What to look for in used hand planes

[Jim Colombo]

I'm out to get my first hand plane but I would like some advise on what I should be looking for in used hand planes. Basically I was wondering if there is a way to tell if the iron is any good.

Thanks
Jim

[Robert Hazelwood]

Most of the older plane irons are pretty good in terms of steel quality. Newer stuff (say 1950s and later) can be on the soft side but mostly are still usable.

Condition of the iron is more important. If you can see the back of the iron, try to find one with zero or minimal pitting near the cutting edge. You'll need to get rid of any pitting in the area say 1/2" back from the edge, so you'll save yourself a lot of work by finding a clean iron. Same goes for the chipbreaker, look for on in decent shape.

[Rob Luter]

Look for cracks in the casting and in the tote. Antique stores like to cover them with price tags. If you’re a rust hunter, surface rust can be fixed but deep pits are problematic. Look for a pit free iron. Better yet, find one with pits and use that for leverage to get a lower price. Order a Hock replacement iron and you’ll get a clean start. My users are Hock equipped and it made a big difference.

[David Eisenhauer]

I may be outrunning my knowledge some here with my limited experience with rehabbing a few used Stanley planes, but I almost think that the iron is closer to the least important part of when considering a used plane purchase. Given the availability of replacement irons, I would tend to worry more about the cap iron (as Robert says), the utility of the blade skew mechanism and the condition/action of the frog and its adjustment. Of course, a general look at the body of the plane to see if it exhibits any gross twist/kink/bend/crack/etc plus the avoidance of deep pitting that would have to be addressed i
s the first step for me.

[Hasin Haroon]

The only things I look for in a vintage plane are cracks or warps/dents (less common) in the casting. Totes and knobs can be fixed/made and are not a big deal. Rust in the casting is fine, even some pitting on the sole is ok so long as you can get it flat over the entire length. Hanging holes drilled in the bed are ugly, but do not usually affect the useability of the plane.

I don't worry about blades because I have a ton of extras, but if you don't, look for blade life left, and void pitted backs. Also look at the cap iron and make sure it meets the back across the entire length, especially at the edges, otherwise shavings will clog up there.

I mostly stick to the US made stanleys/Unions/Sargents, pre-WWII (though if you put work into them some of the later heavy english castings can be fine planes), or the older english Records. IMO dont bother with the magenta or blue painted bed baileys, or the ones with stamped yolks and lateral adjust levers - keep looking as the older planes are quite easy to find, and much much better in quality.

[steven c newman]

Also, keep an eye out for one maker..
391603
Millers Falls also made some very good planes...

[Jim Koepke]

In the Neanderthal wisdom/FAQs:

https://sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?103805-Neanderthal-wisdom-FAQs

are a coulple of old posts on this subject.

First is Getting Started:

https://sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?148076-Getting-Started-With-Hand-Planes

There is also a what to look for post:

https://sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?116419-Planes-and-a-Few-Things-to-Look-For

In the first link above there are also other helpful posts on planes you may want to read.

In my earlier days of endless pursuit of every plane available, my take along kit included a screw driver, a magnifier and a small piece of sandpaper.

My preference is for Stanley/Bailey planes. Though a few others have come home with me, my preference is to have planes mostly from one maker so the parts are somewhat interchangeable.

Were you thinking of a particular size or use?

jtk

[lowell holmes]

https://www.fine-tools.com/eisen.html

Visit this site for Hock plane irons and breakers.
Also I have Lee Valley irons and breakers in my Bedrock planes.

[Dave Parkis]

As mentioned, check carefully for cracks in the casting, particularly around the mouth. Also check the mouth to make sure there are no chips out of it. I usually take a straight edge with me to check the sole, but you can get a decent idea of sole flatness by placing the plane on a flat surface and checking to see if it rocks. If it does, don't buy. HTH

[Jim Colombo]

Thanks for all the input. I went to eBay and started a search for a "Stanley low angle block plane". YIIKES, there are ten million of them and I was overwhelmed with all the different numbers. Can you guys please tell me or refer me somewhere that explains the numbers that follow the manufacturers name but precede the "block plane". Also, what's the difference between an "adjustable throat plate" and "adjustable mouth"?

[steven c newman]

Patrick Leach, his Blood & Gore site, has info on all things Stanley plane....

[Jim Koepke]

If you had followed the links in my post above you would have found Patrick Leach's site:

http://www.supertool.com

This is the starting page. When you get to the page starting the Blood & Gore is where you may want to bookmark it.

Also note that on the dimension for the width it is the blade width.

