Stanley 289. Any thoughts ?

[Jake Darvall]

Feel like a bit of a chin wag... (can't sleep and kids all have the flu)

I've recently won a stripped stanley 289 body on ebay. I'm faced with having to rebuild all it parts for use and am wondering what it'll be like.

Like to hear of others experience with it. pro's and cons.

I like using stanley 78's, so I sense I'll like the feel of this one too.

I'm scavanging a 78's fence for it. The other parts I'm finding challanging to make though, since the blade and lever cap are skewed. But I have managed to cut a nicker for it out of an old blade thats going to be ok I think.

The nicker recess seems to normally take a blade that isn't depth adjustable which is just no good in my opinion......so I've cut the sliding section of the blade open so I can manage its depth.

I've also butchered an old woodie blade to fit. I've yet to open the mouth to take the larger blade..........bit of a work in progress.

I'll go get some photos.

[Jerry Palmer]

According to the B & G page, these used a pair of spurs similar to the ones on the #78, and in fact some were made that used that particular spur. It is hard to tell from the pics, but it might be possible to use a pair of those spurs by filing off all but one of the lobes. The left and right side spurs were not interchangeable, so you'ld have to be careful as to which lobes were removed. Last I looked, replacement spurs for the 78 and some of there other planes are available through Stanley as replacement parts. If you've got a spur for a 78, you might check it to see if the lobes are long enough, as that might be a consideration from looking at your pictures.

[Jake Darvall]

Thanks Jerry,,,,,,just had a look at the replacement parts site on abode reader. Might get a fence from there.

Good idea on the spur, but the problem with these kind of spurs is their not depth adjustable. I want a spur thats more like the ones you find in a Stanley 46 or 55.

There's an ideal height to set a spur at. And for those that arn't depth adjustable like the 78's is, you can only be at that height once for each lobe.........just one or two more resharpenings and the spur fails to work.

I know you can switch to another lobe. Buts its fiddly to sharpen these just right as it is. Much better I feel to sharpen the spur, and then adjust it just right.

Thats why I'm actually happier with the spur I've made.

Shame that Stanley doesn't make 289 fences though anymore.

[Maurice Metzger]

Jake, St. James Bay Tool Company makes some replacement parts:

http://www.stjamesbaytoolco.com/

They show the following 289 items:

#289 Depth stop & screw
#289 Blade
#289 Fence rod
#289 Fence rod & screw

No connection to site or firm.

HTH,
Maurice

[Jake Darvall]

Thanks Maurice. appreciate that.

Bit too costly for me though unfortunetly. Might just pinch the fence from my old 78 and modify that. Face it with something longer and deeper to help keep the thing vertical.

When finished I'll post a picture, if anyones interested.

[Jake Darvall]

Anyway, finished it. Figure its not a common plane.

Discovered a problem thats worth remembering, and yet to see mentioned.

The fence has a single bar, right ?......well unlike the regular 78 setup the blades skewed in the 289....the side forces exerted from these blades actually causes the bar to flex in use.....which is no good because that swings the body of the plane around enough in use taking the nicker and blade corner off line a touch.......

Not such a problem when planing with the grain,,,,,but accross grain it causes tearout as you exit the timber.

My solution was to add a second fix point to the fence to stop it flexing....

anycase...

[Derek Cohen]

Hi Jake

The #289, when sold, frequently is without its fence since these are easily lost. A #78 fence is often pressed into service as a replacement. However the #289 fence is shaped differently - still along the same lines as a #78, but the extension is positioned more centrally and the balance is, therefore, likely to be different.

I have been hunting my computer files for a picture, but can't find one presently. I'll post one (or some kind soul might) later.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[tod evans]

here `ya go ....tod

47666

47667

[tod evans]

sorry, might be easier to see if i use the flash:o

47669

47670

[Jake Darvall]

Thanks so much for responding Derek and Todd. Feels weird talking to yourself :D

I know what you mean. That patricks blood and gore site has a good photo. With the fence of the 78 alongside the 289's.

I thought too that that it be different with the origional 289 fence, but I sense the same problem would exist. I'll try and describe what I mean.

I added a wooden face to a 78 fence, such that I could clamp this wooden fence in the vice, with the body of the 289 attach vie the rod.

Well, when I applied a little sideways force to either the nose or the tail of the body, whilst clamped by the fence, the rod flexes, not the wings of the fence.

So the wider braced support of the 289's fence shouldn't help this flexing problem.....so the plane has a definete design flaw.....really needs to have double bar support for the fence.

This flexing problem increases the greater the width of cut you make. The problem occured firstly to me when trying it for cutting tennon cheeks. The twist of the plane caused a rip out of fibres as you exit the wood....what was happening was, on the odd rare pass , due to a change in pressure from my hands, the fence wasn't flexing as it normally did, straightening the cut, bringing the blade corner a fraction towards the shoulder enough to clip it on the way out, making a mess of the shoulder corner.

