Stanley #3 Plane Oddities - Normal?

[Leo Butler]

Hello,

I've just joined the forum and my first post is regarding a Stanley No. 3 Plane I bought (type 19 I believe) and the numerous oddities I've encountered with it. I'd love to learn about the #3 in general and find out if the type 19 is usually as much of a mixed bag.

At first look, it's in great condition and nothing seemed out of whack. But while attempting to tune it up, I found:

• The mouth was not at a right angle to the plane sides in the front or the back - fixed
• The blade has a slight taper (1/32" over its length) - didn't noticed until blade reground and sharpened, minor
• The frog doesn't sit flat on the four casting points in the base - it rocks forward as the bolts are tightened. Off by a bit less than 1/32".
• The blade will not sit square to the mouth without shimming one side of the frog - using a couple of 1/32" washers as shims for now
• Two holes in the base casting (one for frog, one for frog adjustment) are drilled off-center - ground down one washer to let the bolt engage when frog positioned as desired
• The mouth is too narrow to allow the plane blade to be set for anything besides the thinnest of shavings, as you would on say a #7

There are so many things wrong with the plane that I find it hard to believe it's not a QA reject that accidentally made its way out of the factory.

I (perhaps foolishly) spent several hours on this plane yesterday. I've read that the type 16-19 planes are decent, and the type 20 are the ones to in general stay away from. I have a #6 type 20 and other than trying to keep the frog in alignment while adjusting it, it's otherwise a fine plane.

It's clear to me that the plane is probably not worth investing any more of my time on, but I'd like to take the opportunity to get some learning out of it. My various searches via Google and on the site didn't yield much negative about the type 19 but since it appears to me that Stanley ruined the frog mounting and adjustment in the newer ones I won't be buying any of these again. I don't have a specific need for the #3, it was more or less an impulse buy. My #4C (my great-grandfather's, beat but very usable), #5, #6 and #8C are doing me just fine.

On the last bullet point, is the mouth on the #3 typically quite narrow like this? I can't move the frog forward or backward one iota without hitting one side or the other of the mouth in the body. The blade is factory, 0.085", not a thick aftermarket one.

Cheers,

- Leo

[steven c newman]

Simple fix....buy a replacement base casting....as the one you have is a reject....nhplaneparts usually has one for around..$20 or so.....make sure it is the "Y" type 4 frog seat...

[Jim Koepke]

Howdy Leo and welcome to the Creek.

There is a lot of information in the Neanderthal wisdom/FAQs on getting planes to work well > https://sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?103805 < Unfortunately you will not be able to see any images without becoming a Contributor ($6 a year). You may also want to consider including your location in your profile. There may be another member close to you who would be happy to help you get your #3 working like a champ.

Many here have their favorite type or era of planes to buy and use.

My preference is for planes before type 14. This allows one to use a low knob if one wants a low knob. It is also before the ogee frog came into use. My oldest plane is a type 4 #6 and gets used often. It is a pre-lateral adjuster yet easy to set up and use.

As time moved forward less people were using hand planes. Some of the makers eventually quit making planes or went out of business entirely. Those that stayed in business needed to cut costs. The earlier planes have a nice fit and finish. The later planes have rougher castings and less time was spent on making them to work right out of the box.

There are so many things wrong with the plane that I find it hard to believe it's not a QA reject that accidentally made its way out of the factory.

There may not have been much in the way of QC or QA when your plane was made. If it was put together by a disgruntled employee, you may be the victim of their ire.

• The frog doesn't sit flat on the four casting points in the base - it rocks forward as the bolts are tightened. Off by a bit less than 1/32".

A careful inspection may provide you with a way to correct this with the use of a file or making some permanent shims.

Once you get the frog so it can seat you may want to carefully file the mouth a bit more open.

If this doesn't get the plane to be a good user, another choice would be to put a bit of camber on the blade and use it as a scrub plane.

jtk

[Jim Koepke]

Leo, one thing did slip my train of thought. You may be able to post images for contributors to be able to see. This might help to determine if you base needs attention of if it is the frog needing attention.

jtk

[Leo Butler]

Hi Steven, Jim.

Thanks for the thoughts and suggestions. I'll check out the replacement base casting, and perhaps experiment (a little) with some either some shim stock or filing of the casting to get a more satisfactory engagement of the machined surfaces. I already filed the mouth opening a bit and I can definitely take it farther.

If I knew for sure the frog was 100% correct I'd just buy the base casting and proceed from there. But if the relative difference in height between the two machined surfaces is incorrect on the frog, then I'd be looking at pretty much the same problem. I managed to make what I think are some pretty accurate measurements from the base of the plane to the upper machined frog seats and I convinced myself they're identical and level. If so, that ~1/32 inch washer I added to get the frog positioned such that the blade position looks much better has me suspecting the frog has its problems as well. I'm trying to figure out how to make some measurements on it as well. When I set it on a 3/4" block and put feeler gauges under lower frog castings, there was about 22/1000 on each side so they were at least not uneven. I feel like that would only leave me with the angled bed of the frog that could be to blame for the blade skew.

