Handplane Dismemberment

[steve swantee]

Hello All, this is something I've been thinking about a lot lately. Maybe it bugs me more than it should, I don't know, but I was kind of wondering how the rest of you felt about it. First off, let me say that I think Ebay is a great resource for antique plane collectors and users alike. I would fall into both categories. I have a small but growing collection of planes and I enjoy pulling them off the shelf occasionally during the course of my projects and using them for their intended purposes. I'm pretty picky of the condition of the planes I buy, and that pretty much eliminates any chance of finding any gems at flea markets and such in the area I live in. Mostly what you find is the odd Stanley No.4 fused together into one solid chunk of rust. So for me, Ebay is great. There's lots to choose from, lots of close up pictures, and I can usually find a great plane at a decent price.
This is the thing that gets me- occasionally as I'm browsing through Ebay I will come across a plane that is in beautiful condition, but the owner has dismantled it and is selling each part individually. I can only surmise that this is to maximize their profits, but they are destroying a great piece of history, not to mention a great plane. I can understand it if it's an incomplete plane or has a fatal flaw, sure why not? But a plane in excellent condition with possible collector and user value I don't understand. Personally I won't even bid on it, because I want the whole plane, and if I bid on the individual parts it would cost me a fortune, and the chances of winning all the parts would be slim to none at best. And then that great piece of history is gone forever. Seems these people only care about the money they can make from these tools, and are not really plane enthusiasts. Of course it's their plane and they can do what they want with it, it just seems a shame to me. How 'bout the rest of you?

Steve Swantee

[Michael Schwartz]

They are the reason all you can find at the flea market is that rusted 4, and 5 thats cracked in half, and block plane missing half the parts. They have allready been to the flea market, found all the gems, cleaned them up, and are selling them for 10+ times what they paid for them.

[Bob Smalser]

Wasn't too long ago we thought we'd never run out of old-growth trees, either.


Would the Huron make his Algonquin brothers foolish with brandy, and steal his land to sell them for gold to the white man?

Would the Huron have greed for more land than a man can use?

Would the Huron fool Senecan to take in all the furs of all the animals of the forest for beads and strong whiskey?

Would the Huron kill every man, woman, and child of their enemies?

Those are the ways of the Yengeese and les Francais traders, and their masters in Europe infected with the sickness of greed.

[Wilbur Pan]

What you are seeing is the glory of capitalism. :rolleyes:

[David Weaver]

I am one of the people who buys some of those parts. As long as there are people who need parts to make an otherwise good plane with a cracked or broken lever cap or screws top notch, then people will part them.

I would be seriously peeved if the parts weren't available, even though they're not cheap.

If I have a corrugated #4 1/2 with a badly chipped lever cap, it takes a huge hit on its value, and I really don't like the way it looks on a plane I consder a "collectible user".

If someone else chips the mouth of a #6 of the same type badly, or drops it and takes a huge chunk out of the casting, and they want to sell the rest of the parts to me to have, I like that.

The value of the parts is a function of need for the parts. It's nice how economics are telling you and me that people need parts more than they need whole planes. Unless everyone gets into collecting parts only - which is unlikely - the parts prices will come down when people have gotten the parts they need for their planes.

If people can't get parts, what good does it mean that they should have an otherwise whole plane with a broken cap iron and missing screws and just hold it incomplete and do nothing with it?

I guess what I'm saying is that you're seeing only the negative side of this and getting angry over very little. There is no value to the parts (at least most of them) other than to make other planes work or be complete, and if they're a rare type of part, then the price will be pushed up to ensure they're only used in a rare type of plane.

[Bob Smalser]

I guess what I'm saying is that you're seeing only the negative side of this and getting angry over very little. There is no value to the parts (at least most of them) other than to make other planes work or be complete, and if they're a rare type of part, then the price will be pushed up to ensure they're only used in a rare type of plane.

There's no anger on my part. Just a bit of sadness. And I buy the parts I need just like you do.

If there was a way to match the stacks of perfectly good plane bodies rusting away in the scrap piles of tool dealers with other folks that need them, then there'd be no problem. Antique tool availability would increase, enhancing availability for future generations.

