Looking for knowledge about an old Bailey/Stanley wooden jointer plane

[Benjimin Young]

Are there any tool experts out there, specific to old Bailey/Stanley planes?
I am looking for any misc. information you might know about the plane I just purchased and am refurbishing.

I recently purchased this plane, mainly because its parts all looked to be in good shape and fully restorable to a usable state. I was planning to make a new wood base but after disassemble and a little research I may want to keep the original base depending on history etc.


Here is what I think I know from the tool itself and a little Google, but first, I apologize in advance for not knowing the terms, something else I can learn from this tool.


Description of the tool


The picture of the assembled plane is not mine but appears to be the same. The disassembled pictures are of my plane.
It has a 24" long wood base made with a light colored hard wood, research says it might be Beech but I'm not great in identifying woods.
The wood section is stamped on the end
"Bailey"
"Stanley Rule & Level Co"
"No 31"



The main cast metal part that screws to the wood says "Bailey"
The blade is stamped "Stanley"
Google research indicates it might be between 1867 and 1946.

Some questions


Is this a jointer plane?
What kind of wood?
Do all the parts look authentic?
What age do you think it is?
Does anyone know when Bailey was acquired by Stanley or when Stanley faded out Bailey trade mark stamps on their tools?
Any thoughts on how I could fix/replace the damaged handle or what wood it is?
Other thoughts, comments, facts, leads?

[Malcolm Schweizer]

Tat is a transitional plane. The wood is beech. They are not rare, but I always thought they were kind of cool. Here is a link for more info. http://www.supertool.com/StanleyBG/stan4.htm#num31

[Benjimin Young]

Thanks Malcom, that site is a very good read.

[John Vernier]

My appreciation of transitionals has increased in recent years and I use them a fair amount. I think you should put your plane back together and use it with the original sole before you decide to replace it. The sole needs to be reasonably flat but that's a straightforward job. If the mouth seems too wide it can be patched to make a tighter opening, but learning to set the cap iron is key to getting good performance on these planes, just as with any wooden bodied plane that doesn't have an adjustable mouth.

Your plane is a jointer, certainly. At 24" it is the same length as a #8. I'm using a #30, the 22" version equivalent to the #7, and I trust it to work as well as my iron Stanleys.

Malcolm is right that the wood is beech, and that includes the tote and knob. I'm pretty sure the finish on these was always shellac. I used Zinnser amber shellac to touch up some of my planes and it matches the original finish very well.

Dating these planes can be tough, mainly because there is less information out there in terms of type studies. Anybody know of a good one? Per Patrick leach's site, the metal inserts for the screws into the sole were a new feature about 1912, so your plane is newer than that. You should be able to get a rough idea of the date from the logo on the blade, but I can't make it out in your picture. I assume the logo changes on the transitionals follow the same dating as for the iron planes. They sold millions of these planes and there's no reason to think they sat around in stock.

Patrick Leach has the info about the Stanley/Bailey connection. The Bailey logo in front of the knob on the iron frame was not on the earlier models. My Stanley transitionals all seem to be from the 1890s-1900s, and don't have it. Just ingore what Leach has to say about these planes being fit only for burning. I might not choose one for jointing burl amboyna, but I've had good results on domestic American hardwoods like oak and walnut.

[Jim Koepke]

What John said +:

Here is a site for dating the logo on the iron:

http://www.antique-used-tools.com/stantms.htm

My only transitional is made by Sargent. It is a good plane but gets little use because the tote is broken and is uncomfortable to use. Besides it is a bit redundant of my metal planes. Wood bodied planes do have a different feel, but not enough to make me get rid of all my metal bodied planes.

jtk

[Greg Wease]

According to Roger K Smith's type study, the logo on the toe of your plane was only used from 1941 to 1943 when transitionals were dropped. Gluing on a scrap of beech to replace the broken horn on the tote should be fairly easy.

[Benjimin Young]

Are there any tool experts out there, specific to old Bailey/Stanley planes?
I am looking for any misc. information you might know about the plane I just purchased and am refurbishing.

I recently purchased this plane, mainly because its parts all looked to be in good shape and fully restorable to a usable state. I was planning to make a new wood base but after disassemble and a little research I may want to keep the original base depending on history etc.


Here is what I think I know from the tool itself and a little Google, but first, I apologize in advance for not knowing the terms, something else I can learn from this tool.


Description of the tool


The picture of the assembled plane is not mine but appears to be the same. The disassembled pictures are of my plane.
It has a 24" long wood base made with a light colored hard wood, research says it might be Beech but I'm not great in identifying woods.
The wood section is stamped on the end
"Bailey"
"Stanley Rule & Level Co"
"No 31"



The main cast metal part that screws to the wood says "Bailey"
The blade is stamped "Stanley"
Google research indicates it might be between 1867 and 1946.

