Favorite Stanley planes

[Mike Holbrook]

David Weaver and a host of other posters finally convince me that I should try a few old planes so I could at least find out if I like using them as much as my Lee Valley and hand made wooden planes. I was not looking to spend much money on an experiment so I started out cheap with a Sargent #414 that I picked up for under $10. This first plane convinced me to spend a little more to get a few classic pre WW II Stanley planes. I spent a month or so low bidding and just trying to get a feel for the market for these planes. I decided I did not want to buy into an extended restoration commitment, as I have projects to do and limited time. When I thought I had a reasonable feel for what I could get a plane in good condition for I bought a Stanley 5C, type 14, 1929-30 and a 6C Type 11, 1910-1918. I am also looking to buy a 4 or 4C manufactured within the same time frame.

I typically use lumber I buy finished on three sides. I have a small Steel City planer and a good bandsaw, which needs repairs. I do not feel I need the ability to hog off large amounts of dried wood. I do use green wood for some projects, bowls, Windsor Chairs. Which might lead me to other needs at some later date.

I am interested in which, specifically older Stanley planes, people find the most useful/favorites and why. I know what the common uses for these planes are. I am especially interested in where people find these planes superior to wooden or BU planes. I know this has been discussed in other threads, but I thought it might be fun to post pictures of favorite plane(s) with information on why they are favorites. Once I finish a little work on the classic Stanleys I have I will post pictures and reviews.

[David Weaver]

I like a 4 and a 7. I almost always do the jack level work with a wooden plane, so don't have much to say about the others, though I think a 6 is a nice plane, too, set up either as a true fore, or an attempt to make a poor man's panel plane.

I like the 4 better than any other smooth plane I've used of any type.

I like 7s as a more accurate alternative to wooden planes (though it's not necessary to do good work) and for heavy flattening, especially on harder woods. Sometimes the old woodies aren't that pleasant to use in a heavy cut on stuff like beech, and I guess the cap iron on the stanley plane is generally easier to set. The tradeoff is that if you don't wax it often, it's got a lot of drag.

The 4 and 7 I use a lot. The rest of the stuff, not so much. I don't care too much about types, though I don't like the oldest planes as much as the stuff that's from the T10-WWII era. I also don't get wrapped up in old frog vs. new style, etc. I just haven't seen much difference in use between the two, and I do like the bigger handwheel on the later stuff. Not a type addict, so I don't know what that includes - through type 18 or something?

[Shawn Pixley]

I have Bailey #'s 3, 4, and (2) 5's. I favor types 9 through 13 (mine are 3 type 11 and one type 13 - my great grandfather's). Unlike David I can go for after market blades (you need to check the thickness though) on some of the planes. Mine are all users. I am not a collector. Before I bought the planes, I checked carefully for condition (primarilly crackes in the castings) and sole flatness. If those are right, most other things can be addressed. Have fun!

[Derek Cohen]

On hardwoods that test the performance of a plane ...

I get a decent result from a UK Stanley #3 (LV PMV-11 blade and chipbreaker), US Stanley #604 (either Galoot Tools laminated blade or LN A2, with LV chipbreaker) and a US Stanley #4 1/2 Type 11 (LV PMV-11 blade and chipbreaker). All of these planes have been tuned.

As good as these are now - since using the chipbreaker - they are not in the same class as a HNT Gordon smoother (60 degrees), LV BUS (62 degrees), or a number of other high angle planes I have. I emphasise that the woods I have go beyond the testing range of average US woods. The differences I experience may not be needed in the USA.

The above does not discuss Stanley #605 and #7 Type 11.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[lowell holmes]

I have Baileys #3,4,5,5 1/2,6 and Bedrock 4,5,7. You can tell I don't care much for Stanley planes.:)

OBTW, the #3 is one I go to a lot. It feels kind of like a block plane. I bet a #2 would be sweet, but who can afford one?

[David Weaver]

Unlike David I can go for after market blades (you need to check the thickness though) on some of the planes.

I used to have only aftermarket blades in planes and shipped away a lot of OEM irons in planes that I got and changed my mind on, but that needed an iron donation. I wish I hadn't done that!!

