Stanley Bailey No.4 Burgundy color

[Greg Marquis]

Hello everyone, I was given a Bailey No.4 plane and I having a hard time figuring out when this plane was made. The parts on it don't make sense to me. example - the depth adjustment screw - shouldn't it brass and I don't think the blade is correct to this plane. The body of the plane says Made in USA, so shouldn't the blade say Made IN USA as well. And, does anybody know if the knob and handle are suppose to be black. And could someone tell me what "Type" this plane is.
Also, the body and frog are Burgundy. I never seen this before. Could someone give some info on this as well.

Thanks,
Greg
336973336974336975336976336977

[steven c newman]

Stanley only used the "Cordovan" colour for a couple of years, then they went with the blue colour. Sooo,maybe around late 60s, or so.

I have had a few of the Cordovan block planes come through the shop. currently have a 60-1/2 low angle one. Not too bad for a Stanley.

Yes, they did paint the handles black. There is a hardwood under that paint, IF you want to strip the paint off. Type? maybe a Type 20? This was made before they moved to England.

[Greg Marquis]

Thanks Steve, but do you know anything about if the blade and depth adjustment screw is correct. And I'm looking at the knob and handle again and it looks like maybe they were never painted black at all, it kinda looks like a clear finish over some type of hardwood.

[Stew Denton]

Hi Greg,

I'm with Steven. They made the planes in colors other than black later on, but I don't know the date. One thing you can look at is the "Y" depth adjuster. I think they made the change from cast iron to stamped sheet metal about 1962. I don't know much about the later planes, because I am only interested in buying and using those made before the very early 1930s, as things went somewhat south after that, but planes from after the early 1930s until maybe even 1960 or so can still do good work. However, things really began to go south in a hurry after the 1962 water shed.

Your plane does not have the face of the frog milled flat, but rather is just paint over the rough cast iron. That may mean it is a Stanley "Handiman" or one of their other less expensive lines of plane. I don't know enough about the later Stanley planes to know if they stopped milling the face of the frogs on their Bailey line or not. If it is one of the less expensive lines, that may explain some of the difficulties you are having with understanding what you are looking at.

As one of the more popular sites on Stanley planes states, the change to stamped metal for the "Y" was the beginning of the end for Stanley planes.

I have a Stanley #5, type 19, that I intend to restore and use some of these times, and believe it can be made to do very good work. For me, it isn't a case that I don't think the later ones can be made to do well, it's just that if for the same money I can buy a type 10 to type 15 or so, why buy one of the later models? Normally I would not mess with my type 19, but it belonged to my Dad, so the normal rules don't apply to tools that are important to me because of family history.

I have looked, but it has been quite a while, so I am not certain of the dates, but I believe the type 19s were made from the late 1940s until about that 1962 date.

At any rate, I am in complete agreement with Steven, I believe it is a plane made after 1962, and I would also guess it was made in the late 1960s, or after that date, and yes they switched from rosewood knobs and totes to less expensive hardwoods, and put black paint on those, but I do not know when.

Regards,

Stew

[Bill Houghton]

I have a mid-60s Stanley catalog that shows some of the "cordovan" planes. They weren't consistent; some of the tools were in this fashionable new color, some were black.

Quality control had fallen off, but you can find cordovan-colored tools that are pretty decent; or you can find them that aren't.

[Stew Denton]

Hi Greg,

I spent some time on the net looking for the later types. The sites I looked at all stopped with the type 20, and all say that production of the type 20 started in 1962 and ended in 1967, and there is not as much detail on the type 20 as there is on the early models.

That said, my best guess is that your plane is a type 20, Stanley Bailey. Your plane has "Bailey" cast in behind the knob, do it was clearly a Bailey not a Handiman.

Some of the first type 20s still had parts on them from the type 19s, but at some point they had used up all of the parts and the type 19 features were gone.

There just isn't much information out there that I could find, but based on the pictures and comments I looked at, if they are correct, it looks like the following changes were made:

1. The type 19s had the raised rib on the front edge of the top of toe end of the bed and also on the back edge of the top of the bed on the heel of the plane. At the end of the type 20s these ridges were gone. Raised ribs are not on your plane.

2. Like the type 19s, at least some of the first type 20s had the hollowed out brass depth adjuster wheel, and by the end, the adjuster wheel was no longer hollow, but a flat disk, a feature your plane has.

3. Some of the first type 20s had the earlier style horizontal adjuster. These had a second piece of steel welded into the rest of the adjuster arm, and this was located where you adjust the arm with your thumb. Later ones had a single piece of steel at that location which was merely stamped and folded. I can't tell for sure from the pictures which type your plane has, but it looks a bit like it may have the stamped and folded type.

4. In some of the last type 20s, as best as I can tell, the tote had become extremely cheap looking. The sides were dead flat with no contouring, and the edges were barely rounded at all. In addition it looks like they went to some really cheap black paint that was not very wear resistant. This type of tote could not have been comfortable to use. Your plane has the better tote.

5. At least some of the early type 20s still had the frog adjustment screw, probably from the older stock of type 19 parts. By the end, the frog adjustment screw was gone. Your plane is missing this feature.

With regard to the plane iron, the shape of iron on your plane appears to be correct for that vintage of plane. From what I can remember Stanley kept the square corners on the irons till maybe the mid 50s, and then went to the rounded corners on the back of the irons. Stanley made planes in Canada, and for quite a few years I think, but I do not know when they shut down the Canadian production. They may have had all of the irons made in Canada and imported them for their domestic production, or they may have closed down the Canadian plant, and brought all of the parts back to the United States. I can say that I have seen planes with the "Canada" name on them, and that appears to be the case with your iron, I believe it is a Stanley iron, from the shape, and it was made by Stanley in Canada.

