Replacing the Frog on a stanley No. 4

[Matthew N. Masail]

I recently bought 2 old Stanley planes. the first is a war-time plane and after a little work everything fits and works perfectly, looks quite nice too.


the other is a 'newer' plane with brass parts, rosewood handles. with this plane I had an issue with the frog not sitting parallel to the sole, creating a difference of almost 1\16" (!) in the mouth opening when the blade was set for an even shaving. tilting it was not enough to fix it. I carefully lapped the mating surfaced taking more on one side than the other, re matched them to the plane body and tried again. after doing that about 3 times (more work than I care to do), It was getting a little better, but in a moment of (stupid) impatience I used a disk sander and went too far. after fixing my mistake the mouth opening is WAY too wide with the frogset as far forward as it will go.


The frog has "C466" stamped on it. I found one on e-bay for 15$, plus shipping to Israel it will cost me 32$, more than I paid for the plane! man that was a dumb mistake.
in any case I thought I would ask your advice before I pull the trigger, bite the bullet and hope that the new frog won't need the same kind of work.


I guess what I'm wondering is if there is a known issue with frogs from certain years or somthing, and what would you do? all the other parts on the plane are fine, the rosewood knob and tote are alone worth what I paid for the plane, but I don't live in the US so can't sell the parts to make up the planes cost.

[Derek Cohen]

Hi Matthew

I would get a new plane, one with the best body and the worst wood. That should end up cheap. Then transfer your good wood.

Buying a complete plane for the same Dollars makes more sense since you know the frog will fit.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Jim Koepke]

I recently bought 2 old Stanley planes. the first is a war-time plane and after a little work everything fits and works perfectly, looks quite nice too.


the other is a 'newer' plane with brass parts, rosewood handles. with this plane I had an issue with the frog not sitting parallel to the sole, creating a difference of almost 1\16" (!) in the mouth opening when the blade was set for an even shaving. tilting it was not enough to fix it. I carefully lapped the mating surfaced taking more on one side than the other, re matched them to the plane body and tried again. after doing that about 3 times (more work than I care to do), It was getting a little better, but in a moment of (stupid) impatience I used a disk sander and went too far. after fixing my mistake the mouth opening is WAY too wide with the frogset as far forward as it will go.


The frog has "C466" stamped on it. I found one on e-bay for 15$, plus shipping to Israel it will cost me 32$, more than I paid for the plane! man that was a dumb mistake.
in any case I thought I would ask your advice before I pull the trigger, bite the bullet and hope that the new frog won't need the same kind of work.


I guess what I'm wondering is if there is a known issue with frogs from certain years or somthing, and what would you do? all the other parts on the plane are fine, the rosewood knob and tote are alone worth what I paid for the plane, but I don't live in the US so can't sell the parts to make up the planes cost.

On most type 10 and later Stanley/Bailey planes the frogs are interchangeable.

You could check this with the frog from your other plane. If it works you could possibly find a replacement frog at a lower cost.

Your other option would be to do as Derek suggested.

[Matthew N. Masail]

Thanks guys, I looked into getting another plane but shipping costs are very high. I contacted an e-bay seller and he is being very helpful. I did try the frog from the war time and it does fit, so I'm sure almost any frog with the same shape will be fine, thanks!

now the issue is.... those rosewood handles DESERVE a better looking plane body.

[Moses Yoder]

Thanks guys, I looked into getting another plane but shipping costs are very high. I contacted an e-bay seller and he is being very helpful. I did try the frog from the war time and it does fit, so I'm sure almost any frog with the same shape will be fine, thanks!

now the issue is.... those rosewood handles DESERVE a better looking plane body.

Can you post a pic of the plane without lever cap and iron and the bottom of the frog? I may be able to help you out.

292112

[Matthew N. Masail]

Can you post a pic of the plane without lever cap and iron and the bottom of the frog? I may be able to help you out.

292112


Thanks Moses! Since I already contacted the other guy if he has one it's only fair that I buy it from him (unless he asks for way too much), but if not I will take some pics. Regarding the type study and your other post, I went through it myself for this plane and it's really quite simple, mine seems to be type 16-18. and many are suitable for a wide range. it's the early ones that differ the most.

[Jim Koepke]

Thanks Moses! Since I already contacted the other guy if he has one it's only fair that I buy it from him (unless he asks for way too much), but if not I will take some pics. Regarding the type study and your other post, I went through it myself for this plane and it's really quite simple, mine seems to be type 16-18. and many are suitable for a wide range. it's the early ones that differ the most.

Glad this may become resolved by the seller.

There were changes from type 1 through 3.

I believe type 4 through 8 use the same base design. The big differences are type 4 was pre-lateral adjuster. Type 5 has a unique lateral adjuster. Type 6 was the last one to have the right hand threaded bolt for the depth adjuster. Type 6a, 7 and 8 have different foundry marks.

Type 9 has no mention of it in the type studies but there were some changes during the type. An early type 9 frog isn't going to fit anything else.

I believe late type 9 through 20 pretty much have frog interchangeability. There may be some, beside type 9 without the frog adjustment provision.

jtk