I don't have any strong feelings though about aftermarket or not, I'm just fascinated with trying to find out what the manufacturers intended when making the irons, and pairing irons of different types of planes against the abrasives they were hardened and tempered for has been really enlightening.

A 64 hardness iron doesn't work well with oilstones, but a 58-60 plain steel iron does very well. The edge on a 58-60 plain steel iron is sort of uninspiring if japanese waterstones are used, but if a very hard white steel iron is used, then the edge is wonderful. Warren said something a long time ago about matching irons and abrasives, and I thought it was quaint because "well, there is nothing better than modern abrasives". I don't know how I got sucked into all of this esoteric stuff - but man did I go into it WAY deep.

[Matthew N. Masail]

I used to have only aftermarket blades in planes and shipped away a lot of OEM irons in planes that I got and changed my mind on, but that needed an iron donation. I wish I hadn't done that!!

I don't have any strong feelings though about aftermarket or not, I'm just fascinated with trying to find out what the manufacturers intended when making the irons, and pairing irons of different types of planes against the abrasives they were hardened and tempered for has been really enlightening.

A 64 hardness iron doesn't work well with oilstones, but a 58-60 plain steel iron does very well. The edge on a 58-60 plain steel iron is sort of uninspiring if japanese waterstones are used, but if a very hard white steel iron is used, then the edge is wonderful. Warren said something a long time ago about matching irons and abrasives, and I thought it was quaint because "well, there is nothing better than modern abrasives". I don't know how I got sucked into all of this esoteric stuff - but man did I go into it WAY deep.

I can second that. since I bought some arkensas stone I really have come to love the old steel, they are in no way less good than new stuff, unless you use water stones then they kinda suck. I like the way they feel also. the 10K gokumyo water stone does very well with old steel too, but I'm still learning how to use it.

Right now I'm loving the single wartime Bailey No. 4 I recently bought. I put a old russian blade in it that came from a sadly long gone wooden plane. it's slightly thicker so the mouth is a nice size and the frog is fully supported. I notice the the wartime plane has a larger mouth with the same frog setting then a more recent one I am currently restoring. I usually don't love metal planes over a no.5 size, but the lightness of the old ones make a 6 nice too.

[lowell holmes]

I have Stanley irons in the #3 and the #5 1/2, but LV irons in the remainder.

Chip Breakers are another story. I'm using LV breakers in the Bedrocks and they are remarkable.

The Stanley breakers in the #3 and #5 1/2 are ok, but don't equal the LV breakers.

[Judson Green]

My herd is mostly vintage Stanley (3, 4, 5, 7, 8). A lot of folks will say to stay away from the post WWII stuff, but one of my favorite 4's is of that type. Only the 7 has a aftermarket iron, a pmv11 and that only because the iron it came with was almost used up. And personally I don't feel the bedrock series is worth the premium.

For a smoother I prefer a non corrugated, might be better too, for jointer if you're doing edge work with it, but I don't know, both my jointers are corrugated and seem to work out just fine. For a fore plane I don't really care if its corrugated or not.

[Kim Malmberg]

In order to answer the actual question I cannot say I have a vast experience of Stanley types. I have owned several old Baileys but being a Millers Falls fanatic myself I have used the old Stanley's as a way to finance my desire to buy the tools I actually want to own.
As much as I love the patent dates on a body, the aesthetic of a low know or the patina on a truly old plane I must say that I have been able to turn UK made Baileys into very good users. These are te a me kind that Paul Sellers uses. So I don't think it is all about the era. It is about getting most things right, like a square enough sole and well mated frog and a very sharp and very good iron. My favourite planes at the moment are a MF no 4 with a Berg cutter and a cheap Mohawk Shelburne no 5 with a thick Jernbolaget cutter.
So to finally answer the question. The type doesn't make a lot of difference. It is how the plane works and to some extent how you tune it and the quality of the iron.

[Mike Holbrook]

Great to hear so many comments.

