RVA

The Stanley is done. Please do not judge this as a restoration. I already got carried away by lapping the bottom flat except for a .001" gap behind the mouth, and being dissatisfied this it did not look machine clean. I coated the wood with 3 coats of Tru-Oil and buffed it out with Maguire's fine cut cleaner and then swirl remover using a Milwaukee M12 polisher/buffer. The only thing left to do is sharpen the blade

On 2/12/2024 at 4:14 PM, henrim said:

As I was going to plane the top smooth I finally decided to tackle an issue with my smoothing plane. At some point I have managed to sharpen the blade out of square. I haven’t bothered to fix it because I can adjust the angle in the plane. But  it has gradually gotten worse and today it was finally time to grind the blade square again. Although I didn’t grind it because it is so cold in the basement. Instead I did it in the upstairs workshop and squared the blade with 180 grit water stone by hand and then the rest with the Tormek. Took some time but now it’s pretty close to perfect again. And yes, I got the top smoothed too. 

Nice plane and nice work!  Do you ever put a camber on your smoothing plane blades?

4 hours ago, henrim said:

Fascinating stuff.

That twisted adjuster is a brilliant design, in terms of cost-effectiveness. Simple to make and uses only one piece of material. Not the most elegant solution but does the job just fine. Could it be that they reverted to a simple and cost efficient design during the war time? Don't know, but there is a whole page about lateral adjusters here:
https://www.timetestedtools.net/2016/01/26/quickly-identify-your-hand-plane/

Excellent find.

I don't think mine is a wartime build. I think they lacked  a brass adjustment knob and rosewood totes. I am almost certain my totes are rosewood and it has a brass knob and  tote caps. I think they went to steel for many of the brass parts during the war and used a different wood

5 hours ago, Bizman62 said:

So yours has a twist downwards as well? I saw those too but yours looked straight in the picture so I let it be. But here it is: https://mvflaim.com/2021/03/13/oddball-smoothing-plane/

As many planes are more or less copies of the same design many parts can be interchangeable. Your frog sure looks like a Stanley Type 16 and up but the lever may have broken and been replaced.

Good find! Mine also has a seat for the tote like Stanley, the Stanley lever cap, the lip in the front and back, and a Stanley blade (FWIW). I think you may be right about the lever replacement. The only other major discrepancy is the Made In USA placement. I have still not found a Stanley with this behind the front knob.

7 hours ago, Bizman62 said:

The frog looks like a Stanley starting from Type 16, the "ogee" type with the holes instead of being flat. So it's definitely not any earlier version. Lots of information about the changes type 16 introduced here: https://youtu.be/cBpOQn69lIA?feature=shared.

That lever sure looks odd, I tried to find a similar one but no cigar. Stanley seems to have done it with a separate thumb piece hammered into a square slot until 1962 when they changed it into a bent one similar to your Sargent.

Doesn't this Union lever look similar to yours? Stanley bought Union in the early 1920's and used their stock as long as it lasted. At least there's the washer with a rivet and another rivet right above it:

Thank you for the search and the pic. 

It does look similar, as if mine was that version but twisted. The twist could have been caused by a woodworker frustrated by a board that fought back!!

A very good catch!  There is no obvious repair there. I will hunt around and see if I can find any other Stanley with that lateral adjustment lever

8 hours ago, Bizman62 said:

Cool indeed. Did you notice that the photo on the page is not the plane in question?!? There's no rib on the toe and heel. Had to double check and found this little plethora of Stanley plane information: https://www.timetestedtools.net/2016/01/27/stanley-type-16/  . According to that there's something that don't match with your plane: The size of model 16 should be in the front and the Made in USA should be in the rear section. And it should read Bailey behind the front knob. Strange... Not saying you're wrong, though, as it could be a Frankie with bits and pieces from other planes. Or a wartime "use what's in the stock" model.

 

I did see that. I attributed that to the fact that there is a significant date range and they may have changed as to the particulars. I could not find any type that fit my specs precisely. I even looked on E-Bay.  At this point, I am willing to take their word for it!

It is a type 16 1933- 1941. Pretty cool 

https://woodandshop.com/identify-stanley-hand-plane-age-type-study/stanley-bailey-type-16-hand-plane-1933-1941/

Good Stanley plane history video

The wood seems to be Brazilian rosewood. I a, going to try to seal it with Tru-oil and see if it cures properly. I will start with a test area.

3 hours ago, Bizman62 said:

Just out of curiosity, have you tried to estimate the age of the Stanley? I know it's less than a hundred years old since it has the raised ring in the front but the lateral adjustment lever looks odd. This is the simplest tool I know of to identify US Stanleys: https://woodandshop.com/identify-stanley-hand-plane-age-type-study/

It seems Sargent planes are quite well documented as well: https://www.sargent-planes.com/sargent-plane-type-study/

Thank you. That flowchart is very helpful for the Stanley.  The  "Made in USA" puts it after 1930, but I have to inspect it more closely with the chart on front of me to be more precise. 

As you said, the Sargent was easier.  It appears to have been made between 1920-1940, I think.

Oh, bonus plane! My dad gave me an old Sargent plane too, also with blue paint

Well, I jumped all over the Stanley tonight as soon as I got it. Since I gave up on the underlying finish, I am taking the handle down to bare wood. There is some nice grain there. 

