My small low knob collection is complete.

[Kees Heiden]

Nothing special of course, but I now have the metal planes I really wanted, Stanleys from before WWI, the low knob version. It is a small collection, not the complete range, but adequate for me. They are not highly polished, but look really antique in good shape.

A type 6 #3 (adjuster right hand thread), type 7 #4 and #5. I forgot the type of the #6, but it also doesn't have the frog adjuster. And the #7 is the very modern type 11, complete with frog adjusting screw!

The #4 has a modern blade, all the others have the original blades. It is quite unlikely I will ever find an original blade for the #4 overhere in Europe, but it doesn't matter too much. These old Stanleys are rare down here, but there is a tool dealer in the country with a nice range of old stuff.

http://i290.photobucket.com/albums/ll266/Kees2351/plane/foto%204_zpsuxnaw398.jpg (http://s290.photobucket.com/user/Kees2351/media/plane/foto%204_zpsuxnaw398.jpg.html)

And the #5 is the latest, making my collection complete.

http://i290.photobucket.com/albums/ll266/Kees2351/plane/foto%203_zpsp5goxyns.jpg (http://s290.photobucket.com/user/Kees2351/media/plane/foto%203_zpsp5goxyns.jpg.html)

And yes, it really works (with something like a 15" camber).

http://i290.photobucket.com/albums/ll266/Kees2351/plane/foto%202_zpseqmosmdg.jpg (http://s290.photobucket.com/user/Kees2351/media/plane/foto%202_zpseqmosmdg.jpg.html)

[Nicholas Lawrence]

I like what you have there with the jack. Thick enough shavings that you can accomplish something in an afternoon.

My problem is that I have a pretty good set of metal planes now, but the more I use my wooden one, the more I think maybe I like the wooden ones better!

[Kees Heiden]

This is a good illustriation why I don't like the typical 8" camber. This works so much better for me.

[Jim Koepke]

Looks like a great set of planes Kees.

Almost all of my bench planes are of the low knob variety. There are a couple that have snuck in the door that have a ring around the base. There is also the problem of coming up with low knobs to replace the tall knobs.

My plane accumulation has a wider range of dates including type 4 to type 13. I have at least 3 type 6 planes. I am often tempted when one pops up on ebay. On my type 13 the knob was changed to a low knob. On some of the pre-type 12 the depth adjusters were changed to the larger 1-1/4" wheel.

jtk

[Lasse Hilbrandt]

excuse me my ignorance, but are the low knob the so called bedrock type ?

[Nicholas Lawrence]

The Bedrock is something different Lasse. It has a different style frog and adjuster that allows you to adjust the mouth opening without taking the whole plane apart. I usually set the frog and don't move it after that, so it is not a feature I find very useful.

[Kees Heiden]

The low knobs refer to the lower front knob, used until 1918. After that they used a higher knob, which we know much better over here in Europe.

[Kees Heiden]

BTW, I suspect the handle from my "new" #5 isn't original, but it is nice wood and looks allright. There is also something weird with the lateral adjuster, I must sort that out too.

[Jim Koepke]

BTW, I suspect the handle from my "new" #5 isn't original, but it is nice wood and looks allright. There is also something weird with the lateral adjuster, I must sort that out too.

The tote on your #5 looks like an earlier tote. I have one similar to it on a type 6 #4-1/2. It is kind of fat at the bottom.

What is the weirdness with the lateral adjuster?

jtk

[Kees Heiden]

I'll compare the handle to the others.

In the lateral adjuster, the rivet is replaced with a small screw and now the blade rests on the adjuster, not the frog. Best thing is to straighten out the lever and use a real rivet again.

[Chris Hachet]

I find I can get a lot done with jsut a set of traditonal Stanley planes like the ones posted. So much so tht I am skipping the Lie Nielson hand tool event in Kentucky to spend Quality time with my Stnley planes.

Nice collection of planes, sir!

Regards,

Chris

[Frederick Skelly]

That is a nice collection Kees!

