Couple used planes

[Mike Holbrook]

I like wood planes but I want a couple old used metal planes for rough work. I would like to try something corrugated and something with a plain flat bottom in a 5, 5 1/4, 5 1/2, -6 size plane. I have been checking auction sites and I am a little lost with the plane manufactures other than Stanley, Miller Falls, LV & LN. I find Lakeside, Deiance, and Sargent for example, are these decent planes too? I want to start with a plane set up with medium camber, not a scrub, as I am currently using more "finished" lumber.

[Andrew Fleck]

Lakeside and Defiance are lower grade planes. The others you mentioned are good planes if you get the right years of manufacture with the exception of LV/LN. Those two have been making good planes as long as they have been in business as far as I know. For example an older Stanley plane IMO is much better than a new one. It's subject to opinion, but that is mine. Take it for what it's worth. Others will be able to tell you what type, etc... of plane you should look for. My older planes are all Stanleys that were made prior to WWII and they all work great. Some of them needed some help, but they all do what they are supposed to now.

It sounds like a #5 would suit what you are looking for. Those can be found cheaper at yard sales and antique shops than they can be on the auction site for the most part, plus you get the added benefit of being able to inspect it in person.

[Sean Hughto]

Many of the off brands are very close to Stanleys, and some guys like the subtle differences in MF and Sargent planes even better than Stanley. In all events, go vintage - pre-1940. There are so many Stanleys that are good and cheap, I probably would start there. You should be able to get a great user 5 for no more than $35 and a 5 1/2 for no more than $60. 6's don't seem to be very popular generally, and often really cheap too.

[Mike Holbrook]

Thanks for the input guys. I am finding decent looking prospects I can just buy for $25 and bids starting much lower. Good to know which are normally a little lesser plane. I am finding a large number of the Sargent planes, some have an autoset feature, which uses an entirely different adjustment mechanism, any opinions on them? I was/am a little hesitant to buy an older plane model that I might have trouble getting parts for. However, I have actually found blades for both types of Sargent planes, and significant numbers of other replacement parts too.

Now I have to figure out which are the older pre WWII models. I found an actual web site for Sargent plane models and I know there are ones for Stanley too.

[Sean Hughto]

http://www.hyperkitten.com/tools/stanley_bench_plane/

https://home.comcast.net/~rexmill/planes101/typing/typing.htm

[Jim Koepke]

My biggest point for sticking with Stanley is finding parts is easy. Some of the other do use standard hardware. Don't ask me which.

My opinion is to also stay away from most Stanley planes made after WW II. I have a #5 from then that is mostly okay. It would cost more to ship it than what it is worth in my opinion.

jtk

[Mike Holbrook]

Great links Sean, I have some reading to do. Then maybe I will be able to tell the pre WWII planes. I appreciate the help. I was leaning towards the older planes anyway,. They look more solid and well made, like many of the older hand tools. Now I have dates to work with.

Any thoughts on Keen Kutter? I see a fair number of them. I know Keen Kutter has a good rep, in other hand tools. They look like Stanley copies. I wonder if many of the Stanley/Bailey look alike planes were actually made by Stanley or some large other company?

[Jim Koepke]

I wonder if many of the Stanley/Bailey look alike planes were actually made by Stanley or some large other company?

Here is a link to identity by lateral lever. Lie-Nielsen uses the Stanley type lateral adjuster. Not sure if anyone else copied it. It likely costs a bit more to make in this fashion.

http://www.brasscityrecords.com/toolworks/graphics/plane%20id.html

Here is a link to a post of mine that has some information:

http://www.sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?104945-Plane-information

It and others are archived in the Neanderthal wisdom/FAQs.

jtk

[steven c newman]

Hmmm, I might, just might mind you, know a thing or two about older planes.....LOL

Have a DE6c (rebuilt) that most of the original parts were by Union Tool Co. Pre-1920s

Have a Sargent #414c This is a #5 sized Jack plane. About mid 40s ( $17 shipped, too)

Have Type 19 #5-1/2 Stanley. NOT a bad plane, actually. Been taking it to some rough sawn red oak lately

Don't over look one off brand by stanley. The Four Square line. These are all branded with that SW. No other markings. Mine is a 5-1/4 size. VERY GOOD junior jack!

