No. 1 Stanley Plane-- Useful or Paper Weight?

[Mark Miller]

Greetings,

Sometime ago I had a friendly arguement with a friend of mine concerning the usefullness of a Stanley No. 1 plane. He said he had spoken to Lie-Nielsen about it years ago & he said that they had no real practical use. When I contacted the staff at Lie-Nielsen they gave me the same response. Yet I have found the plane very helpful to get to those hard to reach areas or when you need a small plane with a higher pitch than a block plane to plane some squirrelly wood on a fragile piece. Am I alone in this thinking? It seems hard to believe the Stanley Bailey Company would have produced a plane for 75 years that had no practical value! They weren't collector's items back then, they were either used or they not made.

Fine Tool Journal also had an article (although I can't find the issue) some years back that described the uses of the No. 1. In one example, an entire lot of original Stanley No. 1's were found in a teacher's workshop for his students. He taught how to make bamboo fly rods.

So I am just wondering if I am full of beans or if there are other believers about?

[Mike Henderson]

I've asked that same question to a lot of people who know planes and have never received a satisfactory answer. My own experience is that there's nothing that the #1 will do that you can't do better with other planes, such as a block plane or a larger bench plane.

My question to the plane experts was the same as yours - why did Stanley make them for so many years if they had no real use? The only answer I received that makes even a small amount of sense is that they were salesmen samples - small lightweight planes taken to demonstrate the larger planes, or to put on display where planes were sold.

Mike

P.S. Having worked in large corporations and knowing the turf battles, it could be that bench planes and block planes were handled by two marketing groups and the bench plane people tried to take over the block plane business.

[skip coyne]

I heard they where a promo thing , given at trade shows , christmas etc to large tool buyers .

[Alan DuBoff]

I say both. Use your tools how they best suit you, and don't worry about what others think about them or how they should be used.

Some will consider it a paper weight, and I wouldn't argue, a No 1 is heavy enough to hold quite a bit of paper down.

Others will feel it's a useful tool.

It seems more useful to be used on wood than as a paper weight, but that might depend on how much paper one needs to hold down, the velocity of the wind, and the need to keep such paper in place...so what do I know???:p

[Dave Anderson NH]

I'll throw my oar in on this one. I've known folks who keep their #1s behind glass and I know folks who use them palmed like a block plane. I also know one person who "loaned" it to their son as his first user and reclaimed it when their hands grew large enough to use his #2 and #3.

[Mark Miller]

Hmm, well the salesman's sample idea doesn't really make sense to me if you consider that salesman's samples are never sold retail and these were sold retail. Apparently the No. 1, 2 & 3 were Bailey's patents which Stanley aquired at the same time in 1869. I can't believe they were under any obligation to make a plane that had no practical use. I mean they could have started with any size plane and called THAT No. 1. As for the 75 year internal marketing turf war theory within Stanley Co.?-- the block plane didn't come out in Stanley's catalog until 1872. Sounds like a bit of a reach anyway for that long of a period.

Also, I have heard people say the No. 2 or No. 3 were useless, so I guess opinions vary depending on what you use it for. That doesn't make it so.
I'm sure a timber framer would scoff at the idea of a No. 1 but someone used to making more delicate cuts in unusual places, such as boats or musical instruments, might have more use for it. I use my No. 1 like a palm plane that I can use one handed & we all know the benefits of a higher pitch versus a lower pitch --I assume. If there were no difference we wouldn't have those choices either.

[Mark Miller]

I just ran across this little blurb on the web showing an old article from Wood Magazine 1984 that I thought I would share. Unfortunately the author doesn't show any references for the statements made but what the heck...here it is.
Mark



TOOLS AND TOOL COLLECTING

The lovable little Stanley No. I


Stanley tools represent a major category of collectible tools, and can form the basis for a rewarding and stimulating hobby. One of the most desirable of Stanley tools for the collector is the diminutive Stanley No. 1 bench plane. This tiny, 5-1/2” long plane poses some interesting mysteries for the collector. First, what was it used for? It’s so small-that even a craftsman with a small hand finds it uncomfortable to use. And second, for a tool that was manufactured in abundance over a 73 year period (1870-1943), why should it be so scarce?
As to the first mystery-its size-the explanation is relatively straightforward. These planes were designed for use by elementary school woodworking classes, and were used in the introduction to the proper care and use of woodworking planes.
The second mystery requires a more hypothetical explanation. With the advent of U.S. involvement in W.W. II came the need for scarce raw materials by factories involved in the rapidly increasing war production industries. Those with memories reaching back that far remember that not only were civilians in general involved in paper and fat saving drives, among others, but schools and other institutions also were called on to collect and donate large amounts of scrap material.
The widespread draft also was a factor. Shop teachers, especially at the elementary school level, came into short supply overnight, thus freeing up the tools and materials formerly used in their courses as vital scrap. Since the majority of No. 1 planes produced were to be found in schools, a large number of these planes were absorbed by the wartime scrap drives.
In case you’re thinking of purchasing a Stanley No. 1, be prepared to pay between $400 and $650 for an example in good or better condition. Also be sure to buy from a reputable dealer who will guarantee the plane is genuine.
Wood Magazine issue No. 1 Sept/Oct 1984.

