Best Stanley Plane Age Type

[John Goodin]

I have been working wood my whole life but just now, at age 50, getting getting interested in some hand tools; particularly Stanley Bailey Planes. After doing some online research and perusing online auction sites I began to wonder with all the changes over a century-- "What is the best Stanley Bailey plane type (age) for using in the shop?" Collector's value is not a factor and I realize Lie-Neilson and others makes excellent users. This is more of a personal enrichment question than for decision-making purposes. So imagine living on an island with all the various age types of Stanley Bailey Planes available. Which type would you choose if it you needed a plane as a user? For specificity let's assume it is a No.5.

[Jim Koepke]

This depends some on one's personal preferences. My preference is for a low knob. That would mean type 11 or earlier. Though a low knob can be put on planes up through type 13. After that they have a ring at the base and a low knob would have to be altered to fit.

The type 11 is the favorite of many folks. The type 10 is almost identical minus a patent date. This is when a frog adjustment device was added to the Stanley/Bailey design. It is one of those things that sounds great while remaining mostly unused.

A few of my planes are of type 4 through type 8. Their castings are a little thinner along the sides than later types.

The later type 9 planes would be my choice for the economy. The frog design changed some during the 5 years normally attributed to type 9 planes:

426023

Here is a post on this> https://sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?131234

Type 10 through 13 would be up there in my choice if price wasn't an issue.

jtk

[Mike Henderson]

Like Jim, I like the low knob planes. But that's just personal preference. I think any plane that has a keyhole on the lever cap is good (assuming the lever cap is original to the plane). The later planes have a kidney shaped hole on the lever cap. I can't guarantee this statement but I think the earlier planes have a rosewood knob and tote. The later planes may have cheaper wood for the knob and tote.

All that said, almost all of my planes are type 11 - maybe all of them, I'd have to check. Ten to fifteen years ago it was easy to find type 11s in good condition for a reasonable amount of money.

Mike

[ken hatch]

What Jim said. I have a near full set of type 9's, missing #1 and #2, mostly because of the low knob and not needing the frog adjuster.

ken

[Josh Robinson]

I’d go with type 15. You get the newest plane possible before the kidney shaped hole in the lever cap and the ogee shaped frog. And so it includes the high knob and base ring, the larger brass depth adjustment nut and the larger plane iron bearing surface all of which I prefer. Some of my preference is probably a perception of a benefit simply due to the existence of the feature rather than any real benefit. In my mind, lateral adjustment may be the only real “improvement“ at all.

[Jim Matthews]

I would imagine the best type would be the ones Tom Bussey has settled. They perform at today's improved standard.

Beware any old tool that is still pretty.

[Jim Koepke]

the larger brass depth adjustment nut

Many years ago on ebay my bid one on about a dozen large size adjuster nuts. So now almost all of my planes have the large adjuster if they are later than a type 6. Type 6 and earlier used right hand threads on the adjuster. This changed to left hand threading just before the changes which became type 7. There are some planes classified as type 6a with the newer threading in type study revisions.

jtk

[ken carroll]

I have a complete set of type 6 Bedrocks, #2 through #8 so I'm not really a Bailey man, but of all the Bailey types, I prefer the wartime models, the casting is way thicker than the peace time types. I have a wartime 4-1/2 and the base is thicker than a 4-1/2H.

[Bob Jones 5443]

I’d go with type 15. You get the newest plane possible before the kidney shaped hole in the lever cap and the ogee shaped frog. And so it includes the high knob and base ring, the larger brass depth adjustment nut and the larger plane iron bearing surface all of which I prefer. Some of my preference is probably a perception of a benefit simply due to the existence of the feature rather than any real benefit. In my mind, lateral adjustment may be the only real “improvement“ at all.

I’m with Josh for each point he made. I went looking specifically for a Type 15, and I appreciate it as the height of Stanley’s output before they moved away from the full-face frog. Caveat: the iron gets bent by the chip breaker, so it really only makes frog contact at the top and bottom. But the ogee top seems less suitable.

Overall, I suspect my opinion is all subjective. Still, I recommend the Type 15.

[John Goodin]

Several people have made comments indicating they did not prefer the kidney keyhole. Is there a reason? Like I said in the original post my plane knowledge is limited but as an old history teacher I appreciate studying the various changes over time to a fairly simple machine.

[Mike Henderson]

Several people have made comments indicating they did not prefer the kidney keyhole. Is there a reason? Like I said in the original post my plane knowledge is limited but as an old history teacher I appreciate studying the various changes over time to a fairly simple machine.

For me, it's not the hole, itself. It's that it marks a time when the planes changed, for example, to a less expensive wood for the knob and tote. It's not a definite dividing line, but it's sort of a line between older planes and newer planes.

It's a shorthand for changes in the planes.

Mike

[Jim Koepke]

Several people have made comments indicating they did not prefer the kidney keyhole. Is there a reason? Like I said in the original post my plane knowledge is limited but as an old history teacher I appreciate studying the various changes over time to a fairly simple machine.

As Mike said, it is a signifier of changes to the plane as a whole.

The 'kidney lever cap' was introduced with type 16 planes, 1933-1941. This was also when the ogee frog came to be used on Stanley/Bailey planes. Many feel this was the first big step in cheapening the line of planes. There was less contact area between the blade and frog. This lowered the manufacturing cost. It didn't improve the usability. Some feel it lowered the quality of the planes.

jtk

[Ron Bontz]

+1 on type 15. Although my set are all War Time planes, ( type 17 ) because of the heavier casting.