But that's not always what's happening. Instead of repairing totes and knobs and living with mismatched frogs, irons and lever caps in hard-used tools once owned by professionals who didn't foresee later collectors, they are often being tossed and replaced with "original" parts to build a plane that can be passed off as "original".

In more mature collector markets like antique firearms, where I have some experience doing restoration work for museums, a seller would be banished for passing off such items as "original" without a full accounting of repair and replacement. That ain't happening in the lower end of the antique tool market either.

If it was about preserving and increasing the availability of serviceable hand tools, I'd be delighted. But it's not. It's often about greed. And that likely won't change until Stanley planes get as scarce as 18th-Century Pennsylvania rifles. There are also no solutions except educating users and pushing for a higher standard of ethics in collecting.

[steve swantee]

As Bob said, I'm not really angry about it, just kind of saddened by it. And if there's parts out there for sale because the plane they belonged to was no longer serviceable as a whole, and someone needs those parts, then thats great. I see no problem with that, and it is wonderful that someone else is able to complete an antique as a result of this availability. But the planes I'm talking about are whole planes that are NOT damaged in any way whatsoever (some in mint condition), that are disassembled and sold for parts, and as a result, a valuable plane is split up and lost forever.

Steve Swantee

[Mike Henderson]

It's all economics. Our economic system encourages people to maximize the value of their assets.

An example locally that got people up in arms: An investor purchased a Greene and Greene house in Pasadena. Now, Greene and Greene didn't just design the house, they designed everything that went into the house. So the investor took all the Greene and Green furniture, light fixtures, and anything else that could be removed, and sold them piece-by-piece. He made more on the sale of the pieces than he paid for the house. Then he sold the house for a pretty penny since that area of Pasadena is quite desirable.

But that Greene and Greene "design" (which included the house and the furnishings) is now lost forever.

So I ask all of you a question: "Is what the investor did 'right'?" He did what our economic system encourages him to do. The property is private property and not public property.

Or does the public have the right to limit what an individual can do with their property because of the importance of the work?

Mike

[David Weaver]

Bob - I apologize for where my post ended up, it wasn't really directed toward your comments - it was for the original post, but I posted to the wrong post.

I agree about the "fraudulent original" issue. That's something that will probably never go away in anything where all of the major parts of an item aren't numbered so you can tell. I have to think that Stanley probably never really thought about their tools becoming collectors items when they were producing them.

The vintage guitar market is even worse than tools - there are more vintage guitars now than there were 20 years ago. How did that happen?

[Eddie Darby]

Most things that are in museums are actually a combination of replacement parts, and newly fabricated replacement parts.

Tools are no different.

[Bob Smalser]

Most things that are in museums are actually a combination of replacement parts, and newly fabricated replacement parts...

Sometimes. Sometimes not. And when they are, the repairs and replacement parts are well documented by today's conservation ethics. If they are ever sold or traded, their value is degraded accordingly, as it should be.

If you're saying todays wantonness in representing parts planes as original is the same thing as a gunsmith in 1800, 1850, or even 1910 making and installing a new part on a well-worn rifle another gunsmith made in 1780 and sold today as a "representative" example of the type, I don't see how they equate except perhaps apologetically.

[Matt Chantry]

Any legitimate museum will have meticulous records about what is original and what is replacement. They will also post a notice explaining what is replica and why.

M

[Jim Nardi]

I thought there was a finite supply of planes. I don't see anyone breaking down mint collector's. I've bought quite a few planes off of e-bay and it seems quite a few have parts that are in poor shape and need replacing. I've got quite a few parts now in a box and was thinking of selling them myself.

[josh bjork]

I think the only thing limiting the parts market for planes is the lack of people willing to find out WHAT plane they are parting out! I'm not a collector but I can see how keeping things reasonably original would be desirable if you where.

It seems like a tote can sell for as much or more than a whole plane. I don't get it either.