He doesn't cover planes made after Stanley started giving them numbers like 12-060, so a lot of the more modern numbers are not covered. IMO, they are not really worth the trouble.

jtk

[Jim Colombo]

I did follow your links and when I tried to open the Blood and Gore link I got and error message so I just moved on. I will try it again today.

Jim

[Jim Koepke]

I did follow your links and when I tried to open the Blood and Gore link I got and error message so I just moved on. I will try it again today.

Jim

Sometimes servers go down or the URL gets mangled in the hand off through the internet.

Mr. Leach also has a monthly email of tools for sale. This is a great source of information as he has thoughtful and usually well written descriptions of the tools and their uses along with images. Look for it on his site and sign up to start getting it if you want to learn more about various tools, even if you are not going to buy anything.

jtk

[steven c newman]

can also access B&G through Hyperkitten web site....

[Derek Cohen]

Thanks for all the input. I went to eBay and started a search for a "Stanley low angle block plane". YIIKES, there are ten million of them and I was overwhelmed with all the different numbers. Can you guys please tell me or refer me somewhere that explains the numbers that follow the manufacturers name but precede the "block plane". Also, what's the difference between an "adjustable throat plate" and "adjustable mouth"?

Jim, the simplest answer is to look for a vintage Stanley #60 1/2. Here is an example (mods - necessary example only, and no affiliation): https://www.ebay.com/itm/Vintage-Stanley-No-60-1-2-Low-Angle-Adjustable-Block-Plane-Nice-No-Reserve/401581942521?hash=item5d802626f9:g:i6gAAOSwi8tbc33 c

https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/a5MAAOSwhlJbc33l/s-l400.jpg

These have an adjustable mouth - and the advert must state this, otherwise move on. It should not have painted sides ... which can disguise the presence of cracks. The rear knob is likely to be engraved. Avoid planes that have labels instead as they are the new generation.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Dave Parkis]

You might want to post a "WTB" for a low angle block in the classifieds here. You might end up paying a couple bucks more, but you will be a lot more confident that you'll get a plane in good shape. There are lots of us here that sell.

[lowell holmes]

I have Veritas breakers and irons in my Bedrock planes. They are a joy to use.
Rob Lee reads this forum and would be happy to help you.

[steven c newman]

One of the first mistake many make when rehabbing a vintage plane.....they somehow get the idea that a new, thicker iron will "Cure" whatever they think is wrong with a plane....then wonder why they have to get a file out.

That vintage plane was made for the thickness of the iron that came with it.....or, should I say the iron was made to fit a model of plane. If after 50-90 years of use, and there is still plenty of usable blade left...just sharpen it up, and put it back to work.

Of the several 100 planes I have rehabbed....biggest problem would be the iron.....they had been put into the plane wrong ( chipbreaker does NOT go on the bevel side..)sharpened BADLY...like a wave effect? Or worse, a reverse camber. Rarely find one pitted beyond use... Had more than a few come through the shop, that the chipbreaker had been bent away from the iron....and were packed full of shavings, and worse ( a #6c had almost an inch of mud..)

Handles can be either repaired, or replaced.

Look for cracks around not just the opening for the blade, but along the sides of the base casting. Some cracks can be silver solder brazed. Doesn't matter if all you are looking for is a user, if you are collecting, cracks are a no-no.

While the Infamous Steel Frog er Toad planes can be made to preform....they have a lot of trouble holding a setting. Mainly because the bolt the lever cap attaches with...wiggles. Bad threads? Wrong bolt?

As for the sole...flat? Not a chance.....anything that gets used for that long will show wear, where the users before you would hold the plane at an angle....I have seen ONE iron body that actually warped along the sole....only because some idiot welded it back together,,and BADLY at that. When you look over a plane, use the two finger method. Index finger of each hand, place one on each end of the plane ( find a flat spot on the table/shelf/whatever) and first center the fingers on the ends....does it rock? No? Ok opposite corners with the fingers....does it rock? do both corners. IF the plane does not rock on any of these, take it home, and put it to work.

[Doug Hepler]

Steven,

I have a question about re-habbing/fettling bench planes. Do you have to mess with the frog very often? I agree with your (and others') point about an intact body, clean mouth, flat sole and sharp iron. What other problems do you usually find in a used plane? Most articles on how to fettle a plane, Charlesworth being the classic, actually begin with how well the frog is seated and how well the iron fits against the frog. He suggests three operations on the frog and then two more on the mouth of the plane before he gets to the chipbreaker and sole.

In my very limited experience with older planes, this has not been an issue. As you said, a flat sole and a good sharp iron are about all that they need to work well.