[steven c newman]

I have from type 7 up to a type 20.....the ones I didn't like too well? WW2 era planes.....

As long as they are not marked as Defiance, Victor, Handyman.....

As for a Millers Falls? Type 1 through Type 4....stay away from any Type 5 planes....

[Andrew Seemann]

Myself, I don't care what "type" a plane is as long as it is in good condition and from around 1950ish or earlier. For a jack plane (#5) it matters less since they usually aren't used as a fine plane like a smoothing plane (#3 & #4). Most of my planes are from the 1930s and 1940s although I have some from the turn of last century and some from the possibility the 1960s. I actually like the WWII planes for the most part, since the castings are a shade thicker.

I would take a newer plane from after Stanley's "golden era" if is was in good condition rather than one from then that was rusted solid.

[Stew Denton]

Hi Josh,

I am not that picky with the old Stanley planes, and like a range of types. I would be happy with any from the type 10 to type 15. Do I have preferences, yes, like Jim and some of the others, the big adjuster, but that is not a deal breaker, also, another +1 on liking the keyhole slot on the lever cap. Again that is not critical, as any reading of the builds seen on this forum will make clear.

I have to say though, I also like the bedrock planes, but my reason is partly because I am not as skilled as some of the guys at fettling the planes. I do a fair amount of it, but IMHO (and only an opinion), the bedrocks need less fettling. All of my Stanley Bailey planes are type 10 to type 15s, except one that belonged to my dad, which if memory serves is a type 19. That plane is family connection, and you can't compete with family collection, at least I can't.

If I suddenly woke up and had to pick only one type of Bailey to use, (I wouldn't give up my dads or grandfathers planes), it would be a type 11 with an add on big adjuster wheel.

Stew

[Graham Haydon]

From a user perspective I'm very happy with most Stanley planes as long as they have the non rounded top of the cutting iron, wooden handles (stained beech is just as good as rosewood), and a nicely finished casting. The "ogee" frogs are also fine. Larger adjusting wheel preferred. Therefore I guess I'm the 1950's to 1960's bracket.

[Scott Winners]

I think it depends on your hand size and your style of woodworking. That a particular type works good for someone with different sized hands than you is meaningless. Which style works good for you? Go buy more of those.

[Bob Jones 5443]

Graham,

Very pragmatic, and hard to argue with, if we’re all honest here — we of diverse opinions. Still, I must say I love the fact that my Bailey is coming up on 90 next year, and my Bed Rock is 98 this year. I actually derive pleasure from this fact whenever I use these finely tuned tools.

So I guess the OP was posing a question we each answer in our own way. Best to all.

Bob

[Jim Koepke]

Still, I must say I love the fact that my Bailey is coming up on 90 next year

A few of mine are in that age range. Though my #6 type 4 is coming up on 136 years. My type 9s are at least 103.

We should look so good at that age.

jtk

[Bob Jones 5443]

A few of mine are in that age range. Though my #6 type 4 is coming up on 136 years. My type 9s are at least 103.

We should look so good at that age.

jtk

They’re that old and then they still whisk off a one thou shaving. Yes, it’s a treat.

[Leigh Betsch]

The sharp ones.

[Jim Koepke]

They’re that old and then they still whisk off a one thou shaving. Yes, it’s a treat.

On a good day, even better than one thou:

426338

This is likely my best shaving ever from a type 6 #4. My type 13 #3 can also pull a pretty fine shaving. It is still a young pup in plane years. :cool:

jtk

[David Silverson]

A street vendor I met today in Mexico. The plane is a Stanley #5 Hecho en Mexico.

[Eric Danstrom]

...This was also when the ogee frog came to be used on Stanley/Bailey planes. Many feel this was the first big step in cheapening the line of planes. There was less contact area between the blade and frog. This lowered the manufacturing cost. It didn't improve the usability. Some feel it lowered the quality of the planes.

jtk

Stanley's patent claims it reduces friction and makes adjustments easier. The frog base changes from the lump to the t-shape to the y-shape are claimed to reduce warping as the casting cools. You're saying it's bs, they just masked the cheapening with false patent claims?

[Jim Koepke]

Stanley's patent claims it reduces friction and makes adjustments easier. The frog base changes from the lump to the t-shape to the y-shape are claimed to reduce warping as the casting cools. You're saying it's bs, they just masked the cheapening with false patent claims?

The friction/ease of adjustment can be controlled by tightening or loosening the lever cap screw.

The change to the base to increase the casting processes yield has nothing to do with the face of the frog. Could there be an increase to the speed of frogs racing through the production process by reducing the amount of area that needed machining?

It may have cut the cost of production. In my opinion it did not increase the quality of the plane.

Remember, this was during the time of a world wide depression.

In my personal experience the Stanley/Bailey planes giving me the most problems have all been of the type with ogee frogs. Some of them are great planes. For my own use my tendency is to find the lowest priced bucket of rust and rehabilitate it. My preference is for type 11 or earlier.

BTW, my worst Stanley/Bailey plane for lateral adjustment is a type 17 #5. It is now set up as a scrub plane and lateral adjustment isn't critical.

jtk