How to fix / rehab a #4 Stanley Plane

[Andrew Pitonyak]

I told a neighbor that I would rehab and sell a hand plane that he owns. First, I removed some rust, flattened the back of the plane blade and sharpened it. I then tested it to see how it worked. In a word; HORRIBLE!

I am not sure if this was ever used correctly, the blade was upside down in the plane when I took it from him, and it would never have worked as configured. Also, the blade was very very dull. The back flattened pretty quickly.

The "bad" behavior:

I advanced the blade a bit at a time until it would just start to take a shaving. I would take a very very small shaving and then the blade would dig into the wood. This is a very well behaved piece of cherry and inch or two wide.

I did nothing to tune the chip breaker and I did not adjust the frog. The bottom is high at the front and back with at least a 0.007" gap in the middle (with my straight edge). Could this be the problem?

I know that I need to tune the chip breaker, but I don't think that is the problem here. To my eye, the gap between the blade and the plane mouth looked OK; not that I have much experience with this.

I have never used a plane this badly behaved.

344048

[steven c newman]

Bring it over here, and I will help tune it up for you.

Paint colour is because it is a Cordovan model stanley put out in-between the Black Japanning and the ugly Blue periods...

Might take less than an hour to fix up.....

Bring it, and you on over here to Bellefontaine, OH.....anytime.

[Jim Koepke]

The bottom is high at the front and back with at least a 0.007" gap in the middle (with my straight edge). Could this be the problem?

Andrew, this is exactly the problem. The blade has to be advanced enough to take a shaving through the gap. Once the blade engages it starts to dig and flexes the casting. I had a block plane like this once. It was possible to make it into a useable plane. It was never a great plane.

Do you have a belt sander?

I bet Steven does.

jtk

[Stew Denton]

Andrew,

Take the plane apart and look at the bottom of the frog and the bed where the frog seats on the plane. At least some of the late Stanley planes do not have these two areas milled flat, they are just left as cast. If that is the case, it will be very difficult to get the plane to perform well.

In fact one of the well known writers that teaches classes, and I can't remember for certain which one it is, has mentioned in one of his articles, that he has had folks in his classes that have brought such planes, with the seat and bottom of the frog not milled, and he has never been able to get one to perform as well as would be desired. Thus, the reason for checking that location.

Stew

[Eric Schubert]

Funny you mention this issue, as I have a plane that does this exact same thing. I even tried using it again today, and it either takes little to no shaving or just digs right in and chatters something fierce, leaving gouges in the wood.

Stew, thanks for the tip. I'll take a look at that area. Is there a way to fix this issue? Just mill/file the seat and frog bottom flat? Or is there no way to salvage these planes?

ETA: Sure enough, the plane I mentioned above is not milled flat on either surface... *sigh* At least now I know why it's been such a pain to use.

I have a second plane that is only so-so. It has a nice PM-V11 blade in it, which helps. But, it's still not as nice as I'd like. I flattened the bottom and both sides on a surface grinder, and the seat/frog areas were milled flat previous to my buying this plane. But, I think those surfaces aren't very pristine. The milling looks a little rough. Maybe a quick file will smooth them out and help..?

[steven c newman]

Hmmm, I do have a later Stanely model in the shop....Made in England......funny blue colour. was made AFTER the Cordovan's 3 year run.
344083
Fresh out of the shipping bag, no less
344084
Not the best looking bed for the frog....uneven paint thicknesses....we have ways..
344085
I run this through. It takes away the paint, and any rough stuff under the paint.

Worked on the frog a bit, as well..
344086
Set the frog in so that that little ramp thing is coplanar to the frogs face. Ne need to advance the frog any more than that. Mated the chipbreaker to the stock iron.
344087
Doesn't show any signs of chattering, either. The ONLY item that got changed out?
344088
That plastic knob just had to go.

Trying to see IF I have a shot of the sole..
344089
Does NOT take all that long to do, just a bit of elbow grease. Didn't even need a fancy new iron, stock one was just fine.
Cordovans were from 1967 -69. This English one was from the mid 70s.I think. It is still in the shop, if the OP wants to try it out...
BTW: that slab being planed is White Oak......

[Stew Denton]

Hi Eric,

I have at least one plane, and maybe two, that has the exact same problem. One is a #3 Dunlap. I have thought about heavily cambering the iron and using it for the equivalent of a scrub plane, but it might give exactly the same problem even for use as a scrub plane. I have some old Stanley Bailey planes that are in fairly ratty condition, ones I didn't give much for, that are much much better planes than is the Dunlap.