[Jim Becker]

Yet I have found the plane very helpful to get to those hard to reach areas or when you need a small plane with a higher pitch than a block plane to plane some squirrelly wood on a fragile piece.
There is your answer right there!! What counts the most is how a tool enhances your own ability to work the wood. Even if you are only one out of a hundred that likes a particular tool...it's your tool and it works for you. Especially since it's in your arsenal already... ;)

[Mike Henderson]

Greetings,

Yet I have found the plane very helpful to get to those hard to reach areas or when you need a small plane with a higher pitch than a block plane to plane some squirrelly wood on a fragile piece.
I don't think the pitch on a #1 is greater than on a standard angle block plane. The bed on a standard angle block plane is 20* and many people put a 25* bevel on the iron, making the pitch angle 45* which is the same as the #1. One could even argue that the block plane is a better choice because you could put a higher bevel angle on the iron and raise the pitch angle. For example, if you put a 30* bevel angle, the pitch would be 50*.

Also, if the #1s were used in elementary school, it must have been in the very early grades. The handle on a #1 would not fit a 7th or 8th grade boy's hand (which is when I started shop class).

We do have planes that we know were used in schools - the 1/4 planes (like the 5 1/4). I don't know for sure but I think the 1/4 planes, while rare, are a lot more available than the #1s. You'd think that if they got rid of the #1s during WWII, they would have gotten rid of the 1/4s also. And they must not have ordered any more of them after the war or we'd see a lot of late model #1s around and not many early ones. I don't think that's what we see in the market.

Mike

P.S. Also, if the #1s were used in schools, we'd have evidence like we do for the 1/4s - stamps in the side of the planes with the school district name, replacement of the handles, especially if replaced with cheap wood or metal (kids broke a lot of handles on the 1/4s) or some other evidence. I don't think we have any of that with the #1s.

[Horst Hohoff]

Hello,
I think I read a discussion aboute the purpose of the #1 elswhere. And I now wonder: has anybody ever asked Stanley if they know what they built it for?

Horst

[John Gornall]

I would be quite happy to have a No.1 on my desk holding down the clutter. I can't think of a classier paper weight. It would of course be completely tuned and ready to cut and one day a suitable use for it would probably come to light.

But so far I don't have a No.1 - A couple of hundred would get me a Lie Nielsen which I may have to buy to complete my Stanleys but somehow I would rather have an old plane on my desk to play with while on the phone. I'll keep looking.

[Mark Miller]

I don't think the pitch on a #1 is greater than on a standard angle block plane. The bed on a standard angle block plane is 20* and many people put a 25* bevel on the iron, making the pitch angle 45* which is the same as the #1. One could even argue that the block plane is a better choice because you could put a higher bevel angle on the iron and raise the pitch angle. For example, if you put a 30* bevel angle, the pitch would be 50*.

Also, if the #1s were used in elementary school, it must have been in the very early grades. The handle on a #1 would not fit a 7th or 8th grade boy's hand (which is when I started shop class).

We do have planes that we know were used in schools - the 1/4 planes (like the 5 1/4). I don't know for sure but I think the 1/4 planes, while rare, are a lot more available than the #1s. You'd think that if they got rid of the #1s during WWII, they would have gotten rid of the 1/4s also. And they must not have ordered any more of them after the war or we'd see a lot of late model #1s around and not many early ones. I don't think that's what we see in the market.

Mike

P.S. Also, if the #1s were used in schools, we'd have evidence like we do for the 1/4s - stamps in the side of the planes with the school district name, replacement of the handles, especially if replaced with cheap wood or metal (kids broke a lot of handles on the 1/4s) or some other evidence. I don't think we have any of that with the #1s.

You are right Mike, I had forgotten reading about that years ago that the total cutting angle on a block plane will be adding the bevel + the pitch. Thanks for reminding me ;) My No. 1 is actually 5 degrees lower a overall cutting angle than my standard block plane. All I can tell you when I use the block plane on a particularly difficult wood I can pick up the No 1 bench plane and often clean it up nicely. Sometimes it is the reverse. Maybe that 5 degrees makes a difference. (I work with a lot of unusual varieties of wood.) Of course secondary bevels can change things even more. I don't know if it is the way the blade is bedded or the fact that the No. 1 Lie Nielsen I use has a bedrock type moveable bed (the original did not) to narrow the opening of the shaving to make finer or courser shavings where the low angle I have does not.

The No. 1 and block planes are nearly exactly the same length so holding the block plane doesn't seem to be a problem --but the no. 1 is? Thats a comfort issue that is as individual as individuals. I actually have less problem holding the No. 1 than a block plane since my muscualr dystrophy causes weakness in my fingers so I have more to hold on to the No. 1.

Yep, I'm pretty sure elementary school is before 7th and 8th grade though. My nephew is in 5th grade and it fits him perfect. Before the 1940's back to 1869 I'm sure shop class may have started a bit earlier too. As for why there were not so many No. 1 Stanley's after WWII it is because they stopped making them in 1945! I'm with you though when it comes to preferring to have more evidence backing up what the Wood Mag. article said was true. I just passed it on for whatever it was worth since there is so little written about these.

I guess the purpose for starting this thread was looking for constructive ideas or evidence of what they were used for in the past & what they were used for today. It takes no effort to dismissively say they were useless for EVERYONE and move on to the next thread. I do appreciate any corrections of fact though.

Mark

[Mark Miller]

Hello,
I think I read a discussion aboute the purpose of the #1 elswhere. And I now wonder: has anybody ever asked Stanley if they know what they built it for?

Horst

That is what I would like to know. With all the research on Stanley I would think somebody out there would have a diffinitive answer.
Mark

[James Mittlefehldt]

There must have been a reason why they were made and for so long. Perhaps they were favoured for younger kids in reform schools or whatever.

