Stanley Smoothing Plane Types 1-19 That Are Better for Woodworking?

[Jim Build]

Hi, my mainstay most-used plane is a Stanley No 4 type 18. It's really true and works great.

I've used a No4 type 15 and type 19, and I can't really tell much difference between any of them once they're setup nicely and use the same Hock blade. The 19 seemed to have rougher casting overall, but still worked well.

Was wondering if any of the early types would be better for woodworking use or are they all somewhat the same?

[Malcolm Schweizer]

Don't worry with the types. Just get the right size for your liking, i.e. 3, 4, 4 1/2, etc. The differences in types are not worth all the hype. For instance- one has a raised area at the knob, one has a slightly better lever adjuster, but the lesser one is just fine- nothing to worry about.

[ken hatch]

Jim,

I agree for the most part with Malcolm especially if you have a plane that is working. But if I'm in the market for rust to get into working order, if I'm going to spend the time to make the plane function well, then I will look for a type 9 through 13 plane. They, type 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13, have better "bones" to work with. Once set up the type makes no never mind.

ken

[Kees Heiden]

I agree with Malcom. I have been perfectly happy with the performance of rather late UK made Stanleys. The ones you "should not get". Even newer then type 19. I only got one #7 with a concave sole but the rest needed only minimal flattening.

But I really dig the asthetics of the old low knob ones, so I have a set of pre WW 1 Stanleys now. They're great too. Needed mostly only attention to the irons. I have a type 6 #3 with right hand thread on the adjuster which is a little inconvenient. So maybe avoid the really old ones (pre type 6).

[Jim Koepke]

Howdy Jim and welcome to the Creek.

As others have stated, if the plane's performance meets your needs it doesn't matter when it was made.

Ken mentions types 9 through 13 above. Those are from what some consider to be the "Golden Age" of Stanley plane manufacturing.

It mostly comes down to personal preferences.

jtk

[Jim Build]

Hey Malcom, Ken, Kees, and Jim.

Thanks, great to hear what I suspected to be true. Since I'm more of a woodworker than a plane collector, I'll leave the very early ones to them. I do like types 9-19 a lot and will look for a clean example for my next buy.

The only sweetheart era plane I have is a nice complete 278 that I also bought from the original owner. It rarely gets used but is rock solid when I need it.

[Mark R Webster]

Hi Jim
I have rehabbed and tuned a ton of Stanley planes and totally agree with Ken.. Types 13 and lower have better "bones". While the later planes will work, my experience is that due to the reduction of metal in the frog and quality of machining, the irons generally don't have as much support as the earlier planes. For me the later Types are more frustrating to use. You especially notice the difference when you are trying to take a very fine shaving. While other factors contribute to poor performance (condition of plane bottom, iron...etc) the lesser support contributes to chatter related to iron deflection. A related problem is when trying to take a very fine shaving... the iron wants to go too deep or won't cut at all. (the lack of support is not the only reason for this) If all you are doing is adjusting a door for the house or general coarse work it probably doesn't matter if you pick up a later plane. Although... my mind, I would buy the earlier types because you are a "woodworker" and not a "collector" :) Having said all that I have seen later planes work great but in my opinion that is the exception.

[steven c newman]

Just rehabbed a Made in England G12-004, Stanley No.4c


357925
Seems to work nicely enough...

[Mark R Webster]

That is does :)

[Stew Denton]

Hi Jim,

One more of the same general idea of the above, my choices would be primarily in the 10 to 13s, if I was going to look to buy one. There are other good planes, and several of the guys here like the Millers Falls, but since I know the ins and outs of the old Stanley planes I stick with those, and there are plenty of those around.

I do have a type 19 #5, and agree with some of the folks above, I don't think the detail work on the type 19 is quite as good as the older planes. That said, also agree that if a type 19 is properly tuned up it can do just fine, and in my hands I am not sure that I could tell the difference between using it and a 605 Bedrock.

The type 19 lacks some of the nice stuff of the earlier ones, gone are the rosewood totes and knobs, gone is the frog adjuster screw, and I don't think the finish, etc., is quite as good, however, these are mostly things that don't affect functionality.

The one that is more of an issue to me is a feature that disappeared about 1933 or so, a number of years before the type 19 came along. That feature is the replacement of the flat milled frog face with a skeletonized frog face that supports the iron. This may be part of the reason for the observation that Mark has seen. I have a type 19, and need to restore it, although it is not really very bad, just needs some sprucing up. That type 19 was my dads, so I do plan to restore it and use it, It would be one of the last ones to go if I got rid of my tools, perish the thought, because of the family connection. I used it when a lot younger, I think, and it worked fine for what I used it for. However, if I was going to go out and buy a plane I would look for a type 10 or 11, partly because of the knob type, but I would pick up any of the other types listed above instead if the price was good, and would be perfectly happy with it.

