# Latest planes for restoration



## Dave Paine (May 30, 2012)

I just received two old planes for restoration. EBay auctions. Not my favourite source.

One is a Stanley No. 6. The other was supposed to be a Stanley No. 8, but I am not so sure. 

The No. 6. 3 patent dates on the casting. Casting is in good shape. I was expecting it would need to be repainted.









I am not sure if the frog has been replaced. The casting has a hole for a frog adjustment screw, but the frog does not have a hole for the bracket for the frog adjustment plate.

I knew from the EBay pictures that the blade has been sharpened almost to the hole. I need to replace the blade at least.

Small brass lateral adjustment wheel.









The No. 8 has only "No 8" in the casting no reference to BAILEY. There is not period after "No" and the letter "O" is about half the size of the letter "N" and placed vertically in the middle of the letter "N".

The overall plane.









The cap iron has "L. BAILEY's PATENT DEC 24 1867" upside down on the bottom. I have seen this on my recent old No. 5.

The blade has "STANLEY PATENT 1892". Not easy to see, but this has also lost a lot of metal to sharpening. The hole is at the bottom of the slot. I would have expected this to be at the top.

This frog seem original. No frog adjustment hole in the frog or casting.

Small brass lateral adjustment wheel.









The EBay pictures showed the frog had been brazed. Not easy to see from this side, but the upper right corner had been broken. The brazing on the back side is messy at best.









So the big question is did I buy a Frankenplane No. 8 or could this be original. My first No. 8 so looking for any words of wisdom.


----------



## Dave Paine (May 30, 2012)

The No. 8 may be original. I cleaned off the lateral adjustment lever, STANLEY and single patent date.

The blade once cleaned states "STANLEY" and "PAT AP'L 19, 92" in two separate lines.

"B" foundry mark stamped on the frog.

The Patrick Leach study site makes this look like a Type 8.

The No. 6 also have one patent date and "STANLEY" on the lateral adjustment lever. The blade is a SW blade, which does not fit the age. Not a surprise if this was replaced.

It is possible an older frog without adjust bracket screw hole was installed with a casting with the frog adjustment screw hole.

Someone in a recent thread mentioned Stanley would use up parts and so sometimes the parts do not appear to match. Perhaps I have such an example.


----------



## Dominick (May 2, 2011)

That's a nice plane Dave. 
Heck I should just send my #4 to you to restore it. Laughing!!!! Not much time for me.


----------



## Dave Paine (May 30, 2012)

Dominick said:


> That's a nice plane Dave.
> Heck I should just send my #4 to you to restore it. Laughing!!!! Not much time for me.


Dominick, happy to help - seriously. Send it to me and I will give it a bit of the old spit and polish. :icon_smile:

It may just need tuning. I tuned my friends Stanley No. 4 earlier this year. This one just needed the blade to be sharpened and the sole lapped. Big difference. He was happy since it now cuts. :smile:


----------



## Dominick (May 2, 2011)

Dave Paine said:


> Dominick, happy to help - seriously. Send it to me and I will give it a bit of the old spit and polish. :icon_smile:
> 
> It may just need tuning. I tuned my friends Stanley No. 4 earlier this year. This one just needed the blade to be sharpened and the sole lapped. Big difference. He was happy since it now cuts. :smile:


Yea maybe I will. Let me beat around the bush on it. 
I haven't even had time to bring those DP parts to my uncle to machine a new one yet. To much work going on which is good, but I need some shop time. Lol
Thanks for the offer Dave.


----------



## EastexToolJunky (Mar 25, 2013)

What they set you back? If you don't mind me askin'.


----------



## Dave Paine (May 30, 2012)

EastexToolJunky said:


> What they set you back? If you don't mind me askin'.


Too much. :icon_smile:

If I recall around $25 for the No. 6 and around $45 for the No. 8 plus shipping, which was not cheap.

Not a gloat, but not too bad. If I recall the No. 6 had only 1 bid. I happened to look with only a few minutes on the clock. I entered the minimum bid expecting to be have auto-bids take it up. Did not happen.

The No. 8 had no bids. Also minutes on the clock. Likely the condition. I entered the minimum bid and again expected the last minute bid jumpers to come in. Did not happen. I was in two minds about this one due to the repair on the frog.


----------



## EastexToolJunky (Mar 25, 2013)

Fix em up and use em. The repairs only bother collectors. I am trying to fill out a set of planes. I figure I can get them on the cheap and practice my restoration skills. I'll upgrade when the right deal comes along.


----------



## timetestedtools (Aug 23, 2012)

Dave, I typed it at a type 8 before reading your responses, so I'd agree with the type 8. The cap iron shows a very early type 8 and the iron fits that time period.

You have enough iron left there for another 50 years. 
How much will you be sharpening it, you're always restoring other planes. (me too)


----------



## Sarge240 (Feb 8, 2013)

I am thinking of taking that No 6 off your hands buddy! 

Can't wait to try the No 7 you lent me!


----------



## Dave Paine (May 30, 2012)

*Stanley No. 5 next in the queue*

I was contacted by a forum member asking for a restored No. 5. This one was a purchase from EBay a few months ago. I will now be focusing on this one ahead of the No. 6.

It seems I did not take an as-received picture. Decent shape, light rust.

