Found a #2 no name

[Frederick Skelly]

At Christmas I was seriously considering an LN #2 to help with my small boxes. At the time, several Creekers warned me the #2 might be small for my hands, and therefore uncomfortable to use. So I dropped that idea. I was in an antique store and saw a small No Name plane for $14. Brought it home on just a whim. Its clearly #2 sized. Somebody painted all of it black - mustve been a decoration. But I checked it - it seems flat and has no obvious twist. So Im going to see if I can bring it back to life. Being a "No Name", its not going to be a high quality tool. But it should give me a feel for whether or not I can make good use of a #2.

If I can revive it, Ill post some pics.
Fred

[Pat Barry]

Please post a picture anyway Fred. Like they say, if there's no picture it didn't happen.

[Mark Engel]

Yes, please do show some pics. Maybe someone here can put a name to the 'no name' plane.

[Frederick Skelly]

Ok, Ill try to find that cable later and do so.

The blade looks unused, though its painted black. Its stamped "Union Mfg, New Briton CT". The chip breaker has a faint stamp the looks like "MEANLES" in an arc, above the word "PATENT". Im guessing under "patent" is a date but its obscured by rust.

Is it plausible to think this is an original blade and chipbreaker? Were #2s all that common? (If it was a #4 I wouldn't
count on it. But a #2? What do you think?)

The frog looks like what brass city tools calls a "mid era" Union frog. Is Union an ok brand? How old might this be - WW-II vintage?

Fred

[Jim Koepke]

Ok, Ill try to find that cable later and do so.

The blade looks unused, though its painted black. Its stamped "Union Mfg, New Briton CT". The chip breaker has a faint stamp the looks like "MEANLES" in an arc, above the word "PATENT". Im guessing under "patent" is a date but its obscured by rust.

Is it plausible to think this is an original blade and chipbreaker? Were #2s all that common? (If it was a #4 I wouldn't
count on it. But a #2? What do you think?)

The frog looks like what brass city tools calls a "mid era" Union frog. Is Union an ok brand? How old might this be - WW-II vintage?

Fred

That is one of those "you suck!" worthy finds.

Union is as good a plane as Stanley or Sargent. Their lateral lever seems a little wimpy to me, but that isn't the most important part of a plane.

Most of the makers made a #2 size plane.

You might find it easier to hold with an open grip:

285898

This is a bigger plane but shows the general idea. Be careful with this kind of grip as the plane isn't secured in your grip.

Let's see some pictures. It is definitely gloat worthy for the price you paid.

You know if you don't like it you can probably put it up for auction and get a good return on your investment.

jtk

[Frederick Skelly]

285910285911
285912285913
Here they are! The lever is very sturdy - not at all like the whimpy folded over Union levers I saw posted elsewhere. I don't know what to make of that, Jim.

[Jim Koepke]

Here they are! The lever is very sturdy - not at all like the whimpy folded over Union levers I saw posted elsewhere. I don't know what to make of that, Jim.

Oh man! You really suck. :D

When you clean the lateral lever you will likely find it is stamped STANLEY. There may be some dates on it. If it has no disk on the lever it is a type 5. The dates on the lever were dropped at approximately 1900 or so depending on how fast the stock on hand turned over for particular sizes. The Bailey name was cast on Stanley planes in 1902. The #2s may have been later. They didn't always get the same changes as other sizes.

You also have the best of both worlds in that the Union blades are heavier than Stanley blades. The pictures look like a thicker blade.

Most likely someone swapped blades at one time.

jtk

[Frederick Skelly]

Jim, it is a thick, heavy blade. Looks rock solid.

Do you think this is a Stanley, rather than a Union?

[Jim Koepke]

Do you think this is a Stanley, rather than a Union?

That definitely looks like a Stanley lateral adjuster.

The handles also look more like (Stanley) rosewood than the mahogany Union used.

That is a good and lucky find. If the shop you found it in were in my neighborhood I would stop in there when ever I was in the area. You never know, sometimes lightning strikes more than once.

jtk

[Mel Miller]

Looks like a Stanley #2 to me. Their #2 size planes were not always marked #2.

[Frederick Skelly]

Ok, Ill try to find that cable later and do so.

The blade looks unused, though its painted black. Its stamped "Union Mfg, New Briton CT". The chip breaker has a faint stamp the looks like "MEANLES" in an arc, above the word "PATENT". Im guessing under "patent" is a date but its obscured by rust.

Is it plausible to think this is an original blade and chipbreaker? Were #2s all that common? (If it was a #4 I wouldn't
count on it. But a #2? What do you think?)

The frog looks like what brass city tools calls a "mid era" Union frog. Is Union an ok brand? How old might this be - WW-II vintage?

Fred

I cleaned up the cap iron. I can now read that faint imprint - it says "L Bailey's Patent Dec 24 1867".

Fred

[Jim Koepke]

I cleaned up the cap iron. I can now read that faint imprint - it says "L Bailey's Patent Dec 24 1867".