That said, the difference between the type 19s and the Stanley Bailey type 10s to 13s is only moderate IMHO, because the type 19s can still be good users. However, the differences between the type 19s and those made after about 1962 is huge. The type 19s are not quite as good as the earlier planes, but they are still pretty good planes, but those made after 1962 are drastically lower quality IMHO.

Stew

[Mark R Webster]

I liked the look and feel of the low knob offered with the type 10 and 11 as well Stew. I invested in a set of 11s years ago and thought they were great. After working with many Type 12s and 13s I found I actually liked the larger 1-1/4 depth adjusting knob better than the ones found on the earlier Types. The larger diameter gives the user more leverage when advancing or retracting the iron. That said I still love all the Stanleys Type 13 and earlier. Rosewood is cool too..... :cool:

[Jim Koepke]

After working with many Type 12s and 13s I found I actually liked the larger 1-1/4 depth adjusting knob better than the ones found on the earlier Types.

I cheated, after having one plane with the larger depth adjuster I ended up buying a bunch of the larger depth adjusters and installed them on my earlier planes.

The one plane that had the larger depth adjuster, a type 13 #3, also got a low style knob installed. Many of my planes are Frankenplanes.

jtk

[Mark R Webster]

Very wise and practical moves. I have considered them as well :cool:

[Jim Build]

Hi Mark, Steven, Stew,

I was able to test drive several planes of different eras recently with good results. I liked the earlier Stanleys, but preferred the slightly later ones with frog adjusters, and like Mark and Jim, I also like the larger depth wheels.

Honestly, they all cut very well, even a real rough beater that had been setup well. The rosewood totes are pretty, but I also like the hardwood on my type 18. If blindfolded I wouldn't be able to tell which was which, or which one made which shavings. They even had a late blue body that was rough in its casting and looked kinda cheap, but was setup well and cut great.

I make a variety of things, but find my planes are used more for building custom doors, 3 to 10 feet wide, from oak, mahogany, spruce, cherry, walnut, etc. All mortised, mostly hand work, but use a planer and thickness sander for the initial rough stock. I also build free standing spiral staircases in similar woods and manor.

I've found that I like all the original black planes in their own ways.

[lowell holmes]

And some of us have Bedrocks. I do have some that are not Bedrocks. I have a 5 1/2 type 10 I really like.

[Jim Build]

Hi Steven, your Made in England G12-004 does seem to be doing well.

Hi Lowell, I tried a couple Bedrock planes, 604 and 605 and liked them both. If I run across one in nice condition I would be in the market. I'm still looking and test driving them. There's lots of nice planes around here once I started asking other wood workers. Thanks.

[lowell holmes]

I have a 5 1/2 Bailey that I tend to use instead of my 607 Bedrock. It is a good plane.

My favorite bench plane is a Canadian made #3 Stanley. I use the stock irons in it, but I also have a narrow iron I bought at the borg and put a severe radius on it. I use it as a scrub plane.

[steven c newman]

One of "brand name" to try....Millers Falls made a lot of great planes. I have a few, from a #3 sized up to a #5 sized plane. Have yet to have any one of them chatter. Look for the ones with the Millers Falls special lever cap. The good ones were from 1929 up to about 1955 or so. Types 1 - 4. Irons seem to be a hair thicker than Stanley used.....Clifton used a similar style of two-piece lever cap.
358617358618358619
This is my Type 4, No. 9 ( Stanley #4 size) smooth plane. Last of the "Good" ones they made.

[Jim Koepke]

Stanley, Millers Falls, Sargent and other branded or badged planes are all good.

My suggestion to those who are rehabbing planes for their own use is to stay with one brand if possible. It will be easier to keep the parts sorted.

A friend of mine so far has at least 4 different brands of planes and is always having confusion about what part goes where.

jtk

[Jim Build]

Lowell, I'd like to find a nice 5 1/2 and on the look out for one. Interesting, I haven't tried a Canadian Stanley, but will also be on the look out.

Steven, I like good Miller Falls tools. Someone once gave me a 1970s Miller Falls plane which I used for a couple days, didn't want to put any effort into getting it true, and passed it along to someone else. Seems that's the story of so many tool makers around the same time period, lower quality to the point of unusable.

Jim, I agree with you. I prefer to stick to one company though I do have a couple Sargent planes for heavy work and they do ok. At $1 each I couldn't go wrong as they were in good condition. I sometimes buy bulk lots just to get one nice tool, then end up using other tools I had no real intention of keeping.