# New to Woodworking - Hand Plane Questions



## adamsputnik (Aug 16, 2013)

G'day all,

I've been lurking around here for a while now and have found this place a great resource. I'm still very much in the stage of building up a collection of tools so that I actually have the ability to shape wood instead of making rough shapes that sit on the bench uselessly.

In light of my newbieness, it would appear that I have made some ebay-related blunders and bought myself two hand planes that may turn out to be useless, and was looking for some advice from the experienced people around here.

It appears that the two planes I bought are a Miller Falls, 60s era 900B plane, and a Stanley #4 dating from the late 70s/early 80s. Of course, I had no idea what all this meant at the time that I bought them, but in the ensuing days I've been looking into them and it looks like they might be clunkers.

Do I have any hope of making these useful, or have I just saddled myself with two rather bulky paperweights?


----------



## firemedic (Dec 26, 2010)

Pictures of the actual planes would be helpful.

Planes are simply jigs for chisels - the plane is centered around the chisel, ie the iron. If it is decent then you look at the jig or holding aid and ensure that it is solid. If those two elements are present it can be tuned till you little heart flutters about with the gossamer shaving it produces. 

You know those crappy buck brothers planes that Home Depot sells? They can be tuned up for use with about as much work as restoring a vintage Stanley or equivalent. There is no real reason to as they cost what a vintage plane does and the irons (blade) are even poorer that of Stanleys. 

What the difference between say a LN and those - well there is a thicker chisel made from better steel and there is a heavier bronze holder machined to high tolerances hence it's an all around better plane - but the difference is only appreciable at a high level of tuning. All things equal the difference becomes apparent. A LN plane can be just as much of a dud to use as a BB if neglected and unsharpened. 

You have nothing to lose by tuning up the planes you bought if for nothing other than the experience gained.

Edit:
And welcome to the forum.


----------



## jharris2 (Jul 9, 2012)




----------



## timetestedtools (Aug 23, 2012)

those planes can be made to work. It takes some patience and fortitude but it's possible.

this should help http://timetestedtools.wordpress.com/2013/02/04/tuning-it-up-bench-plane-style/


----------



## adamsputnik (Aug 16, 2013)

The first two images are the Miller Falls plane, and the bottom two are the Stanley.

Is that pitting on the base of the Stanley, or more just scratches? Not really sure what I'm looking at there.

Thanks for the help so far! Much appreciated.


----------



## timetestedtools (Aug 23, 2012)

The Millers Falls, although not pretty, is actually a fairly decent plane. It shouldn't take a whole lot of work. Just follow my blog I linked to. I've tuned a few of the Stanley's like you have and made them work. They have an aluminum frog, which isn't the best material for a frog, but they can be made to work as well.


----------



## Dave Paine (May 30, 2012)

The one you call Millers Falls looks like a Craftsman plane with a no-name lever cap. The blade on this one has been sharpened a lot.
The rust on the casting will clean up with e.g., 400 grit wet-dry paper and water or WD-40 as lubricant.

The Stanley No. 4 looks like dings in the sole. Pitting would be small / dark holes. The dings may be annoying, but should not impact using the plane. The blade on this one does not look bad.

As Timetestedtools said, these can be good users. I prefer the Stanley over the Craftsman.

I expect both planes will need the blade to be sharpened. In all my restorations the blades have needed to be sharpened.


----------



## timetestedtools (Aug 23, 2012)

The grey lever cap one is marked in the side, its a true Millers Falls made in the 50's or early 60's. It had a V logo sticker on the cap at one time. As a user, I'd prefer the MF's over that particular Stanley. The MF has a cast frog, steel in the base is decent. The lever cap was never milled finish and was just painted, so it didn't look as good, but functions as well as the vintage MF's or Stanleys. You will probably find the steel in the MF's to be better than that particular Stanley as well.

I keep saying "that particular Stanley" because its a newer Stanley, past the type 20, and quality had really dropped at that point.


----------



## Dave Paine (May 30, 2012)

timetestedtools said:


> The grey lever cap one is marked in the side, its a true Millers Falls made in the 50's or early 60's. It had a V logo sticker on the cap at one time.


Interesting. A new piece of trivia. Got me to look up the Millers Falls history.

The original poster may find this link useful. Good picture of the V logo sticker on the cap iron.

http://oldtoolheaven.com/bench/economyplanes.htm


----------



## adamsputnik (Aug 16, 2013)

Dave Paine said:


> The one you call Millers Falls looks like a Craftsman plane with a no-name lever cap. The blade on this one has been sharpened a lot.
> The rust on the casting will clean up with e.g., 400 grit wet-dry paper and water or WD-40 as lubricant.
> 
> The Stanley No. 4 looks like dings in the sole. Pitting would be small / dark holes. The dings may be annoying, but should not impact using the plane. The blade on this one does not look bad.
> ...


Yeah, I have been sharpening my chisels over the last week or so, so I think I have the general hang of it and am expecting to be spending a decent amount of time with these planes getting them sharp.

I should be getting them in the mail over the next few days, so perhaps I will have some more solid details on the condition and so forth.


----------



## adamsputnik (Aug 16, 2013)

timetestedtools said:


> The grey lever cap one is marked in the side, its a true Millers Falls made in the 50's or early 60's. It had a V logo sticker on the cap at one time. As a user, I'd prefer the MF's over that particular Stanley. The MF has a cast frog, steel in the base is decent. The lever cap was never milled finish and was just painted, so it didn't look as good, but functions as well as the vintage MF's or Stanleys. You will probably find the steel in the MF's to be better than that particular Stanley as well.
> 
> I keep saying "that particular Stanley" because its a newer Stanley, past the type 20, and quality had really dropped at that point.