You need a fence longer in length out the nose for use, but you can get that by drilling a couple of holes in the 78 fence and attaching a longer wooden face.

I'll get a photos today after work and put meaning to it.

Understanding this is important I think. To me it means,..... 'don't by a stanley 289' .......if you want to use it for cutting a shoulder of any kind, which be its main purpose. I think that patricks blood and gore bloke is completely wrong about it being a good plane unfortunetly.

[tod evans]

jake, if i understand you`ve clamped the planes fence in a vice with the plane hanging off the rod and are running a board past the plane?? is this correct? tod

[Jake Darvall]

jake, if i understand you`ve clamped the planes fence in a vice with the plane hanging off the rod and are running a board past the plane?? is this correct? tod

no, no.....I mustn't have explained myself well enough. Sorry.

See I sensed the fence was moving about in use,,,,,so I stuck the plane in the vise so I could see exactly what was going on when I pushed sideways on the plane.

These pictures should clarify....:)

[Jake Darvall]

Just one more..

[Jake Darvall]

any interest ?

[Ian Smith]

I'm certainly interested in this thread Jake. I just haven't had anything of value to add to it.

[Jake Darvall]

ta Ian. I like to talk about these things as you probably notice,,,,but I also hate that feeling of being the only one in the room talking ! :rolleyes: :D

[Ian Smith]

I don't have a 289. My only skewed blade plane is the Lie-Nielsen 140 that we've discussed elsewhere.

Word is that Lee Valley/Veritas are going to bring out a new improved version of the 289 but I don't know how soon. The little hints on this are buried in the chat with Rob Lee that I've linked below.

http://www.woodcentral.com/chats/chat_lee60131.shtml

[Jake Darvall]

Thanks Ian...... be interesting. Just hope the fence in his version isn't supported by just a single rod, or at least doesn't flex whatsoever in use.

A long depth adjustable nicker be the go too....something with a long shank so its easy to hold onto whilst sharpening.

Also a depth stop that doesn't obscure view of the nicker be good too. Its benificial I think to be able to sight the nickers cut from the ver beginning. As it is now you can't see it cutting.....

A wider web (if thats what you call it) at the point you attach the face wouldn't go astray as well.

Hope he keeps the handle though and the little apperture ahead of it for your index finger to slip into. With finger in there it tightens your whole grip up nicely, locking the wrist.....little things like that make a difference I think.

[Craig J Brain]

Hi Everyone!

Sorry to ressurect this thread, if it isn't considered appropriate.

I am in the process of receiving a Stanley 289, that needs a little work. Does anyone know of an online source of the manual as a pdf or in jpeg files?
Any assistance would be greatly appreciated.

Craig

[Bill Rhodus]

Jake, I was a long time user of a 78 and a wooden rebate with a skewed blade; I liked the simpler set up of the 78 but the skewed iron of the woodie was superior. This led me to the 289 and I was surprised how much money these things brought on the bay. I bought the Veritas rebate plane instead because it was cheaper than ant 289 I saw and was a superior plane. Before you spend any significant money on the 289 you may want to explore selling it to a collector on the bay, selling the 78, and buying the Veritas. Mine has made me a better woodworker.

[Craig J Brain]

I've admired the Veritas plane for some time, but just purchased a 289 for a price slightly less than the Veritas. In order to preserve the original blade and nickers, I have been sourcing replacements for some items and trying to learn more about it. Mind you, I see the two arms on the Veritas plane and Record's 778 or on countless wooden planes and just can not believe that Stanley never thought of a second arm!

One thing I gather that the 289 has over the Veritas is that you can use it either left or right handed, with or against the grain without the need to buy a second plane. I also recall reading that Chris Schwarz is of the opinion you could get by without both the left and hight hand versions of the Veritas. However, I don't have Chris's level of skill and suspect that Chris's version of "getting by" is somewhere far beyond my current level of skill.

I've got a friend with the Veritas and I'll check it out sometime, after I play with the 289 and see if it is the plane for me.

Craig

[Jessica Pierce-LaRose]

I know it can be set up for use on either side, but does that actually work well? Seems like with the blade skewed the wrong direction it'd have a tendency to pull away from the sidewall of the rabbet.

[James Taglienti]

The 289 works fine in either direction. Ive had one for years. I have no trouble keeping it on track in white oak and walnut. My wife rabbeted 12 partial overlay drawer faces in walnut with it. It was her first time using the plane. She used it right handed, with and against the grain, and the drawers look great.
Owning a matching pair of the veritas skew planes might be nice for some, but it is hardly necessary, even for a rank amateur.
What particular information were you looking for on the 289? Im not sure there was a specific 289 pamphlet, just a generic stanley rabbet plane one.