Lots of "off brand" planes come through my little shop. Only the best will stay, though.

There is actually TWO types of Defiance brand planes. The second version looks like a regular run of the mill hand plane cheapo. The FIRST version, without the "normal" frog, is VERY light weight, large mouth, and made for Joe handyman to abuse and toss into the tool box. And still do the work every day after. Had a #4 of these. Iron is an older style Stanley iron, and very good.

Best of both worlds? Try the Transitional planes. I happen to have a Stanley #31. Same iron width as a #7, but at 24" long, it is a long jointer289946289947 tuned up, and sharp. Makes some nice heavy curlie thingies...

[Mark Engel]

I have found many Sargent planes that are as good or better than vintage Stanleys.

Millers Falls planes can also be a good value. Look for the hinged, three point lever cap.

I stay away from most of the 'economy' brands, Fulton, Dunlap, Defiance, Four Square, etc. They usually sell at close to the same prices as vintage Stanley, Sargent, Millers Falls, etc. so why buy them. My FIL was fond of saying, "For 10 cents more you go first class."

[don wilwol]

Here is my site which will help with dating sergeants. http://www.timetestedtools.com/typeing-sargent-bench-planes.html

The older fultons were made buy Sargent as well and were good planes. My Fulton info is still on my blog, http://www.timetestedtools.com/typeing-sargent-bench-planes.html

[Mike Holbrook]

I have noticed that many front knobs on these planes are cracked. The info. I am reading indicates that this was a problem until they started using a raised metal ring, cast into the body, to house the wood base of these knobs. I am wondering if this is a significant problem with the earlier bodies? If I am calculating the dates correctly there are pre WWII planes with this feature. Are planes in this time frame good prospects to search for? Maybe there is a work around for this issue that would eliminate it from consideration?

I am thinking a jack or fore type plane will see heavy use which may stress the base of these knobs on these relatively heavy planes?

[Jim Koepke]

There is likely a few different reasons for knobs to crack. The early tall knobs did provide more leverage to the base of the knob.

I like short knobs and no ring.

jtk

[Mike Holbrook]

So Jim, I believe the short knobs pre-date the taller knobs which in turn pre-date the bodies that have a place molded in them for these knobs. So if I understand what I am reading Jim likes the earlier model planes. Since I believe Jim has a wealth of experience with these type planes I am thinking it is safe to assume that even the early plane knobs were reasonably reliable. I know they made lots of them so they must have worked reasonably well, from what I read quite a few "new features" Stanley came up with were more for marketing reasons and not necessarily because they made the tools work better. I read that some people felt the lower knobs were a little hard for them to grip but since I have medium size, wide hands I think I too might like the wider, shorter knob.

[Judson Green]

A number of my working planes do not have the raised ring casting and work just fine, some knobs are chipped at the bottom. Guess I'd prefer to have the raised ring casting, but wouldn't dismiss a good looking plane without the raised ring.

I prefer short knobs on small planes, like 3 and 4. On larger planes I don't really think about knob height. My Stanley 8 is really old (pre-frog adjuster) and I don't even think about the shorter knob on it. Even though I just said what I did, at times the short knob on a 3 size plane can seem a little crowded for my digits.

Also prefer the smaller iron adjuster (brass knob) on the 3, do not like smaller adjusters on larger planes. Have the smaller one on my 8 and need to swap it out.

And I don't have any problem with the planes after the war, roman ogee at the top of the frog. I have a 4 from this era and its one of best smoothers, of course I've tuned it up, still complety stock.

And a vote for the lowly frankenplane, they need loving too. One of my favorite 5's is a frankenplane.