Well what's the bottom line here? Your plane has most of the characteristics of the tail end of the type 20 production, but still has the better tote. This makes me think that it was produced toward the end of the type 20 production, probably in 1965 or 1966, from the little I could find out.

That said, I could find so little on the type 20s that I may be wrong on this. I do not know whether Stanley quit production of planes for a while after 1967, or was making what we might call a "type 21," or what. If they did make a type 21, they may have realized that if they were going to sell any planes, other than to the neotype, that they would have to put a better tote back on the newer planes. I don't know.

At any rate, that is my new best guess as to the type and manufacturing time frame.

Stew

[Jim Koepke]

I think Stew deserves an A+ for doing his homework. :cool:

I sometimes am tempted to purchase some of the later types, especially type 17s with the angled knurling on the depth adjuster. But then I tend to pass on them and stay with type 13 or earlier. I like a low front knob with a large depth adjuster. To the best of my knowledge these never appeared together stock from the factory.

jtk

[steven c newman]

I have a "Blue" Stanley #4 That I can check later today.
The Stanley #5-1/2 I use is a T-17.

At least none are that ugly Tu-Tone Stanley tried for awhile.

62, Stanley crimped the Whale tail on the lateral lever. .

67-69 Cordovan came out, along with the Blue.
336999337000
A cordovan #9-1/2. The plane on it side in the box is a Cordovan 60-1/2
337001
This blue Stanley #4 was Made in England
337002
Better view of the Cordovan #60-1/2
337003337004
My Type 17 No. 5-1/2, after I had stripped the black paint of the woodworks.

[Chris Hachet]

I have a mid-60s Stanley catalog that shows some of the "cordovan" planes. They weren't consistent; some of the tools were in this fashionable new color, some were black.

Quality control had fallen off, but you can find cordovan-colored tools that are pretty decent; or you can find them that aren't.

I have a block plane that color from Steven C Newman, it is one of the best planes I own.

[Chris Hachet]

I have a "Blue" Stanley #4 That I can check later today.
The Stanley #5-1/2 I use is a T-17.

At least none are that ugly Tu-Tone Stanley tried for awhile.

62, Stanley crimped the Whale tail on the lateral lever. .

67-69 Cordovan came out, along with the Blue.
336999337000
A cordovan #9-1/2. The plane on it side in the box is a Cordovan 60-1/2
337001
This blue Stanley #4 was Made in England
337002
Better view of the Cordovan #60-1/2
337003337004
My Type 17 No. 5-1/2, after I had stripped the black paint of the woodworks.

5 1/2 seems like it would be a worthwhile size to have.

[Jim Koepke]

5 1/2 seems like it would be a worthwhile size to have.

It is a handy size, but I tend to reach for a #6 more often. It might be due to where they are on the shelves.

jtk

[Jim Koepke]

I have a block plane that color from Steven C Newman, it is one of the best planes I own.

My #60 block plane is also a cordovan that gets used a lot. A decent little plane.

I think different parts of the Stanley tool making suffered differently as the costs were cut.

jtk

[Bill Houghton]

5 1/2 seems like it would be a worthwhile size to have.

Owned a 5-1/2 for a while, but it's kind of redundant if you have a 6, as I do; so I released it back into the wild.

But, if you found a 5-1/2 first, before you found a 6, that would probably be fine, too; though the fact that I have found many more 6s and just one 5-1/2 may indicate that, historically, people preferred the slightly greater length of the 6.

I've never fully understood Stanley's production decisions. I can see the 4-1/2 vs. the 4, and the 3 vs. the 4. But why build two models of plane with identical width of iron, very close in length?

[Jerry Olexa]

Those colors can be confusing!! I understand.

[Jim Koepke]

But why build two models of plane with identical width of iron, very close in length?

Originally the #5-1/2 had a 2-1/4" blade. That changed in 1939 according to Blood & Gore.

jtk

[Stew Denton]

Hi Jim,

I am sure that I read on one of the plane sites that Stanley kept up the quality of their block planes even as the bench planes were sliding.

The comments on this post seem to strongly support that the Stanley block planes stayed good quality.

I wish Stanley would have kept up the quality on the bench planes as well. I think the vintage of my dads #5 Bailey type 19, is the early 1950s. It is cheapened from my type 10s to type 14s, and the quality is not quite as good, but fundamentally it is a sound plane. I believe it can be turned up to be a good plane capable of good work.

That plane will never be a type 11, the rosewood tote and knob replaced with a cheaper hardwood, the brass bolt heads on the rods holding the knob and tote are gone, and the machining of the frog is not as nice as the older planes. However, these are mostly frills, as the first two are only appearance issues, and the last can be tuned up pretty easily. Fundamentally the plane is sound. To me it is a very sad story to see what happened to a good product.

Stew

[Jerry Olexa]

Stew, I fully agree....Sad but true.


Hi Jim,

I am sure that I read on one of the plane sites that Stanley kept up the quality of their block planes even as the bench planes were sliding.

The comments on this post seem to strongly support that the Stanley block planes stayed good quality.

I wish Stanley would have kept up the quality on the bench planes as well. I think the vintage of my dads #5 Bailey type 19, is the early 1950s. It is cheapened from my type 10s to type 14s, and the quality is not quite as good, but fundamentally it is a sound plane. I believe it can be turned up to be a good plane capable of good work.

That plane will never be a type 11, the rosewood tote and knob replaced with a cheaper hardwood, the brass bolt heads on the rods holding the knob and tote are gone, and the machining of the frog is not as nice as the older planes. However, these are mostly frills, as the first two are only appearance issues, and the last can be tuned up pretty easily. Fundamentally the plane is sound. To me it is a very sad story to see what happened to a good product.

Stew