Also Stanley wasn't the only company who made them, Ohio tool did, though these are rarer than Stanleys, and I think a few other companies did as well. The point being if there was no use for them why bother.

It would be interesting if anyone had an old Stanly Catalogue or sales brochure that might give some idea as to what they were on about.

Perhaps another question did Stanly or Record, or anyone else for that matter, offer that size in Europe.

So many questions so few answers. You got to admit though they are cute aren't they.

EDIT I just did a quick check of my 1910 Ohio Tool catalogue reprint, it offers no explanation specific to the NO. 01 and they did not offer it with a corrugated soul, the smallest of that type being a No. 02C, hmm more questions.

[John Powers]

I've seen the reference to bamboo rod making before in reference to the #1. I was on the Orvis live chat line. They made their first bamboo rod when Lincoln was still a Whig. They say that not me. They use a Stanley 9 1/2 for planing cane. I thought I recalled seeing a still picture of their shop from years ago and seeing a block plane on a work bench. The bottom of the line bamboo rod costs about what a not so mint #1 would cost. About a grand if I recall. The way woodworkers dream of the #1 peeking out of a pile of junk at a garage sale, flyfishermen dream of an old battered leather covered tube containing a vintage Orvis Cane rod right next to it.

[Philip McKinney]

I'm looking at the Studley tool chest on my desktop picture and isn't that a no. 1 in the arched cubby with the columns? So you may use them to make pianos?
The smallest bench planes I have are no. 2's ( Stanley and Ohio tool) and they are more comfortable to use than a block plane. I've only held but never used the no. 1, it is small, astonishingly small but if it was good enough for Studley......:D

[Mark Miller]

I've seen the reference to bamboo rod making before in reference to the #1. I was on the Orvis live chat line. They made their first bamboo rod when Lincoln was still a Whig. They say that not me. They use a Stanley 9 1/2 for planing cane. I thought I recalled seeing a still picture of their shop from years ago and seeing a block plane on a work bench. The bottom of the line bamboo rod costs about what a not so mint #1 would cost. About a grand if I recall. The way woodworkers dream of the #1 peeking out of a pile of junk at a garage sale, flyfishermen dream of an old battered leather covered tube containing a vintage Orvis Cane rod right next to it.

I finally found that article in the Fine Tool journal and will try to summarize with some quotes transcribed here for the record.
Mark

"The first use documented was that of beekeepers. Beekeepers work far from the bench & the small size plane was easy to tote about....The No. 1 worked very well with the softwood hives and was used to field adjust the edges when fixing a super to a hive."
"Another major user of the plane is the bamboo fly rod maker. Cane rods are made up in six sections fitted into a perfect hexagon. The No. 1 worked like a charm fr this delicate work on the very soft, stringy bamboo".
"For much the same reasons as the beekeeper the woodshingler installer and trim carpenter used the No. 1. The small size and narrow width easily fit into the bib or overall pocket. Whereas the block plane was often too wide for an easy fit."

"The boatbuilder found the No. 1 usefull for fitting & shapping the laps and gunnels of small wooden boats...."
"The work of the carpenter was often outside in the cold and always demaded a strong grip. The constant use and cold took their toll on the hands and arthritis often set it. The No. 1 proved to be a solution to this problem. The higher profile offered more to grip and did not require that the hand be closed as tightly as did the block plane. Therefore, as a carpenter aged, the hands would often not close tightly and the No. 1 replaced the block plane." (this one sounds like me)
"The only group found to date to actually use the No.1 bench plane as designed is young trade school attendants. Their small hands allowed them to hold the plane by the handles and push it along much as an adult would use a #5. Several reports were made of this use including one of a trade school auction in the 1960's where trays of #1 and #2 planes were being auctioned for peanuts. Do times change!!!"
"One of the most often mentioned uses is that of a salesman's sample. The author questions this use and doubts that it was a reason for manufacturing the plane. However, the quality of construction and small size would certainly make the small plane a convient sales tool. One story reported is that of a salesperson who did a number of hardware shows carrying a Stanley No. 1 in his pocket attached to a chain hooked to his belt...."
Blanchard, Clarence. (Spring 1997). The number one: Cute and useful. The Fine Tool Journal. 46(4). pg. 8-10.

Me again: Blanchard also says the No. 1 plane was offered by no less than 5 companies; ~ 1865 it began commercial production then Leonard Bailey was first to patent it, then Stanley, Ohio Tool Co, Union Manufacturing and Tower & Lyon all more or less the exact same size. Clarance Blanchard was a legend in antique tool collecting circles including the EAIA, MWTCA, etc, etc and a frequent author of antique tool books and articles. Sounds like the evidence is growing.

[John Powers]

The Orvis guy I spoke to specificaly said they're using the 9 1/2 for the "adjustable throat" but i wouldn't doubt that a #1 would have been the way to go back in the day. I'd like to rummage around the rod making shop up at Orvis.

[Mike Henderson]

Some block planes, like the Lie-Nielsen, can be purchased with a groove (http://www.lie-nielsen.com/catalog.php?sku=60_5) cut in the sole, from front to back, specifically for doing bamboo for fishing rods. I don't know if Stanley ever did that.

Mike

[Harry Goodwin]

I own a LN and was surprized how small it was. It's cute and once I stopped trying to use it like a larger plane it did well. Try the thing just grabing the thing and try not using the normal rear handle but just grasp it like a block plane and you may be a lot happier. Also I have lots of block planes and old hands so turning a new tote for the front of one of my block planes was a great help in holding a block plane. I love the # 1 but could do without it if something had to go. Harry

[Mark Miller]

Some block planes, like the Lie-Nielsen, can be purchased with a groove (http://www.lie-nielsen.com/catalog.php?sku=60_5) cut in the sole, from front to back, specifically for doing bamboo for fishing rods. I don't know if Stanley ever did that.