For that reason, I've about come to the conclusion that I should take off maybe the iron and possibly the chip breaker off of the Dunlap to save for parts, and pitch the rest. I don't even want to give it away, knowing that if I do give it away, that it will only give the next owner grief.

As to fixing the seat and bottom of the frog, I don't know. About the only thing I might try is to work the two spots over with a coarse double cut mill file, and see what I could do. The plane is certainly not worth paying anyone to mill the underside of the frog and the bed of the sole flat. Because of the ratty old Stanley Bailey planes I have, for example one has a crack, etc., it isn't worth messing with trying to fix the Dunlap.

Stew

[Eric Schubert]

Thanks, Stew. I don't know what someone, even a friend, would charge to mill those areas flat. But I suspect it would cost more than the plane is worth... I'll try the file and see how it goes. It can't get any worse.

[steven c newman]

Have to check that Dunlap out.....not all were made by Stanley.......happen to have one by Millers falls that is every bit as good as a Millers Falls No. 8 that I also have.....and that "Craftsman even got used the other day..
344104
And..while Sargent made ones were mainly sold as Fultons, depending on the contract to Sears, they also made Dunlaps and even Craftsman models....BTW: Sears got into a habit of using red paint....frogs, and lever caps.

Might check that chipbreaker as well...it might not fit all other planes, as Sargent and Stanley didn't match.

[steven c newman]

I do have a standing offer......I will refurb any plane shipped to me, as long as the return postage is included. The would be the only costs to the plane's owner. Round trip postage is all you'd need. Medium Flat rate box. toss the return label inside when it gets mailed. Turn around is maybe two days plus snail mail time.

Or, just out out and buy a Wood River or some other new plane.....

[Derek Cohen]

.... The "bad" behavior:

I advanced the blade a bit at a time until it would just start to take a shaving. I would take a very very small shaving and then the blade would dig into the wood. This is a very well behaved piece of cherry and inch or two wide.

I did nothing to tune the chip breaker and I did not adjust the frog. The bottom is high at the front and back with at least a 0.007" gap in the middle (with my straight edge). Could this be the problem?

I know that I need to tune the chip breaker, but I don't think that is the problem here. To my eye, the gap between the blade and the plane mouth looked OK; not that I have much experience with this.

I have never used a plane this badly behaved.

344048

Hi Andrew

If the blade needs to be projected far to continue a cut in the middle of a board, and then is too advanced at the start of the board, assuming the board is flat, this sounds like the sole of the plane is not coplanar (the mouth is not touching the board).

Alternately, if the plane takes a cut after a little advancement, and then digs in, as you describe, the sole is not only not coplanar, but sounds to be rocking on the mouth.

The remedy is to lap the sole until it is coplanar at the toe, mouth and heel. This may be difficult to do by hand if the plane is "banana" shaped. It would need to be done by machine.

If there is slop in the frog, you will get chatter. Nevertheless, the plane will still cut equally at the start and the middle of the board. Further, this is not a symptom of a poorly set up chipbreaker - that controls depth of cut and tearout, neither issues at this point.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Patrick Chase]

The "bad" behavior:

I advanced the blade a bit at a time until it would just start to take a shaving. I would take a very very small shaving and then the blade would dig into the wood. This is a very well behaved piece of cherry and inch or two wide.

I did nothing to tune the chip breaker and I did not adjust the frog. The bottom is high at the front and back with at least a 0.007" gap in the middle (with my straight edge). Could this be the problem?

As others have said: Yes, the symptom you describe is consistent with a badly concave sole (and 7 mils is *bad*). You really want that spot just ahead of the mouth to be at least roughly in the same plane as the tip and toe.

Here's the thing: 7 mils is a lot, and that's going to take a long time to lap out by hand, and the only useful thing you're going to learn by spending all that time is to inspect planes before you offer to rehab them. I'd feel pretty bad for Steven if I were in your shoes and took advantage of his offer for something that nasty.

If this plane was mine and otherwise a "keeper" I'd be thinking hard about sending $40 to TableSaw Tom (http://www.tablesawtom.com/plane.htm) to make the problem go away.

[lowell holmes]

If I were faced with this issue, I would flatten the sole with my belt sander. After flattening, I would hand sand it with varying grits of wet or dry sandpaper until the sole was smooth again.