What is your take on frogs and other "hidden" problems?

Doug

[steven c newman]

Sometimes, when I remove a frog.....it is full of junk under it. I clean things down to bare metal under a frog,,,at least where it will be sitting. Sometimes, there is way too much "paint" under a frog, and the spots under the frog itself. Nothing fancy, just a cup wire wheel that fits between the sides. Make the seats for the frog shiny. Try the frog to see IF it rocks any. I rarely ever need to file the seats.

I will set up a beltsander, and lay the face of the frog on the spinning belt....careful around the yoke, and the lateral lever....and sand it smooth and shiny....which also makes it flat....again, sometimes there is too much paint. There is usually a ramp, at the back of the mouth opening, I try to clean the ramps until they also shine, checking to make sure they aren't crooked..this is where the iron rests before it goes out to confront any wood. When I go to assemble the frog to the base...a drop of 3in1 oil into any hole with threads. Threads for the depth adjuster wheel usually need cleaned off, and a drop of oil there, too.

I use a fingertip to make sure the bottom edge of the frog and the ramp are in line with each other. I want a nice smooth surface all the way through to the outside. A drop of oil near the lateral lever, then wiggle the lever left and right until it works smoothly. I also make sure the lever is straight. Bolts will see the wire wheel, to clean them up and clean the threads.

All the above takes me maybe an hour to do.

Other problems....Bolt for the rear handle/tote was bent....along with the broken handle....PITA to straighten back out. Sometimes, the brass "nut" at the top will come off, and leave the shaft behind....hopefully the handle will slide off the shaft....Handles that are loose.....it ain't pretty, but a layer of the foam drawer liner can be cut to fit under the handle....I usually just grind about 2-3 threads off the end of the shaft...the reason? Those old handles will shrink a bit, over time. Front knobs are the same....although I have had to take a drift pin, and punch the bolt out of the knob....Brass nut corrodes a bit down in there...and gets a bit sticky....

IF you feel the sole needs a little "lapping"....assemble the plane, completely....just back the iron up into the plane. You want things tensioned just like they would if they were been used on wood. Do NOT hold the plane like a.....plane. Fingertips onto the base casting only.....otherwise, you can round things over, instead of getting them flat. Smaller the plane, the more a flat sole might matter......from a #5 on up..not really needed. Leave the feeler gauges in the toolbox drawer, BTW. Use the two finger method to check on flatness.

Then, sharpen the iron, make sure the chipbreaker will lay flat, no gaps. Then an old candle gets rubbed across the sole a few times..and put it to work.

[Tom Trees]

After buying two 60 1/2's, an old American Stanley and a dreadful newish Record/Irwin, I coughed up for a fantabulous Lie-Nielsen because both were pants.
Problems with both included the Azimuth error, which means the iron needs to be ground skewed to project evenly across when eyeing down the sole...
This could be scraped to sort it out
And the other more problematic issue being that the sole was not flat, nor parallel with the milled slot for the adjustable mouth.
This means the mouth couldn't be adjusted as the plane wouldn't sit on a flat surface if moved, causing the toe of the plane to lift up.

If looking for a Stanley or Record bench plane, go for the older planes which don't have an x pattern of ribbing on the castings, as I believe the castings are aged and more stable.
(won't warp)
Try to find one where you can see the thickness of the sole from both the toe and the heel of the plane, seek after the thickest casting you can find as if you have to flatten it
their will be still loads of meat left for the plane not to move.
It could have been lapped by a numpty, and have no meat left.

Even with a perfectly flat surface plate and tight clean sandpaper affixed by whatever means, i.e stretched or glued down to the plate it won't give a flat surface.
You need to create a slight hollow in the middle of the plane lengthwise and widthwise and finish off the edges with just the very final, say 10 passes on a full width and length of paper, to make the sole 100% flat.
Depending on the plane size, differing techniques can be utilized.
The main thing is not having the affixed abrasive in contact with the edges of the plane, widthwise or lengthwise.

Say starting off with a small plane, I would affix some self adhesive paper to the surface plate, lesser than the width and length of the plane, bonded with spray adhesive or fancy adhesive backed stuff
and place another cheaper sandpaper on top and it will stay put n the plate
I normally cut regular rolls down the middle giving me two rolls from the one.

I have seen atrociously bad advice from some of the best known utubers, even one suggests lapping the sides of the plane intentionally!
This would render the plane unusable if you intended to use the cap iron from tearout elimination, as the plane iron would be only in contact with the wood on the edges of the plane....
and the only way you could get an even blade projection, would be to have a camber on the iron which would stop the cap iron from getting close enough to have proper "full" effect to
stop tearout.
No need to be looking for the prewar examples with the more solid frog castings, as these irons wont sit on the frog because of the pressure of the cap iron bending them.

