Ohio Tools #7 jointer

[Dennis Aspö]

I've been offered to buy the plane mentioned in the thread headline, it's from a person I know in real life. He originally asked 60 euros for it but I declined because I thought it was too much, and the sole needs to be flattened and the blades heat treatment is in bad shape, needs a replacement or re-tempering.

He recently let me know that he's willing to drop the price a bit, I'm not sure what it's worth, what would you give for one?

[Hilton Ralphs]

The value of the jointer is going to be based on exactly how much of the sole needs flattening and subsequently the cost of that process. I'm sure you can get an aftermarket blade from Axminster or Fine Tools but I don't know if the Ohio blades were the same as the old Stanleys.

[Chris Hachet]

Not sure what the rate is in finalnd for such a plane. Just sold a similar plane very cheaply myself, actually.

[John Vernier]

I use an Ohio Tool #7 myself. It is a good plane, but be aware that it uses a thick, tapered blade like a wooden plane, not the thin parallel blade of a Stanley. You might be able to substitute a Stanley-type blade (one of the thicker after-market ones, like a Hock) and adjust the frog for fit, but be sure to keep the original chip breaker as I would not count on an after-market Stanley chip-breaker working properly (I should try swapping the blade from my Stanley #6 to see if it works. I'll get back to you).

I find the heavy tapered blade works very well, but adjustments are more difficult. The wedge action of the tapered blade makes advancing the blade very stiff, although retracting it is effortless. The adjustment screw works opposite to the later standard Stanley.

I would be concerned about a sole which really needs flattening. You can get away with a little bit of out-of-flatness, but if it seems serious I would pass.

[Stew Denton]

I have an old Ohio #4, and I have less experience with it than John has with his #7, but the experience I do have is similar to his. I restored mine during this past year, although there is still left to do on it. It was my grandfathers plane, and I went to a lot more effort and expense because of that than I normally would have.

John pointed out that there may be issues with the chip breaker. My experience is that my plane had a Stanley chip breaker on it, and it would not work like it should have. I had to find an original Ohio chip breaker (I watched for about 3 months on Ebay and had to buy an entire plane to get the chip breaker), and that chip breaker fit the plane, length size, but the Stanley did not.

The iron was also a Stanley, and I finally found an original Ohio iron for the model of plane I have. Mine is a cast iron bench plane from what I would guess is somewhere between 1900 and 1915 or so. It does not have the frog adjustment screw like the Stanley Bailey planes have after about 1909 or so, thus my guess on the time period.

The iron, like the one John has, is a tapered iron like the old wooden planes used. My very short experience with the plane is that the iron is a pain to sharpen, if you need to take the iron down very far, that is if you are doing it all by hand, because it is so thick. Once you have it worked down, it may not be a lot more time consuming to sharpen than a Stanley, but I don't know, as I have not had to sharpen it because I have not used it much since. Adjusting it is also a bit more time consuming, because the iron it tapered. So the lever cap screw has to be adjusted to adjust the iron, because the thickness of the iron changes under the lever cap screw each time you move it.

Due to the thickness of the iron, I don't think it would ever chatter.

In short, I think the plane I have is OK and is capable of good work, but parts are hard to come by, if you ever need them, and the iron takes a bit longer to sharpen.

Stew

[Jim Koepke]

This question has a lot of moving parts.

My first consideration would be how difficult will it be to find a different jointer in your area. The answer will be very different for others reading this thread in the future based on their locations.

A few years back one of my #7 Stanley/Bailey planes was sold for less than $100 as I recall. Shipping added a bit. It was a type 11 in great shape.

My current #7 was found in an antique mall in need of rehab for $21.25. It is now a often used plane.

If you will be purchasing a plane that needs replacement parts, you want to buy one that is easy to find parts to purchase.

jtk

[Dennis Aspö]

I don't know, the tapered iron thing makes me less enthused about the whole thing, I would like a straight conventional iron and nothing odd or special requiring special solutions or some such. I've had enough of those kinds of experiences. I'd rather wait for a stanley or record then.