I have successfully modified slots on hand planes. I might modify the chip breaker if necessary. Sometimes the chip breaker has to be made to mate with the iron with no gaps.
I don't know about modifying the frog. If it has an issue, a file might help.

[steven c newman]

I have taken some like this
344117
$5 Union #4 and rehabbed it back to..
344118
Something a little bit better.
Turned out to be a Union No. 4c Type 2

[Eric Schubert]

That's a fantastic offer, Steven! Very generous of you.

I ended up going through my two planes and filed flat the seat and bottom of the frog. They're still not perfect, but WOW did that make a difference. At least they take decent shavings now...

[Andrew Pitonyak]

Bring it over here, and I will help tune it up for you.

Paint colour is because it is a Cordovan model stanley put out in-between the Black Japanning and the ugly Blue periods...

Might take less than an hour to fix up.....

Bring it, and you on over here to Bellefontaine, OH.....anytime.

I think that I will do that. I wanted to wander out regardless. I just need to check with the wife if I can come out this weekend or next. have not seen much of her in the last two weeks so I may need to wait a week; if you are available that is.

[Andrew Pitonyak]

Andrew, this is exactly the problem. The blade has to be advanced enough to take a shaving through the gap. Once the blade engages it starts to dig and flexes the casting. I had a block plane like this once. It was possible to make it into a useable plane. It was never a great plane.

Do you have a belt sander?

I bet Steven does.

jtk

I do have a belt sander.... Well, it belongs to my Father-In-Law but he said that he is not using it and left it at my house. I am a bit embarrassed that I did not think about using it. I spent about 30 minutes yesterday doing this by hand. I should give that a try....

[Andrew Pitonyak]

For that reason, I've about come to the conclusion that I should take off maybe the iron and possibly the chip breaker off of the Dunlap to save for parts, and pitch the rest. I don't even want to give it away, knowing that if I do give it away, that it will only give the next owner grief.

As to fixing the seat and bottom of the frog, I don't know. About the only thing I might try is to work the two spots over with a coarse double cut mill file, and see what I could do. The plane is certainly not worth paying anyone to mill the underside of the frog and the bed of the sole flat. Because of the ratty old Stanley Bailey planes I have, for example one has a crack, etc., it isn't worth messing with trying to fix the Dunlap.



I am doing this as a favor for a neighbor. I told him that I would sell it, but, I am not willing to sell it if I cannot make it work correctly. Well, I mean I would if the person buying it understood what they are getting into. On the other hand, the neighbor thought that it was worth upwards of $60. I doubt that this will ever be worth that, which means that if I do sell it I will clear the asking price with the neighbor and simply return it if he is not happy with the price.

[Andrew Pitonyak]

I should check to see how much progress I made, but the only redeeming thing is that it was so badly out of wack that it really was only touching at the toe and the heel. The implication, of course, is that the initial work went very fast. I did not check again to see how much I have achieved, but, there is still a very large area that is not touching.

I can't wait to see what it looks like under the frog. I suppose I mean that I am that I am very nervous about it.

Years ago I gave my very usable #8 to a friend since he needed one and could not afford to buy one. I figured that I could easily replace it from one on ebay, which is how I found my current #8. The new #8 has never worked as well as that old one, but I do have two #7 planes that work well; not that I really need two. I have a new in package #4 and #5 that I have simply not got around to looking at, but they were made in India and based on research and feed back from here, I understand that they have a good reputation. I should probably just sell them. They were given to me for helping a family when their Father died. They had no idea how to deal with all his stuff. I was able to walk through and quickly identify a bunch of easy to sell items and provide a general price when purchased new. To thank me, they gave me some things that were either not worth selling or things that were unclear (like the three planes made in India).

After I rehab this #4 (successfully or not), I should take another look at that #8 and see if I am now more able to use or able to improve it. If is a Franken plane I fear.

[Patrick Chase]

I do have a belt sander.... Well, it belongs to my Father-In-Law but he said that he is not using it and left it at my house. I am a bit embarrassed that I did not think about using it. I spent about 30 minutes yesterday doing this by hand. I should give that a try....

You might want to check and make sure that belt sander has a reasonably flat platen first, and of course check your work very frequently while actually sanding the tool.

I've used belt sanders to flatten tools before, but it's really easy to sand in a depression if you're not careful. I alternate between the belt sander and coarse grit sandpaper on a granite plate, using the scratch marks from the sandpaper to guide where I use the belt. It's easier if you hand-sand at 90 deg to the motion of the belt sander, so that you can tell the scratches apart.