Mike

Nope Stanley never did that, at least not according to Anitque & Collectable Stanley Tools by John Walter or Patented Transitional & Metallic Planes in America 1827-1927 by Roger K Smith. Lie Nielsen never thought the No. 1 ever had ANY practical use in the past so that makes sense he would put the bamboo groove on his current block plane, which I did see before. Typically Lie-Nielsen makes changes where HE thinks they are necessary in the original planes. Again, Mike, we are not trying to prove this was the perfect plane, just that it was used & is used by some for real honest practical reasons that you or LN will probably never believe or agree with. Thats fine. Live & let live.

Mark

[Mike Henderson]

Nope Stanley never did that, at least not according to Anitque & Collectable Stanley Tools by John Walter or Patented Transitional & Metallic Planes in America 1827-1927 by Roger K Smith. Lie Nielsen never thought the No. 1 ever had ANY practical use in the past so that makes sense he would put the bamboo groove on his current block plane, which I did see before. Typically Lie-Nielsen makes changes where HE thinks they are necessary in the original planes. Again, Mike, we are not trying to prove this was the perfect plane, just that it was used & is used by some for real honest practical reasons that you or LN will probably never believe or agree with. Thats fine. Live & let live.

Mark
Please don't think I'm trying to denigrate the #1. I'd really like to find the story behind it. I'm sorry if I came off as favoring a block plane over the #1. Didn't intend to.

Mike

[Derek Cohen]

I have no idea why the #1 was reallymade, but I like the idea that it was made for a child's hand. As Mike reasoned, it is unlikely that it was used in schools. Perhaps it was sold for use at home?

I really cannot see it as an alternative to a blockplane. It simply is not designed to be held comfortably. By comparison, look at the tote addition that LV have for their block plane. Block planes are far more useful. I have a Stanley #18 knuckle joint with a 60 degree cutting angle (i.e. 40 degree bevel) for use as a small smoother.

A #1 would make a fine paper weight.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Mark Miller]

I have no idea why the #1 was reallymade, but I like the idea that it was made for a child's hand. As Mike reasoned, it is unlikely that it was used in schools. Perhaps it was sold for use at home?

I really cannot see it as an alternative to a blockplane. It simply is not designed to be held comfortably. By comparison, look at the tote addition that LV have for their block plane. Block planes are far more useful. I have a Stanley #18 knuckle joint with a 60 degree cutting angle (i.e. 40 degree bevel) for use as a small smoother.

A #1 would make a fine paper weight.

Regards from Perth

Derek

Has anyone bothered to read the articles I copied here in this thread? They WERE used by school children and trade schools. They WERE used by bamboo fishing rod makers, they WERE used by bee keepers, they WERE used by carpenters who worked in the cold who had bad grips who needed the extra gripping power due to arthritis, etc, etc, etc. As previously said by some of us, they oviously were not held like ordinary bench planes by adults where the fingers wrapped around the tote. These are used by grasping the entire plane. If you don't have arthritis or weak hands you will probably not understand why it makes a difference.

My guess is 90% of the paperweight crowd has never owned or used one of these. 75 years is a long time to make a useless paperweight dude. Take the blinders off.

[Mike Henderson]

Has anyone bothered to read the articles I copied here in this thread? They WERE used by school children and trade schools. They WERE used by bamboo fishing rod makers, they WERE used by bee keepers, they WERE used by carpenters who worked in the cold who had bad grips who needed the extra gripping power due to arthritis, etc, etc, etc. As previously said by some of us, they oviously were not held like ordinary bench planes by adults where the fingers wrapped around the tote. These are used by grasping the entire plane. If you don't have arthritis or weak hands you will probably not understand why it makes a difference.

My guess is 90% of the paperweight crowd has never owned or used one of these. 75 years is a long time to make a useless paperweight dude. Take the blinders off.
The thing that's hard for me to reconcile on the #1 is the shape. While it can be held, it cannot be held by an adult in the same manner as a larger bench plane - i.e. an adult cannot put his/her hand around the tote. So I wind up asking myself, "Why did Stanley make this plane as a miniature of the larger block planes? Why didn't they give it a more ergonomic shape?" For 75 years they made it the same way without any ergonomic modifications. While it offers a different grip than a block plane, it does not appear to be an optimized shape for the hand.

I think those responding to you have read your posting about how the plane was used (like the Fine Tool Journal info) but in the absence of strong evidence, treat the infromation as opinion rather than fact.

I have never used a Stanley #1 but have used a Lie-Nielsen #1 which I think is the same size as the Stanley.

Mike

[Mike Henderson]

Hehehe, now you want to argue about what is STRONG evidence? My God, some of you have more time on your hands than brains. Find someone else's forum to hijack (you've done it before Mike) but eanwhile I'm leaving for clearer waters & other forums where people aren't quite so pigheaded.
I try to be polite when posting but sometimes the written words may not convey my intent properly. If the tone of my postings offended you, I apologize.

However, I stand by the content of my postings and do not apologize if that content offended you.