[Bill White]

I only have a #7 with the low knob. Danged if I don't like the looks of it better than the high knobbies on the others. Maybe just the "retro" look. I'm a big Stanley fan.
Bill

[Cody Cantrell]

Nice collection Kees. All my Stanleys are of the low knob variety as well. I even added a bead to the knob because it is a nice detail. I find I prefer the tote on the earlier Stanleys as I find the fron curve more appealing. I have a type 7 4 1/2 that had that " fat" tote and It pinched my hand during use so it went on a diet and now it is good to go.

[Kees Heiden]

Indeed guys, those oldies certainly have a peculiar charme.

The somewhat fatter tote at the bottom interferes with the pinky. Either stretch out the pinky or I must grab a rasp one day. I am not in a hurry to "correct" anything on this plane, first I'm going to see how she performs.

[Chris Hachet]

Indeed guys, those oldies certainly have a peculiar charme.

The somewhat fatter tote at the bottom interferes with the pinky. Either stretch out the pinky or I must grab a rasp one day. I am not in a hurry to "correct" anything on this plane, first I'm going to see how she performs.


Also interested to see how your wood planes you are making perform....

[Kees Heiden]

Well.... I'm working on the smoother. It now works very nicely, even in the corners, until I set the capiron really close to the edge. Then it clogs instantly. I've been watching the capiron edge under a looking glas and it looks like I still have a burr. After coffee break I see if I can get rid of that.

[Jim Koepke]

The somewhat fatter tote at the bottom interferes with the pinky. Either stretch out the pinky or I must grab a rasp one day. I am not in a hurry to "correct" anything on this plane, first I'm going to see how she performs.

I am not sure if you can see the fatness of the tote in this image, the plane on the right is a type 6 #4-1/2:

332704

That tote is a not nice to my pinky either. Many other totes have been modified for my pinky. This one is different enough that it might be of interest to a collector, so I have spared it the rasping and modification.

Not sure if it makes sense, but that is my story and I am sticking to it.

Though if you notice, the lever cap looks to be from a transitional. I have seen a few planes like that from this time period. Not sure if they came that way or if they got changed out over time.

jtk

[Mike Henderson]

Nice set of planes. I like the low knob planes, also. I think I sold all my original stanley blades but I'll look and see if I have one to fit a #4. I'll let you know if I find one.

Mike

[Kees Heiden]

That would be nice Mike. But I am not really that worked up about originality. It just looks a little better with the original blade and cap (to me!).

[Jim Koepke]

That would be nice Mike. But I am not really that worked up about originality. It just looks a little better with the original blade and cap (to me!).

On a few of my planes that came with good original irons I have put in newer blades and kept the old ones to be with the plane later.

jtk

[Jim Koepke]

Took a picture of three planes in the shop. The #4-1/2 is a type 6 and the #7 is a type 7 while the #5 has a type 11 tote:

332749

I also shot a video with me using the #7. My pinky is visible poking straight toward the frog. I will post that later.

jtk

[Patrick Chase]

The Bedrock is something different Lasse. It has a different style frog and adjuster that allows you to adjust the mouth opening without taking the whole plane apart. I usually set the frog and don't move it after that, so it is not a feature I find very useful.

The other problem with Bed Rocks is that the depth adjustment is bidirectionally coupled with the frog/mouth adjustment. As on basically all planes changing the depth changes the mount (for obvious reasons), but in the BedRocks changing the mouth also changes the depth because the frog's mating surface is angled. It's just not a very good mechanism IMO, because changing either involves a bunch of iterating back and forth. I've never understood why some people are so Bed-Rock-obsessed.

[Jim Koepke]

in the BedRocks changing the mouth also changes the depth because the frog's mating surface is angled. It's just not a very good mechanism IMO, because changing either involves a bunch of iterating back and forth. I've never understood why some people are so Bed-Rock-obsessed.

Whenever a Bedrock plane comes my way I sell it. They do feel a little more solid when planing, not enough to make me want to keep one.

I do not understand why people think adjusting the frog is an everyday occurrence. It is easier for me to have extra planes so the mouth can be open all the way or set tight.

If for some reason Bedrocks were the only choice I would back off the blade before moving the frog forward and reset it when it was tightened where it was wanted. Tough work, but someone has to do it.

Well, not me since all my bench planes are Bailey style.

jtk