[Dennis Aspö]

OK seller says it has a regular blade and a stanley or record would fit in, so no tapered blade. Did they make models with regular blades? I guess they did given this planes existence.

[Jim Koepke]

Before purchasing make sure the plane works properly.

Stew mentioned problems with the chip breaker. Check to make sure the chip breaker can be set close to the cutting edge and then insure there is a good range of adjustment.

jtk

[Stew Denton]

Jim, if I recall, and my memory is a little fuzzy on this, but I think range of adjustment was a problem with the Stanley parts, and there may have been a problem with the chip breaker being close enough to the cutting edge as you suspect. I don't remember exactly what the problem was, but it had to do with the length of the Stanley chip breaker not being right for the Ohio plane, and as it was it could not be made to work right.

The bottom edge of the frog was a ways from the bottom of the mouth too, if I recall, and I remember thinking that chatter might be a problem because the thin Stanley iron that was in the plane was unsupported toward the cutting edge more than I thought good. I do remember thinking when I finally found an original iron that the thicker iron would not chatter.

At any rate, I decided that the plane just about had to have an original iron and chip breaker if it was ever going to be capable of good work. I would not have messed with it if it hadn't been my grandfathers.

Stew

[Jim Koepke]

I think range of adjustment was a problem with the Stanley parts, and there may have been a problem with the chip breaker being close enough to the cutting edge as you suspect.

My experience was with a different plane, a Stanley #113 with a #3 chip breaker. The plane didn't work well until a proper chip breaker was found.

A post of mine from almost six years ago was on the measurement of chip breakers from the depth adjustment pawl to the leading edge:

http://www.sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?109710-Would-this-be-Useful

The #10 post (as it comes up on my screen) in the thread has a .pdf chart made with measurements from my Stanley chip breakers.

jtk

[Dennis Aspö]

It's been a while, but I have this plane home now. It has been modified with regards to the bottom edge of the frog by the guy I bought it from, he epoxied a small strip of some african hardwood to the bottom of the frog and this he says cured the chatter issues he had with the plane and the blade it has which is not tapered. He also hand fitted the frog to fit the blade, which I assume probably didn't fit if it was made for a tapered blade, and he also flattened the sole but says there might be a little way to go still. So from what I can tell, he's made it work with a regular blade.

It is likely made in 1900, adjustment cap thread is reversed from normal operation and the frog has no adjustment screw. Marked with the brand of some hardware store in minnesota. It was bought by a finnish man in the US at the time and he brought it back with him.

[Tom Bussey]

The Keen kutter KK series planes were also made by Ohio Tool. Some have tapered bldes and some don't. I deal in hand planes as a hobbie and the person trying to sell it would almost have to give it to me to take it. They are hard toadjust and no resale value what so ever here in the US.

[Dennis Aspö]

Well I've been using it today with the non tapered iron it had and it's performed real well so far. Í have no problems adjusting it, it's just that it's done in reverse. Made a tool holder for it now so I think it'll stay.

[Dennis Aspö]

Pictures since threads are worthless without them:
https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7709/17422062574_c38bafafe3_b.jpg

https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8810/17422068804_8966e29824_b.jpg

https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8858/17424119403_b6afe04f61_b.jpg

Might as well include this stanley combo square that I derusted and repainted from that godawful blue it came in. It is square as far as I can tell against my rafter square that I trust the most.
https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7679/17856981660_a5530b4aea_b.jpg

[Jim Koepke]

Dennis,

Nice looking plane. Did you mention a modification to the frog? Could you include some images of the frog?

On testing a square, one easy method is to align it on a known strait edge of wood or a table, scribe a line, flip the square, scribe another line and compare any divergence from parallel of the two lines. If there is a divergence, the square's error is half of what is seen.

With a combination square it is usually easy to correct any error.

jtk

[Dennis Aspö]

I can take some later, but the modification is real simple, a piece of african hardwood of some kind was epoxied under the frog and fitted so there was no longer any gap. I saw I wrote about fitting the frog to the blade, but I meant the chip breaker was fitted to the blade.