Found a #2 no name

[Frederick Skelly]

At Christmas I was seriously considering an LN #2 to help with my small boxes. At the time, several Creekers warned me the #2 might be small for my hands, and therefore uncomfortable to use. So I dropped that idea. I was in an antique store and saw a small No Name plane for $14. Brought it home on just a whim. Its clearly #2 sized. Somebody painted all of it black - mustve been a decoration. But I checked it - it seems flat and has no obvious twist. So Im going to see if I can bring it back to life. Being a "No Name", its not going to be a high quality tool. But it should give me a feel for whether or not I can make good use of a #2.

If I can revive it, Ill post some pics.
Fred

[Pat Barry]

Please post a picture anyway Fred. Like they say, if there's no picture it didn't happen.

[Mark Engel]

Yes, please do show some pics. Maybe someone here can put a name to the 'no name' plane.

[Frederick Skelly]

Ok, Ill try to find that cable later and do so.

The blade looks unused, though its painted black. Its stamped "Union Mfg, New Briton CT". The chip breaker has a faint stamp the looks like "MEANLES" in an arc, above the word "PATENT". Im guessing under "patent" is a date but its obscured by rust.

Is it plausible to think this is an original blade and chipbreaker? Were #2s all that common? (If it was a #4 I wouldn't
count on it. But a #2? What do you think?)

The frog looks like what brass city tools calls a "mid era" Union frog. Is Union an ok brand? How old might this be - WW-II vintage?

Fred

[Jim Koepke]

Ok, Ill try to find that cable later and do so.

The blade looks unused, though its painted black. Its stamped "Union Mfg, New Briton CT". The chip breaker has a faint stamp the looks like "MEANLES" in an arc, above the word "PATENT". Im guessing under "patent" is a date but its obscured by rust.

Is it plausible to think this is an original blade and chipbreaker? Were #2s all that common? (If it was a #4 I wouldn't
count on it. But a #2? What do you think?)

The frog looks like what brass city tools calls a "mid era" Union frog. Is Union an ok brand? How old might this be - WW-II vintage?

Fred

That is one of those "you suck!" worthy finds.

Union is as good a plane as Stanley or Sargent. Their lateral lever seems a little wimpy to me, but that isn't the most important part of a plane.

Most of the makers made a #2 size plane.

You might find it easier to hold with an open grip:

Open Hand Grip.jpg

This is a bigger plane but shows the general idea. Be careful with this kind of grip as the plane isn't secured in your grip.

Let's see some pictures. It is definitely gloat worthy for the price you paid.

You know if you don't like it you can probably put it up for auction and get a good return on your investment.

jtk

[Frederick Skelly]

IMAG0854.jpgIMAG0855.jpg
IMAG0856.jpgIMAG0857.jpg
Here they are! The lever is very sturdy - not at all like the whimpy folded over Union levers I saw posted elsewhere. I don't know what to make of that, Jim.

[Jim Koepke]

Here they are! The lever is very sturdy - not at all like the whimpy folded over Union levers I saw posted elsewhere. I don't know what to make of that, Jim.

Oh man! You really suck.

When you clean the lateral lever you will likely find it is stamped STANLEY. There may be some dates on it. If it has no disk on the lever it is a type 5. The dates on the lever were dropped at approximately 1900 or so depending on how fast the stock on hand turned over for particular sizes. The Bailey name was cast on Stanley planes in 1902. The #2s may have been later. They didn't always get the same changes as other sizes.

You also have the best of both worlds in that the Union blades are heavier than Stanley blades. The pictures look like a thicker blade.

Most likely someone swapped blades at one time.

jtk

[Frederick Skelly]

Jim, it is a thick, heavy blade. Looks rock solid.

Do you think this is a Stanley, rather than a Union?

[Jim Koepke]

Do you think this is a Stanley, rather than a Union?

That definitely looks like a Stanley lateral adjuster.

The handles also look more like (Stanley) rosewood than the mahogany Union used.

That is a good and lucky find. If the shop you found it in were in my neighborhood I would stop in there when ever I was in the area. You never know, sometimes lightning strikes more than once.

jtk

[Mel Miller]

Looks like a Stanley #2 to me. Their #2 size planes were not always marked #2.

[Frederick Skelly]

Ok, Ill try to find that cable later and do so.

The blade looks unused, though its painted black. Its stamped "Union Mfg, New Briton CT". The chip breaker has a faint stamp the looks like "MEANLES" in an arc, above the word "PATENT". Im guessing under "patent" is a date but its obscured by rust.

Is it plausible to think this is an original blade and chipbreaker? Were #2s all that common? (If it was a #4 I wouldn't
count on it. But a #2? What do you think?)

The frog looks like what brass city tools calls a "mid era" Union frog. Is Union an ok brand? How old might this be - WW-II vintage?

Fred

I cleaned up the cap iron. I can now read that faint imprint - it says "L Bailey's Patent Dec 24 1867".

Fred

[Jim Koepke]

I cleaned up the cap iron. I can now read that faint imprint - it says "L Bailey's Patent Dec 24 1867".

Fred

Are there any stampings inside the brass adjuster?

I think on one of my type 6 planes there are 3 dates on the lateral lever, 2 dates in the adjuster, 1 on the cap iron and 1 on the blade.

jtk

[Frederick Skelly]

Are there any stampings inside the brass adjuster?

jtk

I cant tell yet. Its got a coat of black paint on it. But Im hoping to clean it up this week. Ill let you know when I do! Thanks for your help Jim!
Fred

[Steve Rozmiarek]

That's heck of a find. Pretty early one too, I think Jim is narrowing that down. Best plane I found at the junk shop last week was a beat up 29 for $80. I'm jealous.

[Ed Griner]

I have two Stanley #2s and the best use for them is a paperweight.