I probably would have been better off buying a Wood River version and calling it good. But the mystery of it has me curious. ;-)

- Leo

[Stew Denton]

35 Leo,

You have just heard from two of the top restorers on this forum in Steven and Jim.

With regards to "is this normal" my answer would be "no." Your #3 sounds like it has major milling problems, which I do not believe is typical for a type 19. That said I only have one type 19 to compare to your plane, and that plane was my dads. While my more vintage planes are clearly better planes, my #5 type 19 is very usable as a smoothing plane or for more typical Jack plane uses.

It does not have the nice touches and feathers of my older planes, but it is much much better quality than what you describe. I would not be handicapped much if it were my only #5. Having it as my only #5 would slow me down because I could thus not have two different #5s set up differently for different tasks. Thus I would have to switch the set up on the #5 from time to time, depending what I wanted to use it for.

If I was in your situation, I would go with the route Jim gave as an alternative, and thus go the route of a scrub plane. I would probably want to help the plane with what I could do to make it better, but with significant limits. Thus, I would do only a moderate amount of work to get the frog to set better on the bed, but would not go to tons of work to get it "perfect."

If your use of shims got the frog to set reasonably well I might stop there, along with attempting to get the iron to set better on the frog.

If you don't mind spending significantly more time, you could try to find the high spots by coating the contact spots on the frog with layout blue and then rub the frog on the bed to see where the high spots are. You can then use a file or sandpaper glued on the right size piece of wood to grind down the high spots until the frog does not rock.

A scrub plane is a useful plane to have, so going with a minimal amount of work to get it to the point of being a useful scrub plane is a good way to go IMHO. A #3 is a good size to convert into a scrub plane.

I have a #3 Dunlap that is not a very good plane, and a type 19 Stanley Bailey #5 that is not too bad but it is not as good as other vintage Stanley #5s that I have. Both of them belonged to my dad, and I am thinking that they will each get far more use as scrub planes than they will ever get as regular bench planes. Thus, I will get to use those two planes that belonged to my dad much more as scrub planes, and thus they will be far more useful to me and I will get to enjoy them much more that way. I don't have time to fool with them now, but it is a project for the future.

That said, I would not want to put any money in such a plane for a replacement base, as you don't know how good are the other parts. Steven is pretty good at restoring planes like yours, so the replacement bed might fix things, but it might not. I would rather go with a better plane for use as a smaller smoothing plane, so I would go garage sailing or flea marketing and use the $20 toward a much better vintage #3, that is if you want a #3. Some folks really like a #3 after using one a bit. I have a couple. Nice lighter weight planes.

If you go the route of the scrub plane and saving the $20 for use toward a better #3, you potentially end up with TWO very useful planes. One being a #3 scrub plane and the other as a good vintage Stanley #3 that you buy with the $20 and a little more cash.

The bottom line for me in this kind of a choice is a time versus rewards versus risk situation. Again, if it were me, I would much rather go with a little work to make it a good scrub plane than to spend a lot of time trying to get it to be a good smoothing plane. The risk of failure with restoring it to being a good smoothing plane is too great, given my skill level. I believe either Jim or Steven could get there, but I am uncertain whether I could get there or not. Only you can decide which is the best approach for you to take.

Regards,

Stew

[steven c newman]

One of the first things I do...is remove all the paint from the mating surfaces.....sometimes, there is way too much of it, and rarely evenly applied.....might even be slight bump where a tad too thick spot would be...

I use a wire cup in the drill press, to clean the seats...all 4 spots on the base casting....Then, I give the frog a short ride on the belt sander, right on the seats, until shiny, and square to the edge of the frog....again, all 4 seats....

usually, this is all that needs done, to get a frog to sit the way it was designed to fit. Check the fit for any wiggles going on.

[Jim Koepke]

#3 planes are a bit on the rare side in the wild but they do show up. About 6 years ago it was my luck to find a $25 Keen Kutter K3. That is a plane made by Stanley to the early round top Bedrock design.

Have found a Dunlap (Millers Falls) and a Stanley/Bailey type 13. They are nice to have for smaller work.

jtk

[Robert Hazelwood]

Type 19 was the last type before Stanley totally cheaped out, but they are known for soft irons and spotty QC. I have owned one, a #5, that I cleaned up and gave to my sister in law who was getting into woodworking. That one was a pretty nice plane, got it working well without much fuss.

Yours sounds like a real dud. Might make a good project for a machinist apprentice.