[Richard Niemiec]

I agree that I don't think folks are parting out truly collectible planes, although I could be wrong. In my case, for example, I have an very early 20th century, late 19th century, Stanley #10 1/2 which for some reason, is missing the first 2 inches or so of the body; it was purposefully cut off an the plane made into sort of a bastardized bullnose #10. Now, everything behind the blade is original, and I am thinking of parting it out, as the frog, blade, chipbreaker, depth wheel, etc., even the screws, could be useful to someone who is looking for those parts for a similar vintage plane, and frankly it's likely worth $50 or so parted out. But I would not part out a functional plane. My two cents.

RN

[steve swantee]

This is the type of thing that I am talking about- a Stanley No.3 Prelateral Type 4 on Ebay that someone has parted out. All parts are there and in great shape, and if put together would make a nice plane. The only flaw is a "tight hairline in the tote-but structurally sound". Very nice wood, and I couldn't imagine parting out a collectible plane for this reason.
Another example that comes to mind is a Sargent No.407 (equivalent to Stanley No.2)that was on Ebay a couple of months ago. Very nice plane, but the seller removed the lever cap and auctioned it seperately from the plane. If I remember correctly they has a starting bid of $104.00 on the plane and also $104.00 on the lever cap. Double or nothing-but in this case it was nothing.
I hope this better illustrates the type of thing that I was talking about. These were definitely not parts planes or unusable. It was not intended as a slam to anyone who buys parts on the internet, as I buy parts as well. It's just that examples like these kind of leave me scratching my head.

Steve S

[Steve Hamlin]

On the plus side, it may keep more usable planes in woodworkers' hands (who might otherwise just use powered tools) instead of languishing in a collector's hoard :)

There can be but very few Stanley planes of true historical significance (One example of a given type worldwide is significant, subsequent unaltered examples are not. What is significant is not the additional instances themselves, but rather their survival rate, mean condition, and modifications)

Indeed the bastardized bullnose #10 cited earlier is historically more significant than a pristine #10 which is uncommon but not unique, as it gives evidence of how the tool was used as a tool.

(A philatellist may be enamoured of the penny black in his collection, but it is not significant historically, as it is not unique. The document to which it is attached, or its provenance may of course lend significance by association)

Cheers
Steve

[Bob Smalser]

There can be but very few Stanley planes of true historical significance...

In 1840, there were very few Pennsylvania flintlock rifles of historical significance.....in 1940, there were very few old-growth stands of forest of biological significance...because there were so many. Were there more Stanley planes than old-growth tree?

It's a finite resource. Your predecessors couldn't envision running out of trees, either.

[Steve Hamlin]

:) Good point, Bob.

I do still think that stifling hand tool skills by rendering good tools beyond the means of many is a greater problem, though. Extraordinarily knowledgable craftsmen such as your good self can readily get the best out of almost any tool.

The difficulty is with newcomers such as myself. Without exposure to good tools and in the absence of a master, it makes it harder to define and achieve the goal (giving form and function to a wonderfully varied natural resource.) And in my perhaps gruff view, treating a manufactured resource (with more than a few score examples extant) as sacrosanct does seem more foible than foresight.

If we reach a point where we only have documentary evidence of a given plane, provided it is in sufficient detail, a good toolmaker can reproduce it. Not so with Dalbergia Nigra or the Mountain Gorilla, nor indeed the subtle details of the skills of the craftsmen who original used a tool.

Cheers
Steve

[James Mittlefehldt]

One thing I have noticed of late that irritates me, is a tendency by what appears to be one or two people, to take sets, of 45 or 55 blades and sell then individually.

It is however also heartening that for the most part many of them do not get a bid.

[James Carmichael]

What a relief! The title of this thread lead me to think someone had lost one or more digits to a plane.

[Samuel Mill]

It's all economics. Our economic system encourages people to maximize the value of their assets.

An example locally that got people up in arms: An investor purchased a Greene and Greene house in Pasadena. Now, Greene and Greene didn't just design the house, they designed everything that went into the house. So the investor took all the Greene and Green furniture, light fixtures, and anything else that could be removed, and sold them piece-by-piece. He made more on the sale of the pieces than he paid for the house. Then he sold the house for a pretty penny since that area of Pasadena is quite desirable.

But that Greene and Greene "design" (which included the house and the furnishings) is now lost forever.