[steven c newman]

The "stress" on the front knob was more from it being a tad loose with use, and nobody tightening it back up. Have found a few front bolts bent. All that ring did was "capyure" the base of the knob so it couldn't move around. Weather would cause the older knobs to shrink or swell, making them loose.

[Jim Koepke]

So Jim, I believe the short knobs pre-date the taller knobs which in turn pre-date the bodies that have a place molded in them for these knobs. So if I understand what I am reading Jim likes the earlier model planes. Since I believe Jim has a wealth of experience with these type planes I am thinking it is safe to assume that even the early plane knobs were reasonably reliable. I know they made lots of them so they must have worked reasonably well, from what I read quite a few "new features" Stanley came up with were more for marketing reasons and not necessarily because they made the tools work better. I read that some people felt the lower knobs were a little hard for them to grip but since I have medium size, wide hands I think I too might like the wider, shorter knob.

The tall knobs on the Stanley/Bailey planes began at the end of the type 11s, approximately 1920. One of my planes was originally a tall knob and I changed it. One or two of my planes do have tall knobs. The only one that really gets me with a short knob is my #4-1/2. If I give it the full knob grip occasionally some of the hairs on my hand/fingers get pinched under the front of the plane, ouch!

Some of my short knobs are cracked but they haven't been a problem. Some of these old tools were carried loose in tool boxes and got banged around. Some look like they fell off of ladders.

Another thing I did was to buy a bunch of depth adjusters from later planes. These are on various pre-type 12 planes. The bigger brass is nice.

jtk

[Phil Marcus]

Just my $.02, as I saw the thread and couldn't resist.

I have two Union planes, a #5 and a #7. They were both made just after Stanley bought Union - about 90 years ago! After I fettled the #5, which meant spending an afternoon with the frog and some abrasives, it cut very well indeed. With the addition of a Hock iron and chip breaker, it is just excellent. Not a real pretty tool, but great with either blade and chip breaker. The #7 Needs either a patch or some attention/TLC - or a new tote. Union irons are <thick>, and once this one received a new bevel, it became, I think, about as good a jointer can get. The interesting thing about the #7 was that it obviously had already been carefully adjusted with a file or similar by someone who knew what they were doing! It is straight, takes shavings of any thickness and is my goto weapon of choice for discouraging zombi activity anywhere in the vicinity. Way cheap compared to Stanley equivalents - I wouldn't hesitate to do it again.

[Mike Holbrook]

I am interested in blades for these tools. Some of the older model planes I see have blades and or chip breakers that are pitted from rust. I see from posts here that Hock irons and chip breakers are popular for these tools. Hock offers both high carbon and A2 versions of the popular size blades. I also discovered that Lee Valley offers PM-V11 versions of blades and cap irons, It looks like I can get; new 1 3/4" for 5 1/4 ($66), 2" for a 5 ($67), or 2 3/8" for 5 1/2, 6, 7 ($71), actually less expensive than Hock A2's. The only thing that worries me is the descriptions at both vendor sites mention that the irons and or cap irons may be thicker than the stock parts. Although I doubt that Hock or LV would sell parts that do not fit I also read that the replacement parts may not fit all models.

Then the only issue I face is whether an older tool with replacement blade & cap iron gets close enough to the price of something new to toss me back in that direction. Specifically I see I can buy a new Veritas 5 1/4W Bench Plane for $229 (A2 or 01), $242 in PM-V11. The newer plane has the same adjustment system I am familiar with (have the LA jack, LA block, BU smoother). The Veritas plane may have some other features that may be benefits as well, adjustable mouth, set screw to hold blade in place, an arguably better design in terms of reducing chatter and making adjustments before and during work.

[Andrew Fleck]

Of all the old planes I have there has been only one that I considered the iron too far gone to replace. It was very badly pitted right on the non bevel side. The rest of them all required some work, but once I made a jig to hold the iron so I could flatten the back it made short work of it. I don't know how to attach a link to an older thread, but others here do. http://www.sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?160656-Free-%28to-make%29-Iron-Holder-I-know-I-ve-posted-this-before. Maybe I do if this link works.

I do know that on the one plane that I fitted with an aftermarket iron I had to file the mouth of the plane a little bit to get it to fit right. I would give the stock iron a chance first. Mine all work just fine, but if you have your heart set on new ones, the places you mentioned both make fine irons.

[steven c newman]

Just my two cents worth on irons/blades:

The only two after market irons I have, one is a "Shark" from Berg, riding in the DE6c. The other is a Buck Brothers 2" wide iron from Home Depot ( @$3 each) and it rides in the FranckenBailey #5 as a smoother type iron. Needed some work, but a VERY good iron. Just do NOT buy them plane like objects sitting under them at the HD.

Ohio Tool Co. used a laminate iron, very thick at the bevel end, then a long taper. Most Union irons were the same way. A Hock MIGHT fit these type of brands better, without any use of a file. Don't know for sure, never had a Hock in the shop.

Have several irons with either a SW on them, a Sargent stamp, or a Millers Falls stamp. VERY good irons.

"Fulton" was by Sargent, made for Sears. Dunlap was made by the Big Three...Stanley, Sargent, and Millers Falls. Drpending on which got Sears' business that year. Under the WARDS MASTER QUALITY brand name, my #3 is simply a Stanley WWII era #3. Very nice one, too. Sometimes, one has to "look under the hood" on these "off-brand" planes to find out who actually made them.

Picked a Great Neck block plane up for about $5 one time. Sat it beside a Stanley Cordovan 9-1/2.......other than the brand name on the toe, and the colours, they were the same plane.

[Jim Koepke]

It looks like I can get; new 1 3/4" for 5 1/4 ($66), 2" for a 5 ($67), or 2 3/8" for 5 1/2, 6, 7 ($71), actually less expensive than Hock A2's. The only thing that worries me is the descriptions at both vendor sites mention that the irons and or cap irons may be thicker than the stock parts. Although I doubt that Hock or LV would sell parts that do not fit I also read that the replacement parts may not fit all models.

Then the only issue I face is whether an older tool with replacement blade & cap iron gets close enough to the price of something new to toss me back in that direction. Specifically I see I can buy a new Veritas 5 1/4W Bench Plane for $229 (A2 or 01), $242 in PM-V11.

If the price you mention for a new plane, $229, minus a new blade, $67, is what you are paying for an old plane, you are paying way too much.

A problem may occur with replacement blades with chip breakers made for a Stanley planes are used on other models that may not have the same dimensions for the placement of the chip breaker screw and the depth adjusting pawl.

I have used Hock blades with original Stanley chip breakers and they work fine. Sometimes the mouth has to be opened. One time the Hock chip breaker had a screw that was too long and had to be filed. That is why we have files and should know when and how to use them.

jtk

[Mike Holbrook]

I am following around 9 pages of auction planes on My "auction site" watching list. I am amazed at the disparity in prices for what seem to me to be very similar vintage planes. Many people that post here seem to shop local auctions and flea markets. I have never found the time or inclination for what I am sure could develop into a whole new hobby. The lowest prices I am finding are $25-35 for planes that seem to have real issues like broken wood, cracked metal, substantial rust pitting...Basic tools that might be cleaned up and put into use without a whole restore project seem to run from $50- $200. I have seen a few decent planes won at low bids but not many.

During the last five years, I have won bids on a wide range of old hand tools, ranging from needing major restoring to ready to work and it seems to me that it is getting much harder to find good deals. I am getting to the point that I find it hard to justify the time and energy to locate fine old vintage tools which is too bad because I do enjoy using the older tools.

[steven c newman]

Usually when i go looking around on FeeBay, I'll set a price to look for. Like right now, I'm looking at planes from $0.99 to $10.99, and finding quite a few. Lots of stanley #4s and #5s, even a #6. Set the sights a bit low, and see what there is out there. After all, I picked up that Stanley #5-1/2 for around 16.50 with Free Shipping....290092After an afternoon of clean up.