I just won a 4C. Did not care whether or not the 4 had a corrugated or smooth bottom. I do have a Veritas 164 1/2H BU, so I have a heavy smooth bottom smoother. I also have light & heavy wood smoothing planes, so something in the middle seemed attractive. I like the totes and knobs on planes from prior to WWII (rosewood or mahogany?). Many of these totes and knobs seem to have survived the test of time with little damage.

I am reworking a nice light 26" purple heart jointer. I have a Record jointer and a 17" wood Try plane as well so I am not rushing into another jointer.

I may have to try the PM-V11 LV cap irons and blades. I am anxious to try the Stanley blades too. It will be interesting to break out my 40 year old Arkansas stone, put a little fresh oil on it and see what it can do to a Stanley plane blade.

[Frederick Skelly]

I have Baileys #3,4,5,5 1/2,6 and Bedrock 4,5,7. You can tell I don't care much for Stanley planes.:)

OBTW, the #3 is one I go to a lot. It feels kind of like a block plane. I bet a #2 would be sweet, but who can afford one?

Lowell, I stumbled on to a #2 in an antique store a few months back for $14. It was painted black and was apparently a window decoration some place. I had been debating buying the new LN #2 because LV didnt have an equivalent. Glad I hesitated! I really like that little plane.

[Moses Yoder]

My main use of bench planes is for smoothing, usually fairly large surfaces for cabinets, so the Bedrock 604-1/2 is the go to plane for me. I don't care which type it is so long as it has the large adjuster knob. The large adjuster knob enables me to adjust the depth of cut on the fly with one index finger, which I find to be an advantage over wood bodied planes. Honestly I like the wood on wood better but in reality usually use the Bedrock just because it takes less concentration to set up.

[Bill White]

I have a #3, 4C, 5 1/2 C, 7.
Not caught up in the types or mfg. dates. Just want them to work well, and they do.
All have the great totes and knobs, have not had to spend a great amount of time with the tune up.
Bill

[Judson Green]

Lowell, I stumbled on to a #2 in an antique store a few months back for $14. It was painted black and was apparently a window decoration some place. I had been debating buying the new LN #2 because LV didnt have an equivalent. Glad I hesitated! I really like that little plane.



Thats a stealth gloat if I ever saw one! Good hunting!

[Malcolm Schweizer]

I am partial to the 4C for smoothing. All my Stanleys are corrugated. It just happened that way, but I do like the corrugated planes. I love a 7C and I have a 6C that I also love for short flattening jobs like a panel. For my wood surfboards, kayaks, and other curved things I like a No. 2, but that one is a LN. I still drool over a big heavy No. 8, but have yet to get one of my own.

All that said, my Veritas bevel up jointer, jack, and smoother are my go-to planes.

[Jim R Edwards]

I primarily use bevel up planes and sold most of my Stanleys. I did keep a 605 with an orange frog, 605 1/2 that was surface ground by Tablesaw Tom, and a 608, all square side bedrocks. All have a Hock chip breaker and blade and perform very well. The 605 1/2 is my favorite and gets used often.

[Mike Holbrook]

Interesting variety of preferences. It seems some people prefer heavy planes and some prefer lighter planes. I find tough wood with challenging grain may work easier with a heavier plane. As I recall Dave Weaver's posts over the years, I believe he works with softer woods which I suspect regular Stanley planes excel at working. Derek, on the other hand, works with all those challenging Australian woods which may benefit from not only steeper blade angles but heavier planes? I have Hickory, Purple Heart, and several other extra hard woods but still use softer even green woods.

[Sean Hughto]

which, specifically older Stanley planes, people find the most useful/favorite

Useful depends upon task. Favorite is usually dictated by sharpest at the time. I wouldn't like to be without my 3,4,5, 5 1/2 or 7 close to hand. I need my 40 and 248 and even 66 almost as much.

[Mike Holbrook]

I guess I need to go study up on Stanley Bedrocks. I assume the longer numbers belong to planes of that ilk from the little I have seen at auctions. I am not sure why they seem to sell for more money. I guess they are heavier. They seem to be more popular on auction sites than they are with posters on this site. At least they seem to sell for premium prices.