[steven c newman]

Recently, I picked up a few planes ( Labor Day Tractor Fest, West Liberty, OH), and one of them was a Type 20 Stanley, No. 4
Stanley No. 4 rehab, start.JPG
handsome, ain't it?
Stanley No.4 rehab, brass wheel.JPG
The frog needed a bit of work
Stanley No. 4 rehab, blue base.JPG
So did the base. So....after about...90 minutes..
Stanley No.4 rehab, right side.JPG
Including removing the black paint from the handles...sharpening the chewed up OEM iron, and mating it to the chip breaker....All bare metal shined up, it even did a nice job on Ash
Stanley No.4 rehab, Ash shavings.JPG
From an iron that looked like this..
Stanley No. 4 rehab, ugly iron.JPG
To doing see-through shavings. Plane apparently was barely used, then left to sit on a shelf in a barn. $3 for the plane. Sole was indeed flat. Yes, this IS a Type 20, stanley #4....
These are the ones I brought home that day..
West Liberty, 3, 4, and 5 planes.JPG
$10 in planes..front to rear: Sargent VBM 408c, Stanley No. 4 , Type 20, Craftsman( Millers Falls) #5 sized Jack plane. The Sargent is from around 1907..
Sargent 408c, done.JPG
Took a wee bit longer to rehab....the Craftsman? Awaiting a better rear handle...had issues with being brazed..bought it more for parts...then just went ahead and rehabbed.

OP: colour the mating surfaces with a black sharp....run a wide mill file flat across the areas...one pass to see the high spots....then file until the sharpie is gone...might take...5 minutes? Get rid of the shims, as they tend to raise the frog up, and the frog then loses contact with the ramp down at the mouth opening...that will result in the frog wanting to tip a bit.

[Leo Butler]

Hi, Stew.

If I was in your situation, I would go with the route Jim gave as an alternative, and thus go the route of a scrub plane.

This is probably the best advice; I find that I am in need of one. I have a Shelton #4 with an integrated/non-adjustable frog and the deepest mouth you've ever seen that I was going to convert since it's not useful as a smoother with the gap in front of the blade. But this #3 would be nicer to use.

That said, I would not want to put any money in such a plane for a replacement base, as you don't know how good are the other parts.

This is the direction I'm leaning as well.

so I would go garage sailing or flea marketing and use the $20 toward a much better vintage #3

Go out and DO something? Around PEOPLE? I don't think I remember how to do that. That's a time investment too, with somewhat low probabilities of finding something, so I think I'm better off buying online. My wife is suggesting that I spend more time making things, and less time fooling around with the things that make things. She may have a point there.

Thanks,

- Leo

[Leo Butler]

#3 planes are a bit on the rare side in the wild but they do show up. About 6 years ago it was my luck to find a $25 Keen Kutter K3. That is a plane made by Stanley to the early round top Bedrock design.

Have found a Dunlap (Millers Falls) and a Stanley/Bailey type 13. They are nice to have for smaller work.

Hi Jim,

Yeah, I thought I had found a little gem when I got this one, but no such luck. I dislike the sloppy frog adjustment so much that I'll never buy one of these "newer" planes again.

I have a Fulton #5 and Millers Falls #4 and if I found a similar #3 from the same time period I'd be very happy with it, I'm sure. These two planes are very nicely made and work well.

I bought a couple of my planes from Patrick Leach, oh, a bit over 20 years ago so they were known good. Are there good sources for buying older planes these days with similar provenance?

Thanks,

- Leo

[Leo Butler]

Hi Steven,

Recently, I picked up a few planes ( Labor Day Tractor Fest, West Liberty, OH), and one of them was a Type 20 Stanley, No. 4

I'm in the S.F. Bay Area and I don't think there are nearly as many opportunities to find tools in a similar venue. But even if there are I'm probably better off not finding out about them; my wife and I have a long-running disagreement regarding how many tools are enough.

OP: colour the mating surfaces with a black sharp....run a wide mill file flat across the areas...one pass to see the high spots....then file until the sharpie is gone...might take...5 minutes? Get rid of the shims, as they tend to raise the frog up, and the frog then loses contact with the ramp down at the mouth opening...that will result in the frog wanting to tip a bit.

Yeah, I'm not happy having the shims (washers, no less) in there. I'll take another stab at making a determination whether the frog or the base (or both) are in need of the filing. But I should probably finish the bookcase I'm making for my wife before going down that rabbit hole again.

Thanks,

- Leo

[Andrew Seemann]

I'm a fan of the #3 plane. The one I use the most is probably a type 17-19 one (I'm not into types, so I don't know exactly) and it works quite well. I'm wondering if you ended up with a frankenplane, with mismatched pieces from different types. That would explain the badly fitting parts, although QC going to h#ll if it is later production run is a possibility as well.

But more importantly, yes, get your wife's bookcase done before you fiddle with another plane

[Charles Guest]

You have issues with the basic casting. I can't imagine why it's advisable to move forward with restoration efforts. These planes are far from scarce. Unless working metal is your goal, stop and find a model in better fettle.