[Jim Koepke]

Another trick to cast a wider net is to have a search for > stanley parts, iron, blade < often items are not listed as a plane but they might be listed as having a Stanley part or blade.

I tend to look at things with bad pictures. I used to search these for parts. They were often in fine condition. Which meant I would have to keep looking for parts.

Also try a search on just > stanely < or > stanly < it is surprising how many folks do not check their spelling. Be aware that some listers misspell intentionally. Just because it is misspelled doesn't mean it will be a good deal.

jtk

[Mike Holbrook]

Features....I am interested in those features others find to be of benefit in planes used for removing medium to large amounts of wood from boards finished on at least three sides. Not a scrub, as for now I do not plan to work rough wood with a plane. I have a small planer and a good badsaw (once I get it fixed) Corrugated bottom, Plane & blade width, plane length, blade adjustment....? I have been looking at planes starting with the Stanley 5 1/4 and moving up to the Stanley #6. I have two wood jack planes about 15" long. One is a fairly light plane the other is a Razee design in heavier, thicker wood.

[Mike Holbrook]

Finally, patience payed off. I lost half a dozen auctions but finally found one with no bides with 2 minuets left. I got a Sargent #414 for $9.95. I think that is the lowest price I have seen any of these planes go for. The knob has a small crack, every thing else looks good. I have an extra knob I think I can modify if I have to. The plane seems to be close to a Stanley #5, very little rust, should clean up and be a good user.

[Mike Holbrook]

So I worked on another plane or two for a couple more weeks. I especially wanted a#6C type plane. I lost several auctions on planes that I thought were in good shape, including one earlier today. I finally just did a buy out on a Stanley 6C plane priced at about what I ended up bidding and loosing on. Then I saw a Stanley 5C, pre WW II, that was in exceptional condition with solid looking wood, that had only 1 bid at the minimum. I bid a few dollars over the min and for some reason I won it too, only a minor miracle. Apparently patients can eventually pay off. It seems to me that planes with no bids or one bid at the minimum have a higher probability of not going too high in the bidding. If lots of bidders are involved the price often seems to run up.

The Stanley 6C has very light rust and discoloration. I am wondering what techniques people use to clean the steel, particularly corrugations? I have seen some sparkling clean planes for sale that I am confident are quite old and must have had significant cleaning. The wood on both planes is a very dark red/brown color that appears to have stood the test of time well. I believe I have seen other planes with similar wood that sellers referred to as "rosewood". I am wondering if one of the various types of real rosewood was actually used in the manufacture of these planes and if it was actually harder or denser?

Now I have the chance to find out for myself what these old classics can do.

[don wilwol]

see if this helps. (http://www.timetestedtools.com/how-to---bench-plane-restoration.html)

[Mike Holbrook]

Don,

Interesting that you should provide that link. I found it myself late last night, certainly some advanced methods there. I am thinking about setting up a sand blast box. First I have to put my steam box together though.
I think Don has added a considerable amount of new material to his site. Nice looking site with lots of helpful plane identification and restoration information for us enthusiasts, good job Don!

I was studying the build time frames for a Sargent #414 I am restoring. Several of the parts may have been manufactured in different time frames/generation #'s which I gather from Don's site may not be unusual. The wood and steel on my 414 plane need work. The frog has rough surfaces, edges and black paint splatters that appear to date back to it's manufacture. I have not noted any problems with the function of the frog yet but I may feel obliged to improve the surfaces a little any way. I hope the two Stanley planes I bought want require much work. I think the #5C Stanley will just need to have the blade sharpened. The #6C is a darker color, which appears to be more age/"patina" than rust. Any rust on the 6C does not appear to be heavy enough to pit or mar the surface at all. The surfaces on the 6C show very little wear for a plane of its age.

The front knob on the Sargent 414 is not cracked as badly as I feared. I am going to try resurfacing and hydrating it with WATCO. I will see if the small cracks spread or stay as they are. The wood on both Stanley planes appears to be in exceptionally good condition.