I dis-assembled, cleaned up the blade, cap iron, lever cap and removed most of the finish on the knob and tote.

The casting and back of the frog are now having the paint stripped.

Stay tuned for later progress on the restoration.









Thanks for looking.


----------



## Dave Paine (May 30, 2012)

*Stanley No. 3 dropped off today*

A friend was at a local flea market and picked up a couple of planes for me to restore or use as parts.

This is a Stanley No. 3. Looks like a Type 18, will make a good user after restoration. Do not let a little rust put you off. This plane has rust which will easily be removed.

Right view as-received.









Bottom view. Looks worse than it is. I think someone planing painted wood. This will come off when I lap the sole.









The components. Painted black knob and tote. Knurled brass adjustment wheel. The blade is in very good shape. May not have been sharpened.









This will now be put aside until a future restoration.


----------



## Dave Paine (May 30, 2012)

*Craftsman "Frankenplane"*

This is the other plane my friend dropped off today.

I think the lever cap is from a Sargent block plane based on a picture in a recent thread. Anyone have any thoughts?

Right view.









The components.









The bottom.









Looks to be in decent shape other than the very strange misfit lever cap.

I am not sure if this will get restored, unless I happen to find a correct lever cap.


----------



## DaveTTC (May 25, 2012)

I assume you repaint as part of the restoration - does it matter what sort of paint you use?


----------



## Dave Paine (May 30, 2012)

DaveTTC said:


> I assume you repaint as part of the restoration - does it matter what sort of paint you use?


I re-paint if the original paint is too far gone which is the majority.

The No. 5 plane in post #11 above was painted this afternoon. Many spots were bare metal. This particular plane was more of a challenge to get down to bare metal. Normally the paint flakes off. This one had two rounds with paint stripper, and some areas still took a lot of elbow grease to get to bare metal.

The front of the frog is fine, but I re-painted the back of the frog.

The paint recommended by TimeTestedTools is the one I am using. Not sure the Australian equivalent, but look for a semi-gloss engine enamel. 
*Dupli-Color Engine Enamel Ford Semi-Gloss*.

The painting step is easy. The preparation prior to painting is time consuming. First removing the old paint. Manual scraping for me since I do not have a sand blaster at home. Then masking off the areas to avoid paint, blocking off the screw holes with pieces of paper towel.

This one looks nice and clean ready for painting.









After painting and the masking tape removed.


----------



## DaveTTC (May 25, 2012)

I pondered whether it might be some kind of engine enamel. not sure how much difference there is one brand to another.

For the screw holes, would screwing a bit of dowel into the holes work as well, not sure how time consuming and easy each would be. I just imagine the paper may stick and be hard to deal with.

I think somewhere else you made mention of an adjustable frog, or maybe one that was not adjustable, the one you gave to your friend. is the adjustment or lack there of whether or not the holes in the frog are slotted?


----------



## timetestedtools (Aug 23, 2012)

> For the screw holes, would screwing a bit of dowel into the holes work as well


I never worry about filling the screw holes and have never had a problem. 
Here is my restoration blog, http://timetestedtools.wordpress.com/bench-plane-restore-the-dw-way/

I think what the frog adjustment was regarding the frog adjustment screw. It doesn't mean you can adjust the frog, you just need to do it manually.


----------



## DaveTTC (May 25, 2012)

timetestedtools said:


> I never worry about filling the screw holes and have never had a problem.
> Here is my restoration blog, http://timetestedtools.wordpress.com/bench-plane-restore-the-dw-way/
> 
> I think what the frog adjustment was regarding the frog adjustment screw. It doesn't mean you can adjust the frog, you just need to do it manually.


Thanks for the links I'll try to remember that one for future reference too


----------



## Dave Paine (May 30, 2012)

DaveTTC said:


> For the screw holes, would screwing a bit of dowel into the holes work as well, not sure how time consuming and easy each would be. I just imagine the paper may stick and be hard to deal with.
> 
> I think somewhere else you made mention of an adjustable frog, or maybe one that was not adjustable, the one you gave to your friend. is the adjustment or lack there of whether or not the holes in the frog are slotted?


A piece of paper or wood is all that is needed to prevent paint getting into the screw holes. I find paper easier to use.

The frog has been adjustable for a long time. Typically two screws to hold the frog to the sole. The frog had slots for the screws, so the user could nudge the frog forward or back to get the desired mouth opening.

I think Stanley Bedrock planes may have introduced an adjustment method which was controlled by a screw, so the frog could be easily moved, and controlled in the movement.

The regular Stanley planes eventually included a frog adjustment via a screw.

In this picture, you can see a vertical bracket in the middle. The sole is tapped for a screw which has a groove machined in the head. The bracket fits into the groove in the screw, so now the frog can be easily adjusted forward or back.

I like the screw adjustment, but it is a convenience rather than a requirement. Without the screw, a few more manual iterations may be needed to get the desired mouth opening.


----------



## DaveTTC (May 25, 2012)

You are a very helpful bloke Dave. 


Now I'm gonna have to check my other planes, never really paid attention. I had a jack plane and a smoothing plane when I was an apprentice. I gave one away when cause I thought power tools were the way. Kinda regret that now along with a heap of other tools I gave away or sold cheap. 

I just set and forget. Only ever adjusted blade depth and lateral adjustment. Besides sharpening and chip plate never done anything else.


----------

