# Stanley No.6 ....Frankenplane?



## adot45 (Jul 8, 2013)

Working on a pretty sweet Stanley No.6 type 8 and have a question. I'm using the Hyperkitten flow chart. 


So: 
1 How many patent dates = 0
2 Raised ring cast into sole = no
3 Is plane number cast into bed? = yes (but it's in the toe)
Here arises the first question. Starting with type 6 the numbers are cast into the beds, 4 and down on the toe, 5 and up on the heel. And I'm keeping in mind the type study is for No.4's. But my number 6 is cast into the toe. But the number cast into the bed is the number cast into bed regardless if it's in front or in the back? To continue.
4 How many patent dates appear on the lateral adjuster? = 1
Additional information is a “B” cast into the bottom of the frog. A “B” cast into the back of the lever cap. The blade is “STANLEY PAT AP'19, 92” ( 1891-1904)


So generally speaking all these clues point to a type 8...the second thing that gets my attention besides the number placement irregularity is the plane has a high knob...supposedly not started until type 12. OK, in a 100+ years hand tools that are used can get broken and parts replaced so I'm not all stiff legged about the high knob, especially since I have a correct low knob to replace it with. But what's up with that number on the toe? I sure hope this isn't some sort of frankenplane.


----------



## BZawat (Sep 21, 2012)

What size depth adjustment knob does it have? Additionally, if it is the small (1") version, is there anything stamped into it (type 7 was the last one with the stamp)? Also, does it have a frog adjustment screw? If not it is a type 9 or earlier. The knob is probably a replacement.


----------



## adot45 (Jul 8, 2013)

BZawat said:


> What size depth adjustment knob does it have? Additionally, if it is the small (1") version, is there anything stamped into it (type 7 was the last one with the stamp)? Also, does it have a frog adjustment screw? If not it is a type 9 or earlier. The knob is probably a replacement.



The adjuster is the small size and there are no dates stamped inside. There is no frog adjuster, that feature didn't appear till type 10. I definitely agree that the knob is a replacement because I found the brass is the waisted type nut and this type should still have the solid barrel brass with the shorter bolt. Also since my first post I took the tote off and there is a "B" cast into the bed in the tote mount. 
I appreciate your response, thanks.


----------



## BZawat (Sep 21, 2012)

I have a No 7 that is a type 7, and like yours it has the number cast into the toe, not the heel. All I can figure is they must have cast it both ways. Or perhaps a small error in the type study


----------



## Dave Paine (May 30, 2012)

The pictures help. Seeing the frog reminded me to look at my restoration queue.

I have an old No 8 which has the same shaped frog, also stamped "B" which I think is a foundry mark.

The sole has the same plat pattern for the frog, but no "B" in the tote area.

The sole has "No 8" similar to yours, without a dot after No. Looks just like yours with "8" instead of "6".

My blade is "STANLEY" then patent date on line beneath.

The cap iron has the LEONARD BAILEY and his patent date on line beneath.

All the components look original. Blade has been sharpened a lot.

I think you have a Stanley, even if some parts replaced, likely to be Stanley parts.


----------



## adot45 (Jul 8, 2013)

BZawat said:


> I have a No 7 that is a type 7, and like yours it has the number cast into the toe, not the heel. All I can figure is they must have cast it both ways. Or perhaps a small error in the type study


 This is very interesting I think......because between the three of us we have a 5, 6, 7 and 8 marked with the number cast into the toe. Thanks again


----------



## adot45 (Jul 8, 2013)

Dave Paine said:


> The pictures help. Seeing the frog reminded me to look at my restoration queue.
> 
> I have an old No 8 which has the same shaped frog, also stamped "B" which I think is a foundry mark.
> 
> ...


 That is what I was hoping would be the consensus but I am still new enough that when a flag pops up I start to wonder. I have other planes with the number cast into the toe but they use a zero in front of the number instead of just the number like Stanley. ie Stanley is No.7 whereas others are No.07 Thank you both. :thumbsup:


----------



## Dave Paine (May 30, 2012)

adot45 said:


> I have other planes with the number cast into the toe but they use a zero in front of the number instead of just the number like Stanley. ie Stanley is No.7 whereas others are No.07


I think Ohio Tool used the 0 in front of the number. Not sure which other companies may have used this convention.

Forum member TimeTestedTools has an extensive Ohio Tool plane collection. Take a look at his blog. Lots to see.

https://timetestedtools.wordpress.com/ohio-tools-collections/


----------



## aztoolman (Oct 13, 2013)

Dave Paine said:


> I think Ohio Tool used the 0 in front of the number. Not sure which other companies may have used this convention.
> 
> Forum member TimeTestedTools has an extensive Ohio Tool plane collection. Take a look at his blog. Lots to see.
> 
> https://timetestedtools.wordpress.com/ohio-tools-collections/


That is correct about Ohio Tool Co. putting the 0 in front of the other number. This looks like a Type 8 to me, type 9 they swapped BAILEY to the toe. I know this because I just bought a type 9 6C. That being said, the more I find these older types, the more I find that Stanley mixed and matched over the years and there isn't necessarily one "formula" for dating these planes. Maybe I'm wrong.. But, even if the parts don't all line up into one specific type, I think its fun to investigate what era each part comes from. Good times either way, nice looking plane you have there!

Pat


----------



## adot45 (Jul 8, 2013)

Thanks Pat, I agree that it's a lot of fun going through these old planes. I enjoy the many facets that old planes provide. They are really worth fixing up and setting back in shape. Never is it so obvious the expression, "They don't make em like they used to."


----------



## aztoolman (Oct 13, 2013)

adot45 said:


> Thanks Pat, I agree that it's a lot of fun going through these old planes. I enjoy the many facets that old planes provide. They are really worth fixing up and setting back in shape. Never is it so obvious the expression, "They don't make em like they used to."


My wife/family always say I have gone overboard with my obsession for collecting/restoring planes. I tell my wife to get up early with me and go picking for tools on the weekend, nope, she likes her beauty sleep. Oh well...


----------

