match character based on when a batch of parts was used up and those of a newer or different supplier phased in. As an aside, I wonder if anyone has ever done a comprehensive study of how well newer "type" parts are backward compatible for fit on the different planes.

We always also have to take into consideration that Stanley was the 800 pound gorilla of their day in the tool market and was very tightly run in a manner similar to today's conglomerates which are managed and controlled by the bean counters. Stanley was always trying to both improve their product for competitive reasons and at the same time shave costs by simplifying secondary machining processes and lowering the weight of their castings.

I found your pictures really interesting though and they are a wonderful example of how often suble changes occur in a short period of time.

Thanks for posting it.

[Jim Koepke]

Dave, you are welcome, I am having fun doing this, it is like a kid with some new toys.

Thank you for offering a very clear explanation on why these variations naturally occur in the manufacturing process.

There are bound to be a few more finds in this. The type studies were also originally put together before the internet had the reach and resources we enjoy today.

As far as accurate dating, the only way that could be done properly is if there was a log of what came off the line at the Stanley facilities. Even that would likely be prone to some errors.

jim

[Jim Koepke]

Among my prime objections is the fact that the type studies for Bailey planes are all based on the #4 which was, if not their best seller, then pretty close to the top. Different sizes (model numbers) sold at different rates, had many of their castings made by different and and often multiple suppliers, and therefore used up the various parts at varying rates.

Patrick Leach says something to this effect about the #2 makers being off in a world all of their own.

jim

[Adolph Postel]

As far as the "Early" Type 9's, can the "Later" Type 9 frog be used on it? Or perhaps even a Type 10 frog? I have an "Early" Type 9 with a frog that is broken right below the Lateral Adjustment Lever. Looking for a salvageable frog for it. Thanks.

[Jim Koepke]

Howdy Adolf and welcome to the Creek.

My guess is a later frog would likely work on an early type 9 casting, though not the other way around. It is something that hasn't been tested with any of my planes.

jtk

[Mike Hutchison]

Hold up here fellers; and bear with me if this question is glaringly ignorant.
Are you saying that the Type Studies cover a range of different planes rather than
having Type Studies #1-whatever which are distinct and unique to each Plane?
If this is the case; Would I be correct in guessing that this situation holds true for the
Bailey Nos. 1-8 with a separate set of Type Studies for say the #113 Compass Plane
or a No. 35 transitional?

[Stewie Simpson]

John Walter's 2nd Edition (885 pages) covers a type study of all Stanley Planes.

[lowell holmes]

How many encyclopedias have been written about Stanley planes?
I have nine planes including a 604, 605, and 607 Bedrocks.

If you have a rust bucket plane to clean up, black automotive paint works well.
It looks a lot like japanning.

[Jim Koepke]

John Walter's 2nd Edition (885 pages) covers a type study of all Stanley Planes.

And if you hurry you may be able to get a beat up copy for less than $100 on that auction site.

jtk