[Jim Koepke]

On the other hand, the neighbor thought that it was worth upwards of $60. I doubt that this will ever be worth that, which means that if I do sell it I will clear the asking price with the neighbor and simply return it if he is not happy with the price.

I always wonder how people come up with such prices.

I would set a starting price if you are selling on ebay.

If you get it tuned up and working well, make sure that is stated when you sell it.

It has been a few years, but I have sold #4 sized Bedrock planes in good working condition for less than $60.

jtk

[steven c newman]

Mostly, a plane like that will start at $5.99 + S&H Have sold a few.

While on a mission to retrieve the camera's tripod from the shop....wound up doing a full sharpening on a Fulton #3......Iron had been ground at an angle, in towards the center. Back needed flattened. New, straight 25 degree bevel was ground. beltsander and a MK1 Honing guide , followed by the 600 oil stone and sandpaper up to 2.5K. No chatter, able to shave nice thin shavings from a piece of Walnut.

Then< I almost forgot the tripod.....needed it for pictures of a table....

[steven c newman]

Three planes from today....
The Craftsman No. 3C ( according to the stamp on the side) smooth sole, has a "Golden Oval" Craftsman on the lever cap, and "Craftsman Tools" on the rear handle....
344140
Made by Millers Falls, for sears. As for the Fulton No.3
344141
Found in a damp, moldy cellar at a yard sale, $1. Had a yellow mold growing out of the handles. Rear one is a replacement, for now. Might cobble a new handle out of that slab of Walnut it is sitting on.
As for the Made in England Stanley #4?
344142
Seems to do ..OK.. for an Import. It had a black, plastic depth adjuster knob....until
344143
One of my spares replaced it.

The Fulton will need a strop for the iron, as I couldn't find mine today.

[Stew Denton]

Hi Andrew,

I wouldn't worry too much about the #8 possibly being a Franken plane. It may be and work OK, and I had one that did, I think, a few years ago. (I also had one that took a bunch of time and work to rehab because the Franken parts were not compatible with the rest of the plane, and I would not have gone to the trouble to restore it because the parts came off a good plane. All told the rehab cost more than the plane is worth, and if it had not been my grandfather's, I would not have done it.)

My point is that you don't know on a Franken plane, it may or may not be fine, you don't know until you get into it. If it were mine I would definitely give it a go, but then I don't have a #8 so would definitely work on it in hopes it would make a good user. Still, sooner or later think that I will have a number 8 by one showing up at a price I think is OK.

I think it is pretty neat that you are trying to help out your neighbor, and I hope the work on the plane goes well.

Now I am not sure what to do with my own Dunlap, because Eric helped his a great deal by using a file, so I am tempted to try the same thing when I get time, but I have other planes that need work that are much better planes than the Dunlap. For what it's worth, I don't know the maker of my Dunlap, but looking at it carefully now, it is definitely not a Stanley.

Stew

[steven c newman]

Stanley, Made in England #4
344163
Lumber underneath is Walnut..
344164
Sears Craftsman No. 3C, Made by Millers Falls, same as their No.8. label on handle says "Craftsman Tools". The logo on the plated lever cap has a brass coloured oval. CRAFTSMAN in the oval. Wood is also walnut
344165
Fulton, a #3 sized plane, made by Sargent, sold at Sears. Bought at a yard sale for $1. Had a yellowish mold growing on the wood handles. had to replace the rear one. Just rehabbed the iron on this one today. And the chipbreaker.
344166
Rear handle is a "loaner" until I can make a new one. had already rehabbed the rest of this plane, iron was saved until I had a bit of time and room to work on it. Been using the Craftsman one on the last project..
The "C" model laying on it's side in the background is a Stanley No.5c, T-6.....have it set up as a cambered jack.

[Andrew Pitonyak]

I have been very busy, but I wanted to provide an update.....

I wandered out to see Mr. steven c newman, who was certainly much nicer to me than I deserve, but....

He pulled the plane apart and touched some areas I had not looked at. He pulled an odd piece of metal from inside and said something like..... "what is this doing here?" and then he removed it. Looks like someone added an unexpected flat piece of metal between the frog and the base.

A few other things were done, and now the plane is usable. So, a big thank you to Mr. newman!