Mike

[Alan DuBoff]

Hehehe, now you want to argue about what is STRONG evidence? My God, some of you have more time on your hands than brains. Find someone else's forum to hijack (you've done it before Mike) but eanwhile I'm leaving for clearer waters & other forums where people aren't quite so pigheaded.Not for nothings but your previous insistence of how they were used is taking someone else's opinion based on pure fact, I would say a reality check may be in order.

Not that I agree with Mike all the time, but he makes good points, and I see nothing that proves all those people used them, and certainly not every fly rod maker, school student, bee keeper, carpenters, or circus clowns were proported to use them. I agree with Mike in that it sounds like Clarence's opinion more than anything else.

Maybe a chill pill is in order, and let's hope your day gets better Mark.:(

EDIT: And BTW, telling someone that they have more time than brains is not my idea of good people skills, but then I've never been known for people skills myself.:rolleyes:

[Jerry Palmer]

I see some logic in the Wood Mag quote above. I had heard/read somewhere before that the #1 was a kid's plane and I also know from my dad about the scrap metal drives around WWII. He talked of an old semi-portable saw mill they had around his dad's farm in upstate NY. Apparently driven with a belt around a flywheel on a tractor. He never remembered it being used and as a very young lad used to play on it. Around the beginning of WWII his older brother loaded it up and hauled it off to sell as scrap.

[John Gornall]

Is there any data about how many No.1 planes were made?

It's a bit surprising that it wasn't modified to keep it's basic size and shape but with a better way of holding it. As has been said above you just put your hand on it like a block plane. The tote is not really usefull to a full sized hand.

I'm also wondering about the other end of the size range - were No.8's used by many?

[Mike Henderson]

I see some logic in the Wood Mag quote above. I had heard/read somewhere before that the #1 was a kid's plane and I also know from my dad about the scrap metal drives around WWII. He talked of an old semi-portable saw mill they had around his dad's farm in upstate NY. Apparently driven with a belt around a flywheel on a tractor. He never remembered it being used and as a very young lad used to play on it. Around the beginning of WWII his older brother loaded it up and hauled it off to sell as scrap.
I certainly agree about the scrap metal drives during WWII. My parents also told me stories about the scrap metal drives during the war, and also about ration coupons.

The problem I have with the assertion that the #1s were school planes is the difference between the #1 and the 1/4 planes, which we know were used in schools. We would expect that the 1/4 planes would have been submitted for the scrap drives as well as the #1s, and yet we have surviving 1/4 planes with school "marks" - stamps with the school name and replacement of the handles (obviously, not all planes were submitted for the scrap drives). We should have some surviving #1 planes with school marks, just like the 1/4 planes - after all, we have existing old #1 planes. For me, good evidence would be showing some #1 planes with those school marks, not just speculation that because they are small planes, they must have been used in schools. It's unreasonable to assume that all the #1s used in schools were destroyed, while some of the 1/4 school planes survived.

Mike

[Jake Darvall]

Find it odd that people can afford to consider using such a pricey tool in anycase.

Miiiiiiiiiiike .... don't get nasty mate. Whose to know what the truth is entirely anyway. Time distorts.

I wouldn't be surprised that many purchased the #1, on 'advice' from stanley or whoever, who had a formed an opinion on how it may sell......and used it thinking it to be the ideal plane for their use based on that advice alone.

I'd imagine those who could afford to practise using a multitude of planes, including #1,s, found other planes of more use. or easier to use.

I mean, there'd be a lot of possibilities, yes ?....nothing to get nasty about in anycase.

[Mike Henderson]

Miiiiiiiiiiike .... don't get nasty mate. Whose to know what the truth is entirely anyway. Time distorts.
I mean, there'd be a lot of possibilities, yes ?....nothing to get nasty about in anycase.
Jake, I think this is a case where the written word may not convey things properly. I absolutely did not make any of my posting to be "nasty" - in fact, I tried hard to be polite and to stick to logic and facts.

If you (and anyone else) read my posts as being nasty, please be assured that I absolutely did not intend them that way.

I don't really know how I can change my future posts, but I'll keep in mind that they can be read in a way that I did not intend - and will try to make sure they will not be taken wrong in the future.

Mike

[Jim Becker]

Mike, if for some reason there is something in any of your posts at SMC that you want to change at any time and for any reason, you have full capability of editing them. Just click on the Edit button at the bottom of any of your own posts.

Jim
SMC Moderator

[Mike Henderson]

Mike, if for some reason there is something in any of your posts at SMC that you want to change at any time and for any reason, you have full capability of editing them. Just click on the Edit button at the bottom of any of your own posts.

Jim
SMC Moderator
Thanks, Jim. I could review my posts, but I don't think I want to change anything. I'm more concerned about being seen as "nasty" when I absolutely do not intend to be.

I don't know what to change in my posts that will make them "better".

Mike

P.S. Oh, I see, you saw my comment "I don't really know how to change my posts..." What I should have said was, "I don't really know how I can change my future posts..."

[Alan DuBoff]

Mike,

I think the reply may have been intended for Mark, as I certainly didn't see your post as being nasty at all, not like Mark's, and more so I felt you bent over backwards to be polite in responding to him. For that you should be commended, if anything.

Not that anyone cares for my $0.02, but since when has that ever bothered me enough to keep me from posting???:rolleyes:

[Jake Darvall]

Sorry Mike....wrong guy.....I mean't Mark. Bit embarrising on my part.

Probably should know better anyhow and not get involved.

Have a good weekend fellas.

[Mike Wenzloff]

Sorry Mike....wrong guy.....I mean't Mark. Bit embarrising on my part.

Probably should know better anyhow and not get involved.

Have a good weekend fellas.
Ah Jake--no worries!