[Sean Hughto]

Bedrock lesson one: http://www.supertool.com/StanleyBG/stan15.htm

I think they are cool. Any plane names after Fred Flintstone's hometown is all right by me. Cool lever caps, cool chopped sides, and, of course cool frog/bed mating. Significantly better performance? Well, perhaps I'm not a sensitive enough instrument to gauge ....

[Moses Yoder]

The advantage of the Bedrock plane is that the mouth opening can be easily adjusted without compromising integrity. That is not as much of an issue in today's world where you have a hundred specialized planes, but in the days of yesteryore when a craftsman only had one or two planes it would have been a big deal. Still, the Bedrocks hold their value just as well as Wallstreet does; over the long haul the price will only increase. You can buy one and use it for 40 years and sell it for more than you bought it for.

[Stew Denton]

Hi Mike, the big improvement of the Bedrock design is the way the frog mates to the bed of the plane. The Bedrock has the bottom of the frog, and the mating surface of the bed are both milled dead flat, and they also have kind a rib on each side of the frog, and corresponding slots milled in the bed.

This type of bedding allows the frog to set dead flat and straight in the bed. It is a "rock solid" method of bedding and so makes the plane body and frog have a more solid and rock free type of bedding. The ribs and slots keep the frog straight with the bed.

The first Bedrocks came along about 1898, I think and the first ones were the first planes to have the frog adjustment screw, which Stanley patented, and which allowed the frog to move from front to back in the bed by adjusting the screw. This feature was added to their Bailey line about 1908 or so, with the type 10, I think.

About that same time, or shortly after that, Stanley added two more bolts to the back of the frog mounting shelf, on the bed, which fit into two pins with holes in them that fit through the frog. Thus by tightening or loosening these two bolts the frog can be freed up and moved, or tightened down in place without removing the iron, chip breaker, or lever cap. This made it much easier to adjust the frog, and hence iron, location, thus changing the gap between the iron and front of the plane mouth.....made life easier.

The design is so good that the LN planes, and some other premium planes made today are essentially copies of the old Bedrock design.

The Bedrocks were pricier than the Bailey models, and since the Bailey design was darned good, the Baileys outsold the Bedrocks by quite a bit. After WW2 started, Stanley felt the pinch on manpower and materials, and they discontinued their less popular lines like the Bedrock planes and Everlast chisels, which, unfortunately were also their premium products.

That is why the Bedrocks sell for more than the Bailey planes, they are a little better, and the later ones are easier to adjust. Plus there are a lot less of them around, so it is a case of supply and demand. Also, a Bedrock in good condition sells for less than most of the equivalent LN planes.

If you look at the link Sean posted above, you can read about it, and there is a drawing there as well. I need to add that many wood workers have a higher view of the Bedrock planes, including guys like Christopher Schwarz, than does the Blood and Gore site. Another way you can see the designs is to go to Ebay and search for Stanley Bedrock, often you will see a photo of a plane taken apart, so you can see a photo of the design.

Stew

[Chris Griggs]

No 4 and No 6 are my most used, hands down. I wouldn't want to be without my 5 for coarse work, I love my MF 15 (=stanley 5 1/2) and I certainly find my 7 useful for edge jointing...BUT I could pretty much get by with just a 4 and 6.

[Kees Heiden]

Another advantage is better support of the iron when the mouth is adjusted. In the Bailey, the iron looses support at the sole as soon as you move the frog forward. Not so in the Bedrock.

My favorite Stanleys are a 4c and a 7. Especially the 4c. But I like my Record 05 too, use it often.

[Mike Holbrook]

So Chris and others I am interested in how the users of these planes "tune" them. For instance a #6, regular Stanley or Bedrock, can be tuned to work more like a jack plane or a jointer. Assuming one recognizes the 5 as a plane designed to take larger amounts of wood and the 7 as a plane designed to level an entire surface after the jack plane has removed major rough and uneven wood. Is the 6: between the two, a jack that can also flatten or a jointer that can remove more wood as it levels? Maybe the answer is yes to all the above?

How much camber or rounding of edges do users of these planes find most useful for each, might be a better question?