So I ask all of you a question: "Is what the investor did 'right'?" He did what our economic system encourages him to do. The property is private property and not public property.

Or does the public have the right to limit what an individual can do with their property because of the importance of the work?

Mike

Individual members of "the public" do have the right, and in the case you cite, they apparently did not exercise it. Did the house not appear in real estate listings? Did not everyone with access to the listings have the opportunity to outbid the others, and keep house and "components" intact? Now, I'm a fan of old houses myself. I live in an 1894 Victorian former parsonage with tons of unpainted chestnut, including three large pocket doors and a carved banister. My wife and I "preserved" this piece of history with our own money and sweat, not by using legislation, regulation, or other threat of force to try to dictate to others what they may, or may not do with their own hard-earned property. And I do know that you did not advocate that, I am just trying to develop the issue implied in your post. :cool:

-Sam

[John Powers]

Bob, you feeling like The Last of the Mohickons lately? Adirondack Life ran an article last year and there is considerable disagreement as to the actual extent of the Massacre at Fort William Henry. Looking down from the ramparts at Ticonderoga its hard to believe that so much depended on the control of those lakes.

[Mike Henderson]

Individual members of "the public" do have the right, and in the case you cite, they apparently did not exercise it. Did the house not appear in real estate listings? Did not everyone with access to the listings have the opportunity to outbid the others, and keep house and "components" intact? Now, I'm a fan of old houses myself. I live in an 1894 Victorian former parsonage with tons of unpainted chestnut, including three large pocket doors and a carved banister. My wife and I "preserved" this piece of history with our own money and sweat, not by using legislation, regulation, or other threat of force to try to dictate to others what they may, or may not do with their own hard-earned property. And I do know that you did not advocate that, I am just trying to develop the issue implied in your post. :cool:

-Sam
Thanks for your comments, Sam. To give the other half of the story, many people in Pasadena were outraged by what the investor did. They were unaware of his plans to "part out" the property prior to his purchase so none of the preservation people attempted to buy the property. I think everyone assumed that anyone interested in buying a Greene and Greene house was interested in preserving it.

Since that eposode, my understanding is that Pasadena has passed preservation laws which require permits to significantly alter a home designated as having historic significance. Altering would include removing furniture and fixtures which would be considered part of the original design.

Mike

[Maurice Metzger]

Mike, it also might be an illustration of another part of economic theory called "tragedy of the commons" where shortsighted individual greed works against the common good.

One thing I took away from my limited study of economics is that no one seems to accept the entire teachings - they treat it like a restaurant menu and only take the parts they like. For example I was taught that a toll bridge is against good economic theory (unfortunately I can't remember why). But there are plenty of toll bridges around.

Maurice

[Pam Niedermayer]

...
One thing I took away from my limited study of economics is that no one seems to accept the entire teachings - they treat it like a restaurant menu and only take the parts they like...

Maurice, speaking as an econ major from 100 years ago, I can say that it would be impossible to accept the entire teaching, there are so many mutually exclusive disciplines. However, when talking about common good, most of those theories derive from a utilitarian philosophy that says basically that one strives to take actions that result in the greatest good for the most people. Perhaps in splitting a plane's parts the seller is indeed acting in a utilitarian manner, satisfying more than two people in the process.

Pam

[Ken Werner]

My experiences are a bit goofy, but perhaps illustrative.

My previous shop had a concrete floor. One day, my nice old Stanley rabbett plane met the floor from atop my bench rather abruptly. Cracked in half it did [not the floor.] Couldn't bring myself to part with it. For about 10 years. Finally took it all apart and sold what usable pieces were left. On the bay. And got about $50, which IIRC was about double what I paid for the entire plane years before.

Had another plane, and old stanley #4. The sole had an odd crack near the mouth which rendered the plane unusable. Everything else on it was great including the rosewood. For $5 I bought a body again on the bay, and put the parts together into an incorrect but very serviceable tool.

Not driven by greed, but by the desire to see the most use from non-functional parts.

Like so much of life - there are ethical ways of doing business, and not. Each of us has to choose what he/she does.

Ken