Probably were thinking about that bloke in Oregon when you were reading the thread and the book he was suppose to send you--and forgot...:o ...but will get it out Monday. It's been all packaged up and I had thought it made the trip to the post office...

I've done good staying out of this thread.

I think there are many tools various manufacturers made for long periods of time and there are so few found, or there is no compelling company evidence as to the market they were intended for, or even how the market chose to use them. The #1 may be one of those.

Take care, Mike

[Alan DuBoff]

Jake,

Not to worry, if that's the last time you become embarrassed on the inet, consider yourself more fortunate than myself! ;) Actually nothing much to be embarrassed about, I see Mark's reply as being the most embarrassing in this thread. :eek:

Have a good weekend also, toss a cold one and chalk it up to life!

[James Mittlefehldt]

I'm looking at the Studley tool chest on my desktop picture and isn't that a no. 1 in the arched cubby with the columns? So you may use them to make pianos?
The smallest bench planes I have are no. 2's ( Stanley and Ohio tool) and they are more comfortable to use than a block plane. I've only held but never used the no. 1, it is small, astonishingly small but if it was good enough for Studley......:D

That post got me thinking, never a good thing, and I have a theory that might help explain the anomalys surrounding it.

First we know for sure A) Stanley made no 1's from 1869 to 1943, B) other manufacturers willingly took up the making of these things.

Philip good eye, I checked an inventory of the Studley chest and yes that is a no 1, now I think it would be a given if Studley had it in his famous chest going to the trouble of making a cubbyhole specifically for it, he must have used it.

In doing some internet research I found that by 1896 the five largest piano makers in the world were in the US. In 1909 they made 374,000 pianos that's a lot of pianos but by 1919 there was a decline to 156,000 pianos with an additional 150,000 player type pianos.

During the 1920's as radio increased in popularity piano making and more importantly piano makers started declining steadily but not quickly, until 1929, after then they went down real fast. and when world war two started for the US the making of pianos aparently stopped for the duration.

So what I think is that while as the article that Mark Miller showed states that there were uses for the no 1 that we may not have considered I think that perhaps owing to their specialized form of woodworking that for piano makers, doing specific tasks the no 1 may have been the tool of choice.

The rise and slow decline of piano making in the US coincides fairly closely to the production period of the No 1, also when Ohio Tool started making metal planes around the turn of the twentieth century, piano making was at its hieght and they chose to include this size in their line. We know Studley had one and so more than likely used it.

Why do we not find very many now, well they stopped full production in 1943, but probably slowed down production prior to that date. Also according to Patrick Leach he used to see quite a few of them fifteen or twenty years ago. I do not know if a lot of piano makers were in New England but I bet that a number were.

I doubt they were used in schools despite what some may say because as Mike Henderson rightly points out none of the ones that do turn up have school board names or numbers stamped in them like some others.

I think maybe a number could have ended up as scrap in the second world war, as they would probably be considered anachronistic at best or perhaps useless by woodworkers at the time, so chuck them in the pile for the greater good.

I was thinking of the small hand thing to, and it would have to be a real small hand to get around the tote on those things, and young adolescents would probably lack the wrist strength to use them like a block plane, so I think maybe schools are unlikely users.

One other place they might have found homes would have been for use by patternmakers in foundrys those guys are fascinating in the tools they did use and how they used them I wish I knew more about them, but interestingly again foundrys were in decline during the depression as well.

Perhaps another niché market might have been model builders, the professional ones that is.

Patrick Leach also noted that many of the planes he has seen have the sort of damage that comes from use, ie chipped soles around the mouths missing nobs that sort of thing. I am sure that they were used.

Anyway what do you think?

[Ian Smith]

James, your piano making theory is an interesting one. The dates certainly seem to fit. The cubby hole for the No. 1 in the Studley chest kind of highlights it more than a lot of the other tools, perhaps suggesting that Studley himself regarded it as an important tool.

[James Owen]

Greetings,

Sometime ago I had a friendly arguement with a friend of mine concerning the usefullness of a Stanley No. 1 plane. He said he had spoken to Lie-Nielsen about it years ago & he said that they had no real practical use. When I contacted the staff at Lie-Nielsen they gave me the same response. Yet I have found the plane very helpful to get to those hard to reach areas or when you need a small plane with a higher pitch than a block plane to plane some squirrelly wood on a fragile piece. Am I alone in this thinking? It seems hard to believe the Stanley Bailey Company would have produced a plane for 75 years that had no practical value! They weren't collector's items back then, they were either used or they not made.

Fine Tool Journal also had an article (although I can't find the issue) some years back that described the uses of the No. 1. In one example, an entire lot of original Stanley No. 1's were found in a teacher's workshop for his students. He taught how to make bamboo fly rods.

So I am just wondering if I am full of beans or if there are other believers about?

The current issue (Dec 06) of Popular Woodworking has an article by Clarence Blanchard on the uses of the #1; very similar to the FTJ info posted by Mark Miller above.

James

[Matt Newton]

It just so happens, there is an article about the #1 in the latest issue of Popular Woodworking. It gives some of the uses for the plane.

[Mark Rios]

I was just reading through the thread and while reading about the No.1 being in the tool box a thought poppoed into my head........


Has anyone actually stopped and thought about "making a piano"? Holy beans and fruit!!!! Going down to the local hardwood supplier and finding the material (or milling your own material), designing each of the hundreds of pieces (do you get ebony and ivory via cargo ship from Africa or what?), and don't forget, everything has to work together and sound perfect too......................What a TREMENDOUS undertaking.

