Old plane ID, advice (again)

[Steven Mikes]

I have asked about these planes previously but have since pieced them together better and taken more picture.
There are four planes. Two #4s, one #3, and a #5(or 6?).



First up is the one in use, a Stanley #4 I think? I had cleaned the whole thing up pretty nicely and it was working pretty well until tonight when I knocked it off the bench. The blade got bent quite a bit, having trouble getting it to sit nicely on the frog now. Any tips on flattening?
Also I found I'd been using the lever cap from the #3 all along. I think this cap is the one that goes with it but I can't get it to tighten, it just barely locks. I can't drive the screw any further in, not sure if it has bottomed out or if the threads inside are locking (the screw threads are nice and clean).

[Steven Mikes]

Next is the #3. This feels nicer somehow than the first one. I only have about half of the rear tote, will have to make a new one. Haven't cleaned it up yet so pardon the rust & dirt (same for the others). Not sure the blade is the right one for this guy but it fits.

[Steven Mikes]

#5 (or 6)? This one has no frog adjustment.
P1300230.jpgP1300228.jpgP1300229.jpg



And lastly another #4 with a broken lateral adjuster, broken front knob, and no rear tote. This one looks like someone had tried repainting the body, it still has tape on the sides and the threaded stud on the frog. The frog has no adjuster.
I don't know which lever cap goes with this guy, there are 4 planes and 5 caps. Maybe the Footprint cap goes on the other #4...
P1300232.jpgP1300231.jpg

[Jim Koepke]

You might try comparing the screw to one from another plane. You might give it a try in another plane and use the screw from the other plane to see if it will go in further.

Do you have a metal vise? That might be your best bet in trying to get the blade flattened.

This is one of those learning experiences to teach us to be more aware of what all is on our bench. Not many of my tools end up on the floor. In my experience it is almost always a disaster. This has me always taking note of things on the bench when sawing or chopping. Things can walk rather quickly with the vibrations.

A good fall can cause the frog to move on a plane if it wasn't fully secured.

jtk

[Jim Koepke]

With all those lever caps you might swap those around to see if one works better on the first #4.

jtk

[Steven Mikes]

Sadly no metal vice. Not yet anyway. I have a steel block and hammer. Will definitely be more careful, this is the first time I've let a tool fall off the bench. Was chopping and it walked itself right off.

[Scott Winners]

Your Victor looks more like my #5 handyman and less like my #6 Bailey.

I have dropped many tools on the floor while running a mallet against some other tool on the bench top. eventually I will spend enough time cleaning up after myself to maybe put in a tool well or get my head out of my tuckus.

I have never tried to flatten a plane iron. i am resigned to putting new veritas irons into about 67% of the old Baileys i buy, and opening the mouths to accommodate. Try whatever sounds reasonable. keep the old (original ) iron. you can put a little crown on it to make a scrub, or cut it up and make marking knives from it.

[Andrew Seemann]

The #3 is probably the best of all of them, if you can swap a tote to use in it. The blade likely isn't original (I think the sweetheart blades come on a slightly newer body), but if it fits it doesn't matter. The Victor jack plane (#5 size) was Stanley's mid grade plane, between the Baileys and the Defiance line. Tuned up it would probably make a perfectly adequate jack plane. The lateral adjuster usually gets more use on a smoothing plane than a jack plane, so its absence isn't a deal breaker.

I'd try the Footprint cap on the plane you dropped. It kind of looks like an English made Stanley, but it doesn't say Stanley anywhere, and could very well be a Footprint plane. As long as the blade seats on the frog from the mouth to the cap screw it probably will work. It might be possible to bend the blade back into straight enough by supporting each end on a block of wood with the bow up and carefully pushing on the middle until it bends back to flat.

[Stew Denton]

Steven,

Your #3 Stanley Bailey is completely consistent with a Stanley type 13 made between 1925 and 1928. It has one patent date and does not have a raised ring. The raised ring for the tall form tote was introduced in the type 14. It has the large diameter adjuster which was introduced on the type 12 (made from 1919 to 1924.)

The Sweet Heart logo was introduced in the type 12, as was the tall form knob, and there were three different Sweet Heart labels total. The last was found on the type 13, primarily, and that logo was used until the mid 1930s. It is hard to tell from your photo, but it looks like the iron on your plane features this last of the 3 Sweet Heart logos.

Finally it has the Stanley notched rectangle logo on the lever cap which first showed up on the type 13.

Thus, in my view your #3 is a type 13. Every feature of your #3 is consistent with what I would expect to see on a type 13. Like Andrew, I think the #3 is the best of the lot, by far. In my view that one is a very desirable model, as were all of the Bailey models from the type 10 to the type 15. The earlier ones did not have the frog adjuster screw, which is a nice feature for guys like me who have a battle adjusting the frog even with every advantage, but it is not a handicap for guys like Jim K. who do just fine without that feature, and for them the earlier models are also highly desirable.

For what it's worth, you can find replacement totes on that auction site, that were taken of these older Stanley planes. Be carefull to make sure that the one you buy is the one you need. Stanley changed the shape of the totes for the #4 Bailey and Bedrock planes every now and then, so look carefully at the tote before buying. I would print off photos from know Type 13s, you can find type 13 #4s fairly frequently so you should not have difficulty printing off the photo so you can match the plane type. Alternatively, the top sellers will know the type # plane that the tote came off of, so you can send them a note asking. The nice thing about the original tote, is that it will be rosewood, and a very nice tote. Be warned, however, they can be more pricy than I think they are worth, but if you wait long enough you may be able to get one for a half way reasonable price.