Some questions


Is this a jointer plane?
What kind of wood?
Do all the parts look authentic?
What age do you think it is?
Does anyone know when Bailey was acquired by Stanley or when Stanley faded out Bailey trade mark stamps on their tools?
Any thoughts on how I could fix/replace the damaged handle or what wood it is?
Other thoughts, comments, facts, leads?




Great information, I have decided to keep the unit as original as possible. There is just something about old tools... For now, I cleaned every part, glued and filled the crack in the wood, sanded the wood, gave the wood a light coat of linseed oil, reassembled the tool it and gave it a prominent spot on my wall. I will need to sharpen the blade, flatten the bottom, fix the handle and make some minor adjustments for the tool to be useable. Now I know a little more about transitional planes, Thanks!!

[Benjimin Young]

Thanks John, yes I cringed a little at the thought of burning any old tool. I'm unable to see the logo on the blade.


My appreciation of transitionals has increased in recent years and I use them a fair amount. I think you should put your plane back together and use it with the original sole before you decide to replace it. The sole needs to be reasonably flat but that's a straightforward job. If the mouth seems too wide it can be patched to make a tighter opening, but learning to set the cap iron is key to getting good performance on these planes, just as with any wooden bodied plane that doesn't have an adjustable mouth.

Your plane is a jointer, certainly. At 24" it is the same length as a #8. I'm using a #30, the 22" version equivalent to the #7, and I trust it to work as well as my iron Stanleys.

Malcolm is right that the wood is beech, and that includes the tote and knob. I'm pretty sure the finish on these was always shellac. I used Zinnser amber shellac to touch up some of my planes and it matches the original finish very well.

Dating these planes can be tough, mainly because there is less information out there in terms of type studies. Anybody know of a good one? Per Patrick leach's site, the metal inserts for the screws into the sole were a new feature about 1912, so your plane is newer than that. You should be able to get a rough idea of the date from the logo on the blade, but I can't make it out in your picture. I assume the logo changes on the transitionals follow the same dating as for the iron planes. They sold millions of these planes and there's no reason to think they sat around in stock.

Patrick Leach has the info about the Stanley/Bailey connection. The Bailey logo in front of the knob on the iron frame was not on the earlier models. My Stanley transitionals all seem to be from the 1890s-1900s, and don't have it. Just ingore what Leach has to say about these planes being fit only for burning. I might not choose one for jointing burl amboyna, but I've had good results on domestic American hardwoods like oak and walnut.

[Benjimin Young]

Jim, wow, I love the logos. I need to get my plan back down off the wall and see what I can match. Too much fun.

What John said +:

Here is a site for dating the logo on the iron:

http://www.antique-used-tools.com/stantms.htm

My only transitional is made by Sargent. It is a good plane but gets little use because the tote is broken and is uncomfortable to use. Besides it is a bit redundant of my metal planes. Wood bodied planes do have a different feel, but not enough to make me get rid of all my metal bodied planes.

jtk

[Benjimin Young]

Hi Greg, another piece to my puzzle, thanks. And, I am looking forward to fixing the handle, something I have not yet tried in my minimal woodworking experience but new is fun. I suspect it will be very much a hand carving/sanding bit of work for me to recreate the end piece once I located a piece of Beech and attached it.

According to Roger K Smith's type study, the logo on the toe of your plane was only used from 1941 to 1943 when transitionals were dropped. Gluing on a scrap of beech to replace the broken horn on the tote should be fairly easy.

[Kevin Hampshire]

350985


Benjamin, This is your plane and your decision how you "rehab" it but, FWIW these planes were not done with BLO.

Somebody above suggested you use amber shellac. Through trial and ERROR I arrived at the similar conclusion that shellac is the better finish for these planes. Shellac looks great on the beech and is the closest to original (and most likely is original) finish for these planes. I felt the amber shellac was a little too light in color and now use garnet shellac but the amber will still look very good. Much better than BLO.

The plane on the left is a Bailey No. 27 1/2 that was essentially NOS when I got it and that is the original finish. The plane on the right is a similar age Bailey No. 37 which is considered more desirable by some and as the finish (shellac?) started to fail, somebody put something on it. That made the plane much more affordable for me ;) to buy.

350989

The Bailey No. 36 on the right was rehabbed by someone. They wanted to "spruce it up a bit" so the plane got a quick wipe of BLO to make it look better. I originally intended to make a new wooden body for it but too many other projects!


350990

My transitonal planes are all users. I really enjoy the jacks and the jointers but not the smoothers. For me, there are times (certain woods) that the transitionals are better to use than my vintage or modern metal planes.


I'm glad to hear you plan on putting you Bailey No. 31 back into use. It's a useful size to have and I look forward to any updates on your progress with it.

[steven c newman]

Time to make some shavings? like my No. 31 does..
351019
Mine is a tad older, is all....1892 or so..