Stanley would be my first choice, although you guys have Millers falls which look very good too.
Good luck, have fun

Tomas

[Jim Colombo]

Does anyone know why the Millers Falls planes are so much cheaper on eBay than the Stanleys?

Jim

[steven c newman]

BTW: I have a standing offer. IF someone needs a plane rehabbed, and tuned up, they merely have to ship it to my shop, and provide return postage/label......all they will pay would be the shipping, both ways.

I ask nothing for me. As long as nothing is broken, or missing....turn around is about a day, two at the most. I would then send it back in the box it came in, with the return label they supply.

That is the offer....have had it out there for a few years, now. However, I am not a miracle worker.....some planes are just too far gone. I will try my best, and see how it goes.

[Tom Trees]

Does anyone know why the Millers Falls planes are so much cheaper on eBay than the Stanleys?

Jim

Possibly the prestige in Stanley planes is that Leonard Bailey designed the Bailey pattern planes.
Just a guess though :)

[Stewie Simpson]

Focus on improving your fettling-in and sharpening skills.

an old German smoothing plane.
http://i1009.photobucket.com/albums/af219/swagman001/shavings/DSC_0128_zpsn9kprdw3.jpg
(http://s1009.photobucket.com/user/swagman001/media/shavings/DSC_0128_zpsn9kprdw3.jpg.html)
the modern version of the Stanley# 60 1/2.
http://i1009.photobucket.com/albums/af219/swagman001/shavings/DSC_0129_zpsquazvpje.jpg (http://s1009.photobucket.com/user/swagman001/media/shavings/DSC_0129_zpsquazvpje.jpg.html)

[Doug Hepler]

Thank you, Steven & Tom, very helpful. My question was really just to find out how many used planes in your experience need work on the frog & mouth, or do you just do this as a matter of SOP. I have the idea that many used planes with an intact casting only need the iron to be sharp and the sole to be flat. In other words, I'm asking whether a need to re-seat the frog, etc, is more the exception than the rule. Comment?

Doug

[Robert Hazelwood]

I have seen atrociously bad advice from some of the best known utubers, even one suggests lapping the sides of the plane intentionally!
This would render the plane unusable if you intended to use the cap iron from tearout elimination, as the plane iron would be only in contact with the wood on the edges of the plane....
and the only way you could get an even blade projection, would be to have a camber on the iron which would stop the cap iron from getting close enough to have proper "full" effect to
stop tearout.

I am not following you here. How would lapping the sides of the plane casting affect the chipbreaker, and why would it cause the plane iron to contact wood only at the edges?

I would agree that lapping the sides is probably a waste of time unless you want it to look pretty. Due to the shape of the casting it's difficult to get the sides square with lapping- it's so easy to remove more material at the top of the side than at the bottom. But, I have done this on a couple of planes and it does not affect the camber required on the iron or the ability to set the chipbreaker.

It sounds more like you are describing a sole that is convex across its width.



No need to be looking for the prewar examples with the more solid frog castings, as these irons wont sit on the frog because of the pressure of the cap iron bending them.

It's true that the face of the frog doesn't need to be dead flat as the iron will be slightly concave, so will contact only at the base of the frog and at the top. But the late model frogs seem to have been finished on a belt sander and can be quite wonky- skewed, twisted etc. Most are probably fine, and most of the ones that aren't could be fixed without much trouble (though some are truly lost causes). But in my mind that is a point in favor of the older models- they were made a bit more carefully.

[steven c newman]

Usually they just need a clean up. There IS a type of plane out there to avoid.....late model Handyman/red everything Sears. Bottom of the frog sits in mid-air. No amount of rehab will ever cure that. There is a gap between what little ramp remains and the bottom edge of the frog.....nothing to support the iron. This is the type of planes where all the talk of "chattering" came from. I don't even bother to pick one up at a sale....90% of the rest of the vintage planes can be rehabbed in...maybe an hour. Other than another hour spent on the iron and chipbreaker.

Chipbreakers: They sit too long clamped down tight.....IF you take one out, sit it on a flat surface....it will rock, as the middle has been bowed down, and the edges have bowed up a bit. I find the "high" spot, flip the breaker over, and give the high spot a few hits with a hammer....then check again to see IF it still rocks. Have had some that are bowed the other way.....ball pean hammer works nicely. Too many people merely try to grind the edge back to flat...ruin the poor thing, and then decide a new"improved" chipbreaker should be used. All they did was waste their time, and money. 5 minutes tops to fix the chipbreaker, polish the edge where the shavings go past, maybe a little time on a oil stone, to get a gap free seat on to the iron.

