Vintage Ornate Sargent No. 79 Rabbet & Filletster Plane w Fence & Depth Stop ???

[Goodwin Heil]

This is how this plane was advertised in Ebay. My wife and I were immediately taken. Considered it beautiful! Not only aesthetically, but for it's functionality. When she tells you to pull the trigger, you don't hesitate. It arrived quickly and seems to be everything we expected. It was late in the day, so I haven't taken it to the shop yet to tune it.
Here are my concerns, 1, the iron says Craftsman. I know that is not a big thing, I also know a original would read Sargent VMI. Neither here nor there.
2, But most important, the ONLY markings on this piece are a raised 79 on the inside of the depth gauge and a raised 79 on the bottom of the fence.
There are no indications that marks have been removed and the Sargent site does not seem to indicate that they made one with NO markings.

Does anybody have any insight?Rabbet Plane one.jpgRabbet Plane two.jpgRabbet Plane three.jpg

[Jim Koepke]

Craftsman tools were made by many manufacturers. Often the maker's name was usually removed or omitted.

One of my #45 planes was marketed by Montgomery Wards. The Stanley name appears to have been ground off.

Yours looks like the Sargent name was removed from the casting forms.

For more information > http://www.sargent-planes.com/sargen...-rabbet-plane/

Your plane should be every bit as good as one with the Sargent name included.

A person who once worked for a company that supplied their product to a large chain told me the workers would do all they could to make their "vendor branded" products the best of the lot since this was actually their biggest buyer of their product.

jtk

[Tony Zaffuto]

In many small towns, tools were only available via mail order, hence the number of Montgomery Wards or Sears Craftsman tools. I have a Wards label 78, produced by Stanley, that is my main filletster plane. I have 3 #45 planes (don't ask), but the best (and my user) is a Craftsman labeled Sargent. Both of those mail order companies had tools made by Stanley, Sargent, Millers Falls, etc. They are equivalent in quality, generally priced lower though!

Consider yourself lucky with that find!

[Nathan Johnson]

Sargent made a lot of tools for Craftsman.

I have this exact plane with the same 79 marks and Craftsman blade. Put that bad boy to work.

[Goodwin Heil]

Thank you all. We feel much better about it now. We are very pleased with our purchase and expect to get much use out of it.
BTW, the fence is only contacting on the forward 3/8 of an inch and the same on the rear. there is about a 64th to a 32nd bow in it. I presume that is not normal.

[Jim Koepke]

BTW, the fence is only contacting on the forward 3/8 of an inch and the same on the rear. there is about a 64th to a 32nd bow in it. I presume that is not normal.

Often folks add a wood strip to the fence. Some models of this plane come with holes included for this.

jtk

[steven c newman]

Hmmmm, would that bow be about where the cutter is also located? Could be a "clearance/ relief" sort of thing...


maybe about one or two good swipes with a long mill file to fix? Might be more of a "Much ado about"...nothing...

Have you tried it out along a strip of wood, to see how it will work?

[Goodwin Heil]

Actually , I trued it with sandpaper and a diamond stone. The bow was right at the bod where you would set your measurement and you would get a erroneous measurement.

Can anyone enlighten me as to what determines bevel up or bevel down for a plane? I am restoring a Jack I found at a peddlers mart some time back. I was desperate for a
plane and it was $10. I probably should have passed on it. It was very rusted and pitted.
Jack1.jpgjack2.jpgjack3.jpgjack4.jpg

[steven c newman]

Bed angle would be a clue....use of a chipbreaker would be a second. That one LOOKS like a bevel down #5 Jack plane, with the top of the frog broken off, would need new replacement handles and a long soak in Evaporust...missing part of the frog held the lateral adjustor, which is also missing.......(hammer adjustable, now)

[Goodwin Heil]

I guess every plane needs a little love? ......or a lot?

[Mike Henderson]

Actually , I trued it with sandpaper and a diamond stone. The bow was right at the bod where you would set your measurement and you would get a erroneous measurement.

Can anyone enlighten me as to what determines bevel up or bevel down for a plane? I am restoring a Jack I found at a peddlers mart some time back. I was desperate for a
plane and it was $10. I probably should have passed on it. It was very rusted and pitted.
Jack1.jpgjack2.jpgjack3.jpgjack4.jpg

That one is pretty bad. It's probably not worth restoring. You should look for a plane in better condition rather than put any time and money into this one.

Mike

[Goodwin Heil]

Mike where were you about 3 months ago.

[steven c newman]

A "before"...
Defiance No. 3 rehab start.JPGDefiance No. 3, tear down 1.JPGDefiance No. 3, tear down 3.JPG
And the "After"....Defiance No. 3.....
Defiance No. 3, assembled, side.JPGDefiance No. 3, assembly, front.JPGDefiance No. 3, clean up 3.JPG

Just a matter of getting one's hands dirty, sometimes....

[Daniel Culotta]

I second Mike's thoughts. I've only restored a few planes, but that one looks long gone and not worth shining up. The one Steven posted is pretty rusted but at least it's (almost) complete and free of breaks. I'd say that with the amount of breakage to the tote and frog on your plane it's not worth it unless you have a very sentimental attachment.

On the upside, you could toss the blade, chip breaker, and lever cap in some vinegar and remove the rust, and then probably sell them for more than you bought the whole plane for.

[Goodwin Heil]

Daniel, appreciate the thoughts, but I'm in too deep now. All but building and finishing the tote and sharpening the blade. Will post pics when done. First effort in nativity and ignorance. This is how most of us learn.