[Chris Griggs]

I tend to keep my 6 setup as a try plane. That is, a moderately cambered jointer...enough camber that I can take a fairly heavy cut, but also little enough that I can back the blade up some and take what I would call heavy smoothing cuts....(e.g. there is not soooo much camber to make it leave troughs the way a heavy set jack or scrub might). I use it the same way one might use a 7 or a larger wooden try plane, and I just happen to prefer over the longer planes for my of my work. My 7, by contrast is ground straight across and is mainly used for edge jointer on longer pieces. I will use it on faces to flatten much the same way I use the 6 when the size of the piece dictates the need, but in my shop the 6 is used more often than not (on faces as well as edges).

You could certainly set a 6 up as heavy set fore plane, you could also set it up as a very finely set panel plane, or you could do like Jim K does and keep mulitple 6s with various setups, but for me a 6 setup as a medium cutting a try/jointer does a lot of work.

[Mike Holbrook]

Thanks Chris, I plan to set my 6 up similarly. I typically buy wood that does not require major work. Medium size pieces are typical of the projects I have planed. I think a 6 set up like you discuss and a 4- 4 1/2 can handle most of the work.

[Floyd Mah]

Get a #40. Very useful when you are trying to remove a lot of wood and would otherwise have to resort to a chisel or band saw. For those times when fine shavings are too slow. When removing strips of wood by millimeters at a stroke is better than fractions of a millimeter. I've used a #40 to remove wood when notching a post, removing wood on the way to correcting winding, taking bends out of a board prior to running it through a jointer and then planer. Think of it as sketching with a piece of charcoal or pencil prior to using a finer brush to make your work of art. My #40 ebay Stanley is probably 100 years old and does the same job as a more pricey LV or LN.

[Brad Chittim]

Floyd, you're right. Your #40 does the same job as my pricy LV. What it doesn't do is survive a four-foot fall to my concrete garage floor. My LV, ductile cast iron body, however, did survive the fall with barely a nick to show for it. Don't get me wrong. I LOVE vintage tools. What I don't like is that one careless moment on my part can send it to the trash bin.

[Floyd Mah]

Brad, I have nothing against LV or LN products since I do have a couple of LN planes. My #40 is 25% more likely to survive a fall in my workshop since I'm probably not as tall as you and hence my workbench is only 34" in height vs. a 4 foot drop in your workshop. Sad to say, but my days of having the agility to dive for a falling tool are gone and I have had the anxiety of picking up a fallen chisel, even today, and searching for the chip which would mean an hour of work to restore the edge. I might just have to replace all my cast iron planes, all except the LN planes, if I develop a habit of dropping the planes. Luckily I've been able to avoid dropping any of the planes and the only one with a crack was purchased in that condition. I could opt for a rubber floor mat also, if I do develop the dropsies, or if I become clumsy and make falling down a habit. Easier to dust sawdust from yourself after getting up from a rubber mat than from a concrete floor. One can never anticipate all the medical problems that comes with getting older. But, seriously, Mike asked about vintage Stanley planes, so a Stanley #40 would be a good choice. He might have to wait a couple more years for a LV scrub plane to become "vintage".

[Adam Cruea]

Hrm. . .which planes do I like the best?

Depends on the task at hand. For teeny-tiny work, like literally smoothing a small bump due to an underlying knot? The #2 I purchased that takes a whisper-thin shaving.

For smoothing? I prefer my LN 4 1/2 done at York pitch. It leaves the best finish of any of my planes. For spot work, I like my #603 with a SW iron, or my #604 with the PM-V11 iron (depends on the wideness of spot work).

For generally flattening, my #8 and #8C are monsters. I love those things, but they're only good for big work. Anything less than about 30 inches and they tend to create humps in the middle of work easily.

Then I have a Type 11 #5 that I use for getting rid of roughness and generally getting it to something resembling non-rough cut lumber.

And then, there's my #51 LN Shooter. I wish I could use that more, but alas. . .It's just for shooting. :(

So all in all, I like all my planes and can't really pick a "favorite". I do prefer the Bedrocks over Bailey. To me, they just feel more solid and can take a much thinner shaving, but I know it's all subjective. So instead of debating that with people, I just skirt that issue and say that I have a soft spot for how they look. They're rather sharp planes. :)