Maroon 60 1/2 question

[Richard Dooling]

At some point I somehow acquired a maroon (really?) Stanley 60 1/2. There's also some corrosion in the plating but I'll sand this out and oil the surfaces. I have a friend in need of a low angle block plane and figure this is a perfect opportunity to divest myself of this beauty.

Other than the odd paint choice, is there any manufacturing weakness in these planes? Patrick Leach says to stay away from these but doesn't mention any defect other than the color. I figure a good user is a good user.

Thanks,
Richard

[steven c newman]

Have had zero issues with mine...for quite a few years of use. The colour is actually called Cordovan.....Sharpen it up, and put it to work....I do.

[Tom M King]

Still using one I bought new in the early '70's. No worries at all with it, or the 9-1/2. I also bought an older Navy Blue pair, NOS in the boxes. I use them all, and can't say that one is any better than the other. They all do their job just fine.

[Tom Bussey]

Stanley's quality really started slipping about the time the blue planes came out. And when the maroon, cordovan, plane came out it had really started to go by the wayside. How ever the quality on the block plane didn't suffer to much. I tend to agree with Tom M King and say they will all do their job just fine.

[Jim Koepke]

My maroon/cordovan #60-1/2 is a fine plane. During the time line of the manufacturing, Stanley was always looking for ways to lower the cost of production. The later planes may not have as nice of a casting, finish or machining.

Another sacrifice was the bedding of the blade behind the mouth. The early models had a longer ramp than the later models. For a while some of the planes after yours were even worse and painted black. One of my Stanley #60 series block planes was purchased in the 1980s. It is actually a good user. My grandson has it now. He chose it over the maroon plane. It did look a lot better finished and shinier. It also had a lateral adjuster the earlier models didn't have.

In the last few years a couple of the earlier models have been acquired:

#60-1:2 Disassembled.jpg

This was the first of the two older style purchased. Note the length of the blade bed behind the mouth.

It even has me thinking about selling my LN #60. The LN is much heavier which is a problem for me at times.

Here is an old post with a comparison of #60-1/2 planes from different years > https://sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?123401 < It includes my maroon #60-1/2, my English Stanley block plane and an American made one found at a yard sale.

jtk

[Rob Luter]

I had a maroon 60 1/2. It worked just fine.

[Richard Dooling]

That's interesting Jim. The blade bed is MUCH shorter in mine. Now as I'm trying to tune it up some I can see the lower quality in the machining. The black 60 1/2 I'm keeping is better but not stellar. One I also purchased in the 80s was a good plane but I gave that to my son-in-law. I use my LN for most of this work now unless there's a potential for blade damage.

Still they are functional.

[Richard Dooling]

Thanks for everyone's input! I am proceeding with some basic tune ups and hope to ship this out next week. The recipient really just needs a starter plane for rough work.

Later I'll recommend a replacement blade and then eventually send her a LN catalog. Let the games begin!

[Tom M King]

After on one of my block plane irons wore down, I replaced it with a Hock. I really like the steel, but square top corners are Not a good thing on a block plane.

[Richard Dooling]

After on one of my block plane irons wore down, I replaced it with a Hock. I really like the steel, but square top corners are Not a good thing on a block plane.

I've used Hocks in bench planes but I can see where they would be a problem in a block plane. I'm looking at an ebay 60 1/2 and if I get it I'll probably buy a Lee Valley replacement blade. I still might have to reshape depending on how it projects from under the lever cap.