I've been trying to find info on 'that particular Stanley' because all of the type studies on Stanley #4s end at 1967, and everything I have seen and read makes me think this plane is newer. Even the Type 20 doesn't have a very good reputation, so this one being a decade or more older doesn't fill me with confidence. I suspect hardly anyone actually owns one of these or uses it, otherwise I'd expect to find a little more info.


----------



## timetestedtools (Aug 23, 2012)

you mean a decade or so newer right?


----------



## adamsputnik (Aug 16, 2013)

timetestedtools said:


> you mean a decade or so newer right?


Right. There's my dyslexia coming out...


----------



## BKBuilds (Jan 12, 2013)

Expensive planes, you are paying for the look and being usable right out of the box. Put a nice blade / chip breaker in a tuned up old body and you'll have just as useful of a plane as the expensive ones.


----------



## jharris2 (Jul 9, 2012)

Only $1500 used!

http://albuquerque.craigslist.org/tls/4012279102.html


----------



## amckenzie4 (Apr 29, 2010)

I've cleaned up and used a Millers Falls 900; it's a good tool. Neither of those appear to need all that much work. Here's what I'd do.

1) Dismantle each plane, and clean all the rust and gunk out of the crevices. I like mineral spirits and a toothbrush for this phase. You're not trying to polish anything here: just get the worst of the crud out. There's frequently a lot of old sawdust, sometimes mixed with various lubricants, under the frog.

2) Sand and polish the sides and soles. Unless they're worse than they appear in the photos, I'd probably start with 220 grit paper glued to plate glass and work up to about 600. I like to use wet/dry paper and lubricate it with WD40; possibly not ideal, but it seems to work very well for me. Do this with the plane assembled and the blade retracted.

3) Do the same for the irons, though they may only need it on the inch or two closest the edge. I've had a few irons that needed to be scoured over their full area to get a flat surface to fit to the frog. When you're done cleaning them up, sharpen them with whatever sharpening method you prefer.

3) Make sure everything that is supposed to move does, and everything that's supposed to stay still does. This may involve some more cleaning, oiling, and so on. I like either paraffin wax or motorcycle chain lube for lubricating moving parts on hand tools: both work well, dry enough that chips don't stick to them, and don't tend to drip.

4) Put everything back together, and try it out on some scrap wood. Is the blade even, side to side? Does it advance and retract easily when the wheel is turned, and not shift when I'm using it to cut wood? Are the tote and knob stable? Does anything catch or scratch the wood? If those are all good, I put it in my toolbox for the next time I need it.


----------



## adamsputnik (Aug 16, 2013)

I received the Stanley plane yesterday. The base appears to be a bit convex - a good bit of light shows through when I put a straightedge along it. So it looks like I have some work to do to straighten that up.

I'll take the rest of it apart later on tonight and take a look at the smaller components.

What would be the best grit to start at to straighten up the base? I would guess there's about 1/16" hollow.


----------



## timetestedtools (Aug 23, 2012)

start with a belt sander and finish with sandpaper on a flat surface. Glass, granite, or jointer or tablesaw top will work. Mark the base with a marker and sand until it comes off even. I'd recommend sanding up to 220 or more.


----------



## adamsputnik (Aug 16, 2013)

timetestedtools said:


> start with a belt sander and finish with sandpaper on a flat surface. Glass, granite, or jointer or tablesaw top will work. Mark the base with a marker and sand until it comes off even. I'd recommend sanding up to 220 or more.


I don't have a belt sander right now. Would I be better off just waiting to purchase one, or is it doable with what I have now?

I have plate glass and sandpaper of 120/220/320 grit and higher (the higher grits I've been using for sharpening chisels, and now, I guess, the plane iron).


----------



## timetestedtools (Aug 23, 2012)

You can do it. I'd Start with 80 grit.


----------



## BZawat (Sep 21, 2012)

adamsputnik said:


> I don't have a belt sander right now. Would I be better off just waiting to purchase one, or is it doable with what I have now?
> 
> I have plate glass and sandpaper of 120/220/320 grit and higher (the higher grits I've been using for sharpening chisels, and now, I guess, the plane iron).


Im by no means an expert here, but I have lapped a few flat without a belt sander. I married 2 pcs of tempered 1/2" plate glass with contact cement to make a solid flat surface. Stuck a 120 grit sheet down with a couple dots of double stick tape and went to town. Takes some time & elbow grease but works great. Finished out at 320. 
I could definitely see starting at 80 with a sole that's so hollowed out though...


----------



## Dave Paine (May 30, 2012)

timetestedtools said:


> You can do it. I'd Start with 80 grit.


Yes you can, or perhaps I should say yes I do.

I use a granite block for a flat surface, but I lap my plane restorations with abrasive paper, and the same for sharpening.

Like TimeTestedTools stated, for lapping an out of shape sole, start with 80 grit. It goes fast. I stop at 220.

If the sole is almost flat, I will start with higher grit.

As mentioned using e.g., Sharpie to highlight the important areas, such as around the mouth will aid in knowing when you are getting to desired flat.

I personally look to get the sole flat from the toe to the exit of the mouth. If the rest of the sole also gets flat, it is a bonus, but the area from toