Please help id this unusual plane

[Roger Deakins]

Any idea's ?

The rear handle is a replacement I think.

About the size of a 4 1/2 , looks a bit Sargent, Gage or maybe even Leonard Bailey.

291990
291991
291992

Thanks in advance,
Roger

[george wilson]

Might be a valuable collector's item.

[Jim Koepke]

Roger,

Welcome to the Creek. Your profile doesn't indicate your location. If you are in the east you may be able to contact Patrick Leach. He is one of the more knowledgeable folks when it comes to things like this.

more about him can be found at:

http://www.supertool.com/

I agree with George. It might be more of a collector's item than a plane for using. The design looks a little weak for the rigors of planing.

I would be careful about any cleaning before you learn more. To a person paying big dollars for a collectable clean and shiny doesn't add value unless it is the original clean and shiny.

Is there any sign of a maker's mark on the blade?

I have not seen such a plane.

If you do find out more, let us know.

jtk

[Malcolm Schweizer]

Looking at the rough milling on the frog, and the unusual design, I am going to guess someone made it as a one-off. Maybe they were a die maker and wanted a lightweight plane? Perhaps they used it for trimming fiberboard. It looks rather flimsy, but perhaps lightweight was the goal.

[Cody Kemble]

It definitely is unique. No matter what it is an interesting tool to look at.

[Roger Deakins]

Thanks I've been through that site with a fine tooth comb. Even the better mousetrap page didn't shed any light on the problem. This is the third forum I've posted this on and apart from wow, cool I've never seen one like that before I'm none the wiser.

As for the design looking weak, I agree but its still in one piece after 100 - 150 years. Think the iron might be a replacement as the engineer that did the cut outs was far less skiled than the cap iron maker. Possibly a maker on the cap iron but v rusty. Since this is best chance of a maker I'm thinking of investing in some distilled water (recommended for use on old coins) not quick but very gentle.

Rest assured if I do solve this mystery I will let all the curious forums know.

I'm in England and "think" most of the Stanley types manufactured over here didn't start until the 1930's and this looks a lot older.


Definitely wasn't designed to be light

Weight without cap iron and iron = 2.1kg

My old USA Stanley 4 1/2 with all parts = 2kg

The milling on the frog is very good imvho but the quality of the milling of the partial cut outs doesn't match the 3 big holes. Maybe the original bolts were lost (the nuts don't match either, see pic above) or not strong enough and one again a less skilled engineer enlarged them.

The sole and sides are all the same piece of metal, a one piece casting for a one-off ?

[Jim Koepke]

Thanks I've been through that site with a fine tooth comb. Even the better mousetrap page didn't shed any light on the problem.

My thought was to send him an email with pictures. He doesn't list everything on the better mousetrap page.

If it is a uniquely British or European design you may need to contact old tool dealers on that side of the pond.

jtk

[Roger Deakins]

Thanks email sent.

Just assumed it was American (mainly from the early looking front knob) but then again how did a rare plane like this end up over here ?

Easiest answer maybe is was made here and the chap/company who made it had an early Stanley in front of them.

292015

[Malcolm Schweizer]

If the guy worked as a tool and die maker, he would probably have access to a foundry to do a simple sand casting. I must say, I am surprised it weighs 2.1 kg. looks like not enough metal there than that.

[Andrew Pitonyak]

I have not seen anything like that. If I had to guess, I would say mid 1800's (because I have seen similar curves on some obscure hand planes from that time period from makers in the US). If i thought that it was made in the USA, I would look at one of the books published by Roger Smith (Patented Transitional and Metallic Planes in America 1827-1927), but, my guess is that it is not made in the USA (because you are in the UK).

[Judson Green]

Thanks I've been through that site with a fine tooth comb. Even the better mousetrap page didn't shed any light on the problem. This is the third forum I've posted this on and apart from wow, cool I've never seen one like that before I'm none the wiser.

As for the design looking weak, I agree but its still in one piece after 100 - 150 years. Think the iron might be a replacement as the engineer that did the cut outs was far less skiled than the cap iron maker. Possibly a maker on the cap iron but v rusty. Since this is best chance of a maker I'm thinking of investing in some distilled water (recommended for use on old coins) not quick but very gentle.

Rest assured if I do solve this mystery I will let all the curious forums know.

I'm in England and "think" most of the Stanley types manufactured over here didn't start until the 1930's and this looks a lot older.


Definitely wasn't designed to be light

Weight without cap iron and iron = 2.1kg

My old USA Stanley 4 1/2 with all parts = 2kg

The milling on the frog is very good imvho but the quality of the milling of the partial cut outs doesn't match the 3 big holes. Maybe the original bolts were lost (the nuts don't match either, see pic above) or not strong enough and one again a less skilled engineer enlarged them.

The sole and sides are all the same piece of metal, a one piece casting for a one-off ?

What's the 3 big screws per side do?

I had the thought that it was fabricated, too.

[george wilson]

I've thought about it,and I also think the plane is a 1 off,made by a workman who had access to a foundry. Years ago,in the 60's,I could get 1 off banjo bodies cast when I needed them. Today,no such luck, if you don't want half a million.

There is no engineering about that plane to recommend it as a new invention.

[Mel Miller]

With those screws in the sides it looks like it could have been fabricated out of steel which would also explain why those thin ribs on each side are still intact. My vote is for an owner made plane.

[Roger Deakins]

What's the 3 big screws per side do?

The casting is even simpler in the flesh than it appears in the above pics, flat sole and sides.

The front 2 screws secure a bar that the front knob is attached.

The middle 4 are securing the frog in place.

The rear handle is riveted through the sole three times.

Haven't removed any screws to find out if it more sophisticated than it appears.

[Mel Miller]

Looking at the 3rd picture, I don't see any radius on the inside corners where the sides meet the bottom, or around the edges of the sides where the opening is. This makes it look more like a fabricated steel body rather than a casting. You could look on the bottom for joint lines.

[Roger Deakins]

No joins or dovetails, pretty sure the sides and sole are one piece casting.


Side walls = 5mm / 3/16" so that might explain the weight.