Oh, and he gave me a few goodies.... :D

[steven c newman]

I do try to be a decent host....

Glad you enjoyed the day....Learn anything?

[Patrick Chase]

I have been very busy, but I wanted to provide an update.....

I wandered out to see Mr. steven c newman, who was certainly much nicer to me than I deserve, but....

He pulled the plane apart and touched some areas I had not looked at. He pulled an odd piece of metal from inside and said something like..... "what is this doing here?" and then he removed it. Looks like someone added an unexpected flat piece of metal between the frog and the base.

A few other things were done, and now the plane is usable. So, a big thank you to Mr. newman!

Oh, and he gave me a few goodies.... :D

Somebody stuck a shim under the frog? That's... bizarre.

[Andrew Pitonyak]

I do try to be a decent host....

Glad you enjoyed the day....Learn anything?


Yes, indeed, I learned something, I really enjoyed meeting you.

[Andrew Pitonyak]

Somebody stuck a shim under the frog? That's... bizarre.


Yeah, I had never seen that before, but without Steve pointing out that it was not right, I probably would have simply shrugged and moved on.

When took possession of the plane, the blade was mounted the wrong way around, so the chip breaker was not near the tip of the blade, it was near the edge of the bevel. One result was that the blade protruded significantly out the bottom and there was nothing that you could do about that. I don't know if that is why someone tried a shim, which was still not enough, or if it was because the be bottom of the from was very rough, but Steve hit that with his belt sander and made short work of the issues there.

[Patrick Chase]

Yeah, I had never seen that before, but without Steve pointing out that it was not right, I probably would have simply shrugged and moved on.

When took possession of the plane, the blade was mounted the wrong way around, so the chip breaker was not near the tip of the blade, it was near the edge of the bevel. One result was that the blade protruded significantly out the bottom and there was nothing that you could do about that. I don't know if that is why someone tried a shim, which was still not enough, or if it was because the be bottom of the from was very rough, but Steve hit that with his belt sander and made short work of the issues there.

A friend of mine who was new to hand tools tried to set up the blade on his #4 bevel-up as you describe. He had enough sense to recognize that he was doing something wrong instead of just bulling ahead and shimming the frog, though.

[Robert Engel]

At least the tote isn't plastic, but I suggest you should check the pedigree before you go further. hyperkitten.com

Question I have is if the plane is warped due to stresses in the metal, will that recur after machining?

[Derek Cohen]

Somebody stuck a shim under the frog? That's... bizarre.

I've done that. Many years ago I was experimenting with converting a stock #4 into a high cutting angle. I added spacers (washers cut in half) under the rear of the frog. This way the plane reached a 55 degree cutting angle. It was tight and planed beautifully.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[steven c newman]

The frog on Andrew's Cordovan Stanley #4 sat on three "flats".....2 down at the mouth opening, and a single small "pad" at the rear. Had to flatten a spot on the frog's behind, to match that little square pad. Once that was done, frog no longer rocked side to side. Sole wasn't all that far out of whack. Chipbreaker needed matched to the flat back of the iron. Once there wasn't any gaposis under the chipbreaker, things worked a lot better. Andrew already had the iron nice and sharp.

We found out WHY the #8 would get a fouled mouth.....the after market iron and cb. There wasn't enough room between the cutter and the front of the mouth. And a #8 was never designed to take see-through shavings like a smoother.

[Andrew Pitonyak]

The frog on Andrew's Cordovan Stanley #4 sat on three "flats".....2 down at the mouth opening, and a single small "pad" at the rear. Had to flatten a spot on the frog's behind, to match that little square pad. Once that was done, frog no longer rocked side to side. Sole wasn't all that far out of whack. Chipbreaker needed matched to the flat back of the iron. Once there wasn't any gaposis under the chipbreaker, things worked a lot better. Andrew already had the iron nice and sharp.

We found out WHY the #8 would get a fouled mouth.....the after market iron and cb. There wasn't enough room between the cutter and the front of the mouth. And a #8 was never designed to take see-through shavings like a smoother.

Yeah, for these two issues, Steven was certainly "da-man". When I got home, I was able to do some decent work with the #4. it is certainly not nearly as nice as my Lie Nielsen #4, but I had no problems using it. Previously, it was pretty much completely NOT usable.

As for the #8, it will take some very nice whisper thin shaving. Much more than that and it clogs up. Makes sense after having Steve point to the opening and imparting the knowledge.... "too small"!