7 minutes ago, Bizman62 said:

That's true only for Made in USA Stanley planes, those made in GB or Australia are more Frankensteinish regarding their details.

The video is interesting but as they say and stress at 1:30 you can only use that method on a clearcoated surface. The clearcoat of cars is most likely 2k poly or at least acryl/alkyd lacquer, not nitro or shellac. That said, as the handles already are "ruined" with the blue paint you won't be doing much further damage by accidentally stripping some of the original finish.

Three of my four Stanleys were made in England made so I wasn't too worried about saving the original crackled finish. The fourth one is a US made from 1925-28 but as the handles apparently weren't original I didn't care about saving their finish either. The story of that one: https://www.projectguitar.com/forums/topic/55200-restoration-of-an-old-hand-plane/?do=findComment&comment=635001 p.  There's another restoration story by @curtisa: https://www.projectguitar.com/forums/topic/53060-stanley-handplane-restoration/?do=findComment&comment=596904

 

Thanks for the advice. I am looking forward to reading those threads.

This plane will be used, not sold, so I will do my best to make it attractive and comfortable. I will post pics as I go. 

I found this video showing amazing results from a mix of three commercially available products.. Unlikely that the finish on the Stanley is the same as this car,, but interesting nonetheless.. 

Thank you gentlemen. I guess further inspection is needed. I will post more pics.

Mates,

My dad is giving me this vintage Stanley hand plane. I would like to remove the paint without damaging the underlying finish so as to preserve its vintage character. What is the safest way to do this?

Thank you for any guidance. 

There was a very nice back hiding under there! 

3 hours ago, ADFinlayson said:

This all escalated much quicker than I expected

I scored all around where the neck joins the body, inwards at a 45º angle to cut through the poly. although the finish had been sanded off the neck, it was still thick right at the join. Then I did about 15 minutes of iron. 

And pop, came out dead easy. Almost too easy...

 

Wow, very nice.

Did you do that with just heat through a paper towel from the back only? Was the paper towel wet? Did it affect the finish (which I know would not concern you do to the pending refinish, but in case it was relevant). 

Thanks 

Very interested to see this. When my PRS "V12" finish started to flake off like a sunburn, they refinished it for free without affecting the "fade" stain. Quite impressive to me. 

before

after

FYI:

Info that I could not find on the internet

PRS non-adjustable wraparound is .48" (12.2mm) thick at the center / tallest point - this is my measurement

The Golden Age low profile bridge per Stew Mack is "...0.533" (13.54mm) high at the highest saddles (G) from the bottom" 
----
BUT here are some lower profile intonatable wraparound bridge choices

Wilkinson  (compensated G and D only) 12.75 mm
https://www.amazon.com/Wilkinson-Adjustable-Intonated-Wraparound-Tailpiece/dp/B08P1K7B5G?th=1

Schaller Signum - 12.9 mm
https://schaller.info/en/bridges/529/signum?c=52

Pigtail - 13.08 mm
https://www.stewmac.com/parts-and-hardware/all-hardware-and-parts-by-instrument/electric-guitar-parts/electric-guitar-bridges-and-tailpieces/non-trem-electric-guitar-bridges/pigtail-aluminum-wraparound-bridge/

Hope this helps someone. If not, at least I know where to look when I forget!
 

7 minutes ago, Bizman62 said:

Isn't it relaxating to find out that there's ways to deal with or even prevent tear-out, cupping etc. and that all you have to do is ask?

 

I am always comforted and appreciative of the assistance I get here (not to mention inspired).

And you are right. It is much better than most other things I do in a week, pitfalls included, and a good workout for the problem solving skills

24 minutes ago, Asdrael said:

That too I could write a short tutorial if there is interest on how to do neck profiles with the facetting method in a CAD software. It's honestly fast and very convenient, and in the end you can laser cut quite a few templates to check what you have on your guitars, what you like, and your progress once you make your own.

Thank you. That is a very nice offer.

At present I do not have any hardware for CAD or CNC. I was very tempted to start acquiring it, but I feel that need to aquire some skills with my hands first. The original idea was to do it as a form of relaxing, but then I learned about tear-out, cupping etc, so it is a mixed bag!!

5 minutes ago, Asdrael said:

What you can also do is make the neck profile in a CAD software and see where everything ends up being. It's honestly not too hard. I use LibreCAD and you can get a decent overview.

 

Thank you. I finally have a reason to try out CAD software!

4 hours ago, Bizman62 said:

That's a good reminder! The height of the rods has never been mentioned in this thread unless that piece of information slipped my eye.

Back in the day I compiled this piece of math for calculating how much thickness you'd need for a flat inlay piece so it won't be sanded through when radiusing the fretboard. It might help estimating how much wood there is to cover the rods. If the rods are properly seated to the bottom of the slots you'd only need a single mm to hide the rods. Strength wise they could even peek through but making that look good might be challenging.

The actual numbers depend on the neck shape, but for a half round neck R would be about 22mm at the first fret.  Y is what you'd want to know, in this case in two locations. And just for clarity the drawing is "upside down" for this purpose, the fingerboard would be at the tip of the triangle.

 

Thank you.  Your calculations are impressive. That side of the brain never worked well for me!