Irons: Remember, most of these old irons have been used a LONG time......yet still have plenty of use left. Pits? Try flattening the back first, as this will remove shallow pits. Irons also get bowed over time, same trick as with the chipbreaker. IF they are slightly bowed along their length.....keep in mind that the chipbreaker and the lever cap will be pressing it flat when the iron is installed. The bow was design in by the makers....gives a tighter setting at the mouth and the top of the frog. You don't want a perfectly flat fit....makes using the lateral lever harder....without having to loosen things up.

However, there are some irons out there that are bowed too much. You can try to straighten them using a vise, and three dowels....be careful you don't snap the iron. Again, you can hammer the iron until close to flat. usually done on my wooden benchtop....Hit a few times, check, hit again as needed. Then fit the chipbreaker to test things out. Sometimes, attaching the chipbreaker will straighten that last little bit out.

Once the iron is straight, and the back is flat ( just the area where the chipbreaker will sit, no need to go any further) THEN work on the bevel. Most makers use a 25 degree single bevel for what they recommend for sharpening. I tend to flatten the area right behind the bevel.....why?.....because that is what is in contact with the frog where it meets the mouth opening. Flattening the back only helps the chipbreaker sit better, without gaps.

Re-seating a frog......Rarely needed....unless there was too much paint. had one plane come through the shop...had a steel plate added under the frog.....removed said plate, frog sat down perfectly. Why the plate? Haven't a clue.....frog tended to rock back and forth with it in, big shaving catching gap under it...remove the plate..cure all those issues.

One plane came through...someone had ground the seat "pads" ( for some unknown reason) to the point the bolts were too long.....rather than shorten the bolts ( have seen extra washers used) he drill through the sole to allow the bolts room.....why it was done this way? Brain Fart?


One little tip: once things are all cleaned up, sharp and working like new....i take a clean, cheap paint brush, dribble some 3in1 oil into the brush, then use it to wipe things down. Be surprised at how much it renews old Japanning. Also tends to keep any new rust from starting in,again. Doesn't take much, don't want dust to get attracted.

[Jim Koepke]

Thank you, Steven & Tom, very helpful. My question was really just to find out how many used planes in your experience need work on the frog & mouth, or do you just do this as a matter of SOP. I have the idea that many used planes with an intact casting only need the iron to be sharp and the sole to be flat. In other words, I'm asking whether a need to re-seat the frog, etc, is more the exception than the rule. Comment?

Doug

In my experience very little work has been needed on most frog seats. Only one or two needed a little work with a file.

On the face of the frog, mine are usually lapped with the adjusting yoke and the lateral lever removed.

If the cap iron is bending the blade so it isn't resting on the frog, it can be 'adjusted' to not have as much of an effect.

My planes seem to work fine with less cap iron tension.

Of course, 391964

jtk

[Tom Trees]

I am not following you here. How would lapping the sides of the plane casting affect the chipbreaker, and why would it cause the plane iron to contact wood only at the edges?

I would agree that lapping the sides is probably a waste of time unless you want it to look pretty. Due to the shape of the casting it's difficult to get the sides square with lapping- it's so easy to remove more material at the top of the side than at the bottom. But, I have done this on a couple of planes and it does not affect the camber required on the iron or the ability to set the chipbreaker.

It sounds more like you are describing a sole that is convex across its width.




It's true that the face of the frog doesn't need to be dead flat as the iron will be slightly concave, so will contact only at the base of the frog and at the top. But the late model frogs seem to have been finished on a belt sander and can be quite wonky- skewed, twisted etc. Most are probably fine, and most of the ones that aren't could be fixed without much trouble (though some are truly lost causes). But in my mind that is a point in favor of the older models- they were made a bit more carefully.

Sorry, I was a bit tired when I wrote that :o ...you are spot on Robert,
I was referring to the conditioning of the sole of the plane only, I should have said the long edges instead of sides in my post.
I never would risk lapping the side walls of the plane, as these are normally way too out of square to cure.
It would be amplifying even more so, that structural weak point which we all see brazed on some examples now and again.

I have never came across a 1950's or older plane where the frog was cast badly
I can't remember when the ribbing was introduced for reinforcement or stability on Stanley planes, but I've always looked for older ones than that which had no frog issues whatsoever.\

Thanks for pointing that out, it could have been misleading for some folks.
Tom