Fred

Are there any stampings inside the brass adjuster?

I think on one of my type 6 planes there are 3 dates on the lateral lever, 2 dates in the adjuster, 1 on the cap iron and 1 on the blade.

jtk

[Frederick Skelly]

Are there any stampings inside the brass adjuster?

jtk

I cant tell yet. Its got a coat of black paint on it. But Im hoping to clean it up this week. Ill let you know when I do! Thanks for your help Jim!
Fred

[Steve Rozmiarek]

That's heck of a find. Pretty early one too, I think Jim is narrowing that down. Best plane I found at the junk shop last week was a beat up 29 for $80. I'm jealous.

[Ed Griner]

I have two Stanley #2s and the best use for them is a paperweight.

[Frederick Skelly]

I have two Stanley #2s and the best use for them is a paperweight.

I think this one was, judging by the black paint!

Ed, Im curious - why dont you like yours?

Fred

[Frederick Skelly]

285954285955285956285957

1) Like I said, the cap iron (not pictured) says "L Bailey's patent, Dec 24 1867".
2) The frog mates securely to the sole, but the mating interface looks like it might be designed t fit some other frog. I just don't know enough to tell.
3) The lever cap has what look to be grinder marks on the outside edges. They are very straight - obviously done carefully - but I read somewhere that sometimes, folks took the lever cap off a #3 and ground it to fit the #2. I suspect this might be one. A supporting point for that idea is that but the "ground" underside has a sharp edge. (It's hard to see in the photos.)

Other interesting facts: a) There are no numbers of any sort cast into the sole. b) If you look closely at the frog, near the beveled edge, there's a "3" cast into it. Maybe a foundry identifier? c) There are no numbers or letters stamped on the lateral adjusting lever. d) There are no numbers or letters stamped anywhere on the brass adjusting wheel. e) The adjusting wheel is just under 1" diameter and 3/16" wide. It seems to be an early type.

What do you guys make of it? How many of these parts actually belong together and how many are substitutions? If it's (mostly) original, any idea of the age/type I'm looking at?

(Even if it's a Frankenplane, I can't go wrong for $14, right?) :)

[Steve Rozmiarek]

I think you are right, the #'s cast into the plane were very early, like type 1-4 (IIRK), and the lateral lever wasn't introduced until later. Doesn't matter if you wanted a user. I think you got a good deal for sure. Plus, it's fun to mess with and learn about. Heck, entertainment value alone makes it worth 14 bucks.

[Jim Koepke]

The lever cap does look like a larger one that has been cut down.

The 3 on the frog could actually be the remnants of a "B" filed down. No idea why anyone would file it down. That would put it in the late 1890s to about 1902, type 8 time frame.

The base and the frog are of the type that go together.

It could be a frankenplane, but if it works it doesn't matter.

Looking forward to your test drive after it is back together.

jtk

[Mel Miller]

The "3" on the frog is actually the remnants of a "B" casting mark which dates it to around 1900. Stanley #2 planes frequently don't match the type studies exactly.

[Steve Southwood]

Well what ever it is, I am enjoying the adventure

[Bill Houghton]

I have two Stanley #2s and the best use for them is a paperweight.

Gosh, I wouldn't mind one of those to hold my papers down...(insert smiley face).

[bridger berdel]

The lever cap does look like a larger one that has been cut down.

The 3 on the frog could actually be the remnants of a "B" filed down. No idea why anyone would file it down. That would put it in the late 1890s to about 1902, type 8 time frame.

The base and the frog are of the type that go together.

It could be a frankenplane, but if it works it doesn't matter.

Looking forward to your test drive after it is back together.

jtk


I have a very similar #2, which I believe to be all original. mine has a "B" cast into the underside of the lever cap, but not in the frog. it does however have the same groove on the underside of the frog as the one that took out the bar of the "B" making it into a "3". I think that that is an overshoot of the machining process from flattening the mating face on the bottom of the frog. perhaps this being such a small plane processed on the same setup used to mill that face on larger frogs it tended to overshoot a bit? it could have been a user mod to allow the frog to move farther back, also.


I have you beat on the gloat, though- I inherited mine....

[Moses Yoder]

I need more paper weights, papers are always blowing about the shop. Will pay $10 plus shipping for any extra paperweights you have that have taken the form of #2 planes.

[Frederick Skelly]

I agree - this has been worth $14 in fun! Plus, Ill get a (hopefully) workable tool out of it when Im done. Very pleased and excited here.

I got the black spray paint off her today and sanded the paint off tote and handle. Right now, those look like a poorly redone finish on an antique. But Im going to work them a bit more and then use a tung oil finish. I think theyll be just fine, especially for a user plane.

Tomorrow Ill get out the dremel and clean up the rust, then paint the appropriate parts black. Cant wait to sharpen that Union iron. Ill also lap the bottom just a bit, since shes a smoother.

Ill let you know when shes done and how she drives!

Thanks again guys!
Fred