Stew

[Andrew Seemann]

Steven,

Your #3 Stanley Bailey is completely consistent with a Stanley type 13 made between 1925 and 1928. It has one patent date and does not have a raised ring. The raised ring for the tall form tote was introduced in the type 14. It has the large diameter adjuster which was introduced on the type 12 (made from 1919 to 1924.)

The Sweet Heart logo was introduced in the type 12, as was the tall form knob, and there were three different Sweet Heart labels total. The last was found on the type 13, primarily, and that logo was used until the mid 1930s. It is hard to tell from your photo, but it looks like the iron on your plane features this last of the 3 Sweet Heart logos.

Finally it has the Stanley notched rectangle logo on the lever cap which first showed up on the type 13.

It always amazes me how much folks like you and Jim know about the Bailey's plane typology. My classifications are pretty much: Really Old, The Ones with All the Patent Dates, The Heart Ones, The Ones Before WWII Without the Heart, WWII, and The Ones After WWII That Are Still Good. The actual types are probably important when you are trying to source spare parts for them. I usually have to do trial and error with my box of spare plane parts and shelf of donor planes.

[Jim Koepke]

The earlier ones did not have the frog adjuster screw, which is a nice feature for guys like me who have a battle adjusting the frog even with every advantage, but it is not a handicap for guys like Jim K. who do just fine without that feature, and for them the earlier models are also highly desirable.

My favorite feature about the planes before type 10 (without the frog adjustment) is they are not as sought after as the planes with the frog adjuster. This makes them less expensive. If two items are essentially the same, buy the cheaper one. Of course you may find a few dealers who think it is the older one is worth more because of its age. Then you might be able to purchase their type 10 -13 offerings for less.

The actual types are probably important when you are trying to source spare parts for them. I usually have to do trial and error with my box of spare plane parts and shelf of donor planes.

This is important if you are trying to keep a plane original and true to type. In my case many of my planes are made with mixed type parts. These are often referred to as Frankenplanes in honor of the Mary Shelly novel about a doctor making a man from mismatched parts.

My most common Frankenplanes have a short knob on type 12 & 13 planes or a large depth adjuster on pre-type 12 planes.

jtk

[Stew Denton]

Andrew,

I don't think I know all that much about the old Bailey planes, but just like you spend time reading the type studies, but perhaps have studied them a bit more than you have. There are a lot of folks on this site that know more about the old Stanley planes than I do, and I think guys like Jim K. above, and Steven N. both are in that category. I only know about the Stanley planes, since I only buy them due to the availability of parts should such become necessary.

Guys like Steven N. know quite a bit about other brands of planes besides the Stanley planes.

I have been motivated to learn about the old Stanley planes because of making mistakes on parts in the past, and have thus been motivated to learn enough that I don't end up buying a part that won't work on the plane I am working on. Also, the parts have gotten more expensive in the last two or three years, so try only to buy old tools that don't need any parts, unless the price is extremely low.

Jim, I think you and I are of the same basic mind set. I try to buy the lower dollar option, if there is no difference in the real quality of the plane, and the cheaper one is just as good a user as the more expensive option. For that reason I like the old Stanley planes and the old Disston saws, you sometimes pay a bit more for them than other vintage brands that may be just as good, but they are INCREDIBLY cheaper than the modern alternatives that are of good quality. I know more about those two brands, and there is no real shortage of those two brands, so I primarily stick to them.

For that same reason almost all of the ones I have bought needed restoring, the already restored ones cost way more. ("I believe in sweat equity" sounds better than "I am darned cheap.")

The one exception to that is I really like the old Bed Rock planes, (very bad habit), because of the way the frog mounts to the body.

(That said, I just like having and using the old Bed Rocks, but have bought mostly the cheaper round sides. They are older, cheaper, and I like the traditional appearance better than the flat sides. All three factors have appeal.) However, if a Bed Rock and a Bailey were both tuned up well I don't think anyone could tell the difference in how well they work.

Stew

[Andrew Seemann]

My planes all needed restoration also. I lucked out in that most of them were complete and didn't need many parts swapped out, which is probably why I don't know the typology that well. I do have one serious Frankenplane though; it was made from the best parts of a few planes from my great uncle. If it wasn't sentimental, I probably wouldn't have put that much effort into it. I tend to pass on planes that need a lot of work. I restore them more because I am cheap than because I like restoring them. I don't mind it, but I don't do it anymore than I need to.

Most of mine are right around WWII, a little before, during, and after. When I was building up my collection, Bedrocks, Sweathearts, and 3-patent-dates were hot (and spendy). Nobody wanted the ones without fully machined frogs, so they were cheap and that was what I bought

[Steven Mikes]

Thank you all for the invaluable information. Andrew I think you nailed it, the Footprint cap went on this one. Think it's finally whole again. Also after a bunch of hammering, bending, cursing, a Paul Sellers blog post, more hammering, lapping, and sharpening, it's back in service taking 0.001" shavings.
P2010027.jpg


I decided to clean up the #5 and put it to use as a jack plane. I have a LV bevel up jack, but want to try a bevel down. I remember reading something about cambered blades not working quite the same on bevel up planes, maybe from Derek?
It looks better after some vinegar and brushing. I lapped the sole just enough to hit spots across the length, figured its good enough for a jack plane. The iron cleanup up pretty quickly, a few blows to (mostly) straighten it out then ground and honed. One question: did I camber the blade too much for a jack?
P2010028.jpgP2010029.jpgP2010030.jpgP2010031.jpg

[Jim Koepke]

That looks like a good camber to knock down high spots and to hog off wood.

The question of how much camber to put on a blade can start a thread as lively as a sharpening discussion.

It seems everyone has a different idea of how, when, where and even if one should use a camber.

jtk