What was the purpose of the No 5 1/2

[Bill Houghton]

Sell more planes by offering yet another subtle variation.

On that line, I've wondered for some time why there's no 6-1/4 or 7-1/4 offering a 1-3/4" iron in an 18" or 22" plane. Seems like Stanley missed a bet there.

[bridger berdel]

Sell more planes by offering yet another subtle variation.

On that line, I've wondered for some time why there's no 6-1/4 or 7-1/4 offering a 1-3/4" iron in an 18" or 22" plane. Seems like Stanley missed a bet there.

I'd find a use fpr such a plane.

[lowell holmes]

But more planes . . . . .man, I have three Bedrocks and five Baileys plus two apron planes.

[steven c newman]

It was called a Jumbo Jack Plane. There was even a Transitional Plane along the same lines. Also seems to work quite well on a shooting board....the #51 is just a beefed up 5-1/2....

#5-1/2 also started out with a 2-1/4" wide iron, and was sized for that width of iron.

[Todd Stock]

Back in the early 1970's when I moved to the area, both W.S. Jenks (founded in DC in 1866) and Woodcraft (in MA at the time, versus the back of beyond, WV) carried full lines of Stanley UK & Record planes, including the T5 IMS... Jenks also carried Inca (at least in the mid-80's), the Ulmia line, and larger sizes of India and oilstones. If I wanted to make the trip in from Annapolis, and was willing to dodge the DIY pharma dealers and other street-based business people (replace now by those with informal mortgages on prime sidewalk and steam grate locations) on the way over to Chinatown, the Jenks staff could usually scare up the bits and pieces of old Stanley and MF stuff that I found missing on garage sale tools. I hate to think of all the stuff that was tossed in the moves from the 7th Street and Montana Ave locations.

Speaking of building without power tools, when I moved back to the area in the mid-1980's, Jenks and (in the suburbs) Hechinger's still sold saw files and saw sets as routine stockage, and on tract housing sites, I'd see groups of carpenters on lunch-time break as one of their number did a quick sharpening of the hand saws on the site...not a chop saw to be heard, and all the nailing was by hand. Not sure who trimmed out the interiors, but I suspect the same crews.

[Mike Holbrook]

I have the #5 1/2 Veritas Custom Plane. I also have the #5 Custom. I use them both more than any of my other planes. Currently the #5 has a relatively heavy camber and the #5 1/2 a little less. Both planes got a good deal of use making raised pannels for a recent project. I suspect I work from logs, greener wood and rough lumber more than the average SMC member. I have wondered why LV decided to make a #5 & #5 1/2 skipping the #6. My guess is they felt the weight of a #6 might not be as popular as a short jointer because of the additional weight of the metal in the longer plane.

My #5 1/2 gets used as a short jointer. I do not own the Custom Jointer. I use my Veritas BU jointer when I need a jointer. I will soon be living in a log home and building rougher more “rustic” furniture. Plane marks may be a “feature” of my builds.

[Jim Koepke]

But more planes . . . . .man, I have three Bedrocks and five Baileys plus two apron planes.

Sounds like you are just getting started. Though my accumulation only has Bailey style planes, at least 15 in working condition. When a Bedrock comes my way it is usually sold.

jtk

[James Waldron]

The #5 1/2 is a bit shorter and a bit lighter than a #6. While I started with the #5 1/2 on my shooting board, given my increasing age (better than attaining a static age, but still, ....) and the state of my back, I like the use of it as a fore plane instead of a #6. Every little bit helps.

[Mark R Webster]

Thanks guys for all the funny and interesting responses!!

[Pat Barry]

The #5 1/2 is a bit shorter and a bit lighter than a #6.

I suspect Jim is correct about this

[Joel Thomas Runyan]

5 1/2s were created so they could become fad planes for the internet decades after they were discontinued by Stanley because nobody wanted them (c.f. bedrock planes, low angle jack planes, #9s, #10s, #112s, #212s, and other modern have-to-have planes that were never common historically)

For some reason many modern woodworkers seem to think that the more rare and obscure a plane is, the better it must be, kind of like some hidden undiscovered gem. That the workers of yore who actually used planes for a living didn't buy it because it wasn't very useful doesn't seem to come up.

I've used a 5 1/2 with a decent camber as my primary jack for nearly a decade. Wish someone had told me it wasn't useful because it was a fraction of an inch larger or smaller than more common planes!

[Stew Denton]

Hi All,

I had to go to the Blood and Gore Stanley Planes site (Patrick Leach Superior Works) for the weights. I new the lengths but not the weights.

#5, 14", 4&3/4 lbs
#5&1/2, 15", 6&3/4 lbs
#6, 18", 7&3/4 lbs

Leach describes it as being a wider and heavier jack plane for rougher work. He also says they make good planes for preparing large areas such as truing panels.

I bought mine for the same reason as one listed above, to plane wide doors, etc., and I sharpen the iron straight across for such, just like the other poster does.

Extra weight would help too, if I had some stock to prep. If you want to do some flattening of a big surface.

I also thought I would take it with me if and when I only had room for one plane, if I would be working on larger projects, or had to do stock prep. The extra weight would help with the stock preparation.ed......BUT so much for theory, I have used a #5 fo so long, it would be hard for me to actually take any plane except the #5 for general most work where.

Stew

[Andrew Seemann]

I've used a 5 1/2 with a decent camber as my primary jack for nearly a decade. Wish someone had told me it wasn't useful because it was a fraction of an inch larger or smaller than more common planes!

I really shouldn't be throwing stones; I almost prefer a #3 to a #4 in many situations I wonder what a 3 1/2 would be? Probably a regular #4.

[Warren Lake]

Its like spinal tap and the guitar amp that goes to 11. In this case its only a 1/2 but its still more.

[Andrey Kharitonkin]

I have never used a No 5 1/2. I have used all of the other non-fractional sizes of bench planes and get why they were offered. Can anyone tell me why Stanley offered this size? It would be a pretty difficult push to take a full width shaving? Opinions?

How heavy it is to push depends not only on width. I think what you are actually asking is - would someone set it up as a coarse plane?

Maybe not so much. But it can certainly work well as medium or fine plane. I'll try to summarize and add to what was already said above.

If set up as medium plane then you have short jointer or try plane, pretty much like #6 or #7 (the same width and nobody complains about being difficult to push ). Besides, very popular Veritas Low Angle Jack has nearly the same width (1/8" less) of blade and people use it for everything (even as coarse plane). Also it is very suitable for shooting board.

If set up as fine plane then you have "supersmoother" (as David Charlesworth calls it). Very useful if you have good machines that prepare wood very accurate and you just want to have surface planed while not messing up geometry after machine (better than #4 in this case).

So, don't think about what each plane size is mostly used for. Think about coarse, medium and fine. And then assign for each "grit" appropriate size depending, for example, on size of the stock to plane. The main criteria here is just one - productivity. It has to be most efficient and less tiring for the work you do. And not because most people use it or don't use it.

I'm just a beginner and I have narrow scrub plane, #4-1/2, #5-1/2 and #7. I prepare my stock by hand only. I guess I wanted 4, 5 and 7 to share the same blade type. I use my 5-1/2 after scrub plane and before #7. It has moderate camber and makes my work faster because it reduces the time I spent flattening with my #7 after it. It seems to me that 5-1/2 suits me better in this case (as double for #7) and probably more efficient than #5 would be (riding on high hills after scrub plane is not difficult to push at all). Probably #6 would also work here but more tiring then.