Defiance Planes

[Jerry Crawford]

I've been thinking about needing to build a scrub plane for an upcoming project and was wondering which plane converted well to a scrubber, based on availability and angle of blade. Then I remembered that box in the corner of the garage. Last April at an auction in Maine I bid on a box of "stuph" because there was a nice full drill index on top. When I got to rooting around in the box after I won it, in the bottom were two rusty dirty planes with red painted frogs. I just pulled them out and come to find out they are marked "Defiance" & made in the USA by Stanley.

One is the same length as my #3 but much broader and the other is 2 3/8" wide by 14 long". Either one of these (or both) would make a good scrub plane but befor I go to the trouble of a complete restoration I thought I'd ask if there was any value in these or were they just inexpenisve Wall-Mart versions made by Stanley?

Thanks

[Tom LaRussa]

I thought I'd ask if there was any value in these or were they just inexpenisve Wall-Mart versions made by Stanley?

Jerry,

I believe they are the latter.

[Louis Bois]

Jerry,

The Defiance line of planes was marketed by Stanley as "Planes for the Home and Farm"...whatever that meant...whereas their Bailey line was considered the "Professional" series of planes. They also made another line of planes that fell somewhere in the middle called "Victor".

So, you do indeed have their "budget" planes. I'm sure you could make a decent scrub out of one...or both...of these. In any event, don't worry about mucking up an expensive collector plane...JUST DO IT!!!!

[Michael Perata]

I gave a couple Defiance planes to Chris Padilla. My Grandfather worked in a lofting shop and used the planes during WW II to build parts of the Liberty ships built in the Oakland CA yards.

I think they are more than okay :) and certainly not what you would get at Walmart today.

[Jerry Crawford]

Well, these ladies have certainly seen better days. As far as I can tell the only difference between them and Bailey is a cheap adjusting lever and a really crappy paint job in stead of jappaning. Like most woodworkers I'd be ashamed to have these seen in my tool chest the way they are so I'll spend some time this week freshening them out and see how that changes their attitude. In any case they will make fine scrubbers for my winter project. :)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v305/JerryCrawford/uglyplanes.jpg

[Roger Nixon]

These can't be made to cut as aggressively as a true scrub but they can be made into a very useful rough plane.
Real scrubs don't have chipbreakers, depth adjusters or wide blades and there are reasons for that as you will find out if you put more than 1/16" camber in the blades. :confused: Still a 1/16" camber will take off material rapidly. It is excellent for removing saw marks and getting edges close to straight. For this kind of work, your Defiance planes will be fine as no precision is necessary.

[Jerry Crawford]

Hey Roger,

Scrub/rough - a rose by any other name .....

The term scrub was used by my guru when I was learning how to square up and finish plane a rough milled board in college so that's what I've called them ever since. And, the removal of saw marks and rough surfaces is exactly why I need one. However, if "rough" is a more historically appropriate term I appreciate your feedback. I have the same reaction when I read "frame saw" in catalogues when what they are illustrating and talking about is a "bow saw".

[Roger Nixon]

My use of the word "rough" was not a designation for a plane although I think "roughing plane" was a synonym for a scrub, also known as a bismark, cow plane and a few other names.
I used "rough" as a description of the type of work you do with planes set up this way. Bench planes like these that are set up to do rough work aren't scrubs. Put a #40 beside these planes and you will see immediately they not roses with different names. More like roses vs. daisies.
I'm not getting into all the names for framed saws. ;)

[Jerry Crawford]

:( hmmm, I can tell there has been a serious omision in my woodworking edcuation :D

I don't recall ever seeing or using a #40, so a link might be helpful and add to my knowledge base. In school the subject of squaring a board became a class assignment and we were handed a 3BF piece of something that was pretty ragged. That's when the topic of "scrub" planes arose and how they were made. So I ran over to the local flea/iron market and found a beater Stanley and made my "scrub plane".

Your earlier comment about the degree of crown in the blade was on the money however. While this is't a perfect arc it's radiused enough to do teh trick.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v305/JerryCrawford/bladecrown.jpg

[Roger Nixon]

If you scroll down this page you will see a picture of the Stanley #40 (http://www.supertool.com/StanleyBG/stan5.htm).

Notice that the blade is only 1 1/4" wide and there is no cap iron. I use a 1/8" camber in mine which is about a 2" radius on that narrow blade. That would be a semicircle on your #4 or #5 blade! The "shavings" that come out look like fritos. Since I don't have a thickness planer, my scrub gets a lot of work. I use a #5 with a 1/16" camber to follow the scrub and level out the marks.

There is no need for precise arcs or radii, just get the desired amount of camber in he middle of the blade and get it sharp. The middle of the blade does much more work than the edges so the middle tends to get flatter after honings.

Camber is the handtooler's friend!

[jeremy holloman]

Hey, I know the thread has moved on to scrubs, but when I was a kid my grandfather had a boat yard in Biloxi, Mississippi, and he had a ton of planes and stuff. Most were Stanley, but he had a few Defiance, and he was not a man to buy cheap tools.

I could be mistaken, and I often am, but I believe both the Victory and the Defiance names were started by one Leonard Bailey after he left Stanley. Stanley later bought them out and so they were probably good planes just marketed to another sector as Stanley protected it's brand and slowly phased them out.

[Jerry Crawford]

Well, I've brought these ladies back to usefulness. A little TLC, cleaning their bottom's and a new coat of paint and they are users again. After hefting these I can vouch tht they are not cheap or inconsequential tools from Tiawan, and perhaps someday another craftsman will go to the trouble to hone and polish them up like we do our Bailey's today. Might make an interesting collection theme... :confused:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v305/JerryCrawford/uglyplanes2.jpg

[Louis Bois]

They cleaned up really well...and which one did you set up as a scrub plane?!? Did you open up the mouth on one of them?!? Enquiring minds want to know!!!

[Jerry Crawford]

Since the frog & blade are interchangable I only put that crown on one blade. This way I can use each as designed. I didn't alter the casting at all, as you suggest. It wouldn't have occurred to me to do so. The mouth's are .245". My experience 25 years ago was curving the blade was enoughto effect the carving of the wood. I can see how opening up the mouth would allow greater thickness of shavings though.

I'm going to be using these on Luan intially, to flatten out some cuping so I can plane the planks, so I don't expect any problems. But if/when I do more dense wood down the road I'll keep this in mind.