I'm just working on some silly, old cabinets today and this was a very humbling thought. :rolleyes: ;) :D

Sorry to interrupt.

[Ganthan Rhodes]

As was mentioned previously, others made #1-sized (5-3/8" to 6-7/16") iron bench planes, including:

* Baily-Boston No. 1
* Birmingham No. 1
* Chaplin No. 1/2
* Ohio No, 01
* Union No. 0

[Gerald Jensen]

If the No 1 plane is useless, why is Lie-Nielsen making one?

See: http://www.lie-nielsen.com/catalog.php?sku=1

[Joel Goodman]

In case it hasn't been noted Patrick Leach also sells a #1 plane based on the Bedrock design. I am not clear why a standard angle block plane wouldn't serve as well as a #1. Same pitch and can be sharpened for a higher pitch as well.

[Richard Niemiec]

Having re-read this thread, pretty strong opinions.

My opinion is a #1 is as useful as tights on a bull, if you happen to own a block plane. Mine sits on the mantle in my family room.

[Jim Koepke]

In case it hasn't been noted Patrick Leach also sells a #1 plane based on the Bedrock design. I am not clear why a standard angle block plane wouldn't serve as well as a #1. Same pitch and can be sharpened for a higher pitch as well.


Having re-read this thread, pretty strong opinions.

My opinion is a #1 is as useful as tights on a bull, if you happen to own a block plane. Mine sits on the mantle in my family room.

Most block planes are wider than a #1. Most block planes are also longer.

When working on small pieces, they can be handy.

They can not be gripped like a larger bench plane, but they can still be handled comfortably. If one is fitting cabinet or intricate pieces together, this could be a handy plane to keep in one's pocket.

Then comes the part of thinking outside the box. Yes, it is a tool modeled after a woodworking tool, but people in other professions may find a use for a tool we use for their own purposes.

Any one who has ever handled a "shaved" deck of cards probably just had a light bulb go off in their heads. For those who are not familiar with this, it is an alteration made to a deck of cards by shaving all or some of the cards. Imagine, if you removed the Aces from a deck, then took a few thousandths off each side of the deck. Put the Aces back in and it would be pretty easy to get all the Aces to the top or bottom of the deck. Shave them with a taper, then it would be easy to turn a few cards around and pull them out at will. One could also mark just a few cards to know where they are in the deck or in the hands. Maybe this is how a few card sharks became so good, or if caught, dead.

Then there were other professions that may have had good uses for a small shaving device.

Sure, block planes get more use in my shop, but every once in a while, the #1 does the job differently or better.

jim

[Doug Shepard]

...
Any one who has ever handled a "shaved" deck of cards probably just had a light bulb go off in their heads. For those who are not familiar with this, it is an alteration made to a deck of cards by shaving all or some of the cards. Imagine, if you removed the Aces from a deck, then took a few thousandths off each side of the deck. Put the Aces back in and it would be pretty easy to get all the Aces to the top or bottom of the deck. Shave them with a taper, then it would be easy to turn a few cards around and pull them out at will. One could also mark just a few cards to know where they are in the deck or in the hands. Maybe this is how a few card sharks became so good, or if caught, dead.
...


One thing I know for sure. I'm never playing cards with you.:D

[jerry nazard]

Jim,

On my way to the shop with a deck of cards... if my better half sees this, she will be headed toward the gun safe. <gr> We are dedicated rummy players!

I certainly have found this thread interesting, especially since I started out early on in the piano business. Several of our brethren (David, Martin, etc.) have not chimed in yet, so the discussion should still have quite a bit of life!

I noticed a 2C on the bay last night at c. $1050. I wonder what the final bid on it was?

-Jerry

[Jeff Johnson]

I'd love to have one of these to teach my son with, but it's a bit spendy for something that'll only get a couple years use. Of course, it;ll likely retain value, though, so it could be sold when he outgrows it...

[Jim Koepke]

One thing I know for sure. I'm never playing cards with you.:D

Best way to avoid being cheated is to know how the cheaters pull it off.

jim

[Mike Brady]

The best use of my Stanley #1 plane was selling it and using the proceeds to by some real planes....Lie-Nielsens. It was fun finding it and having it for awhile, but realistically, useable planes were what I needed, and the #1 was a shelf queen.
The guy who bought it from me already had two others. I guess we are all made just a little different.

[Harry Goodwin]

I do have a LN #1. David and others have hinted to what I found and that was hold it like a block plane and it becomes a lot more usable. Believe it or not I use it shooting small stuff and with a little jig to round dowels. I would admit you probably don't really need it but it's so cute and well made I won't surrender mine. Just grab that thing and enjoy it. Harry

[philip marcou]

Greetings,

Sometime ago I had a friendly arguement with a friend of mine concerning the usefullness of a Stanley No. 1 plane. He said he had spoken to Lie-Nielsen about it years ago & he said that they had no real practical use. When I contacted the staff at Lie-Nielsen they gave me the same response. Yet I have found the plane very helpful to get to those hard to reach areas or when you need a small plane with a higher pitch than a block plane to plane some squirrelly wood on a fragile piece. Am I alone in this thinking? It seems hard to believe the Stanley Bailey Company would have produced a plane for 75 years that had no practical value! They weren't collector's items back then, they were either used or they not made.

Fine Tool Journal also had an article (although I can't find the issue) some years back that described the uses of the No. 1. In one example, an entire lot of original Stanley No. 1's were found in a teacher's workshop for his students. He taught how to make bamboo fly rods.

So I am just wondering if I am full of beans or if there are other believers about?

Undoubtedly they were made for specific applications and crafts such as rod making for example, or small work. I don't think their shape is conducive to best use in confined areas , as you surmise. I wouldn't guess that Stanley made it with a view to being collectable , either.
The knob and tote format becomes inconvenient once the proportions become too small for human fingers to grasp in the normal manner-even the #2 is mighty cramped.One would want something that fits into the cupped hand without having sharp projecting bits to cause discomfort after a bit of use.
For general interest see my idea of a small plane that is more useful and not too inconvenient to use.

[Jim Foster]

I can think of lots of things in this world that have no reason for being made except for the fact someone thought they could sell it. Humans have always been collectors (even woodworkers that use their tools to make things might collect tools), and the No. 1 might have been made because someone at the tool factory thought it could be a follow-on product to sell to existing customers.

[Jim Koepke]

I can think of lots of things in this world that have no reason for being made except for the fact someone thought they could sell it. Humans have always been collectors (even woodworkers that use their tools to make things might collect tools), and the No. 1 might have been made because someone at the tool factory thought it could be a follow-on product to sell to existing customers.

If it didn't sell, Stanley would have likely stopped making them like they did with other tools. John Walter says a lot of the Stanley sales people carried them around as a cute sample. Maybe a lot of retailers bought one. It is also likely a lot of men who had young sons that wanted to do like dad in the workshop got one of these in their early years.

I also think John Walter is correct in saying a lot of cabinet makers carried one of these in an apron pocket because they were convenient for trimming parts for fitting together.

Mine is used in that way and is also used for very small areas that are proud of an adjacent piece. Also to fine tune a surface. I tried doing some with a block plane. In some cases it worked well, in others, the #1 was a better choice.

Holding a #1 can be a challenge if you try to duplicate the grip you would be using on a #4 or #5. My method for a two handed grip is to usually have only one finger around the tote or to have the tote between my thumb and forefinger.

The one hand grip is a bit long to explain, so a picture was taken.

125542

This grip works well for working on a spot free hand when it is off a horizontal plane.

My thoughts lean to the side of looking at how something may be useful rather than deciding it has no use. Of course, this leads to my having all kinds of things for which I may never find a use. But heck, when my kids do an estate sale there will be lots of, "if you don't know what it is, its $10, if you know what it is and tell me, I'll let you have it for $5.

jim

[John Keeton]

...and the No. 1 might have been made because someone at the tool factory thought it could be a follow-on product to sell to existing customers.I could be wrong here, since all I know about planes I have learned in the last 2 months. But, it would seem that Stanley had in mind this plane from the beginning when it was assigned "No. 1."

Given that, I am not sure that it could have been a "follow-on" product.

I looked at the LN while at the WIA conference. I have very small hands, and it just was awkward for me to hold. I guess with practice.....

[David Barbee]

I don't know the history behind the tool but if it will take a shaving it's useful to someone. Useful for what you do? Dunno. I would think that if you make a lot of small projects (jewelry boxes, doll house furniture, etc.) it would be very useful. If you are building a wardrobe...not so useful. The same goes for luthier planes.

David B.

[Don Rogers]

Undoubtedly they were made for specific applications and crafts such as rod making for example, or small work. I don't think their shape is conducive to best use in confined areas , as you surmise. I wouldn't guess that Stanley made it with a view to being collectable , either.
The knob and tote format becomes inconvenient once the proportions become too small for human fingers to grasp in the normal manner-even the #2 is mighty cramped.One would want something that fits into the cupped hand without having sharp projecting bits to cause discomfort after a bit of use.
For general interest see my idea of a small plane that is more useful and not too inconvenient to use.

Philip,

The small plane you show is very interesting to me and may be the just the right size for me to make as a first metal plane project. Would you mind providing some details such as sizes, bed angle, construction details, materials, etc?.

Is the main body made from a solid steel block with the plane blade bed pinned to the sides? I can not see any dovetail type construction from the picture. Looks like a steel U channel with everything else inset into it.

I assume you made this plane but, if not, whoever did make it did an excellent job.

Don

[philip marcou]

Philip,

The small plane you show is very interesting to me and may be the just the right size for me to make as a first metal plane project. Would you mind providing some details such as sizes, bed angle, construction details, materials, etc?.

Is the main body made from a solid steel block with the plane blade bed pinned to the sides? I can not see any dovetail type construction from the picture. Looks like a steel U channel with everything else inset into it.

I assume you made this plane but, if not, whoever did make it did an excellent job.

Don

Don,
Yes, I make them and you can see more at HandPlane central here: http://www.handplane.com/Planemaker-Gallery/categories.php?cat_id=12 . Go to the second and third last pages that have pictures of "mini" planes.
Very simple: the main body is the sole which is brass about 16mm thick to which the steel sides are rivetted. Subsequent ones are rivetted with brass so that the rivets are a feature. They are usually of bed angle 45 degrees, but I made various, including a scraper , chisel nose, rebater, low angle.
The decision to make came when someone produced the Crown Planes as seen in catalogues and asked for "up rated" versions-these don't have adjusters so I included this feature. Great fun to make- you can get results quickly.

[Don Rogers]

Philip,

Thank you for your help. I was not aware of this web site and appreciate the link. The pictures of your various planes provide a great deal of information and I am sure to be spending lots of time looking at them.

Your workmanship is top notch and I could only hope to do as well. Even so, I hope to start making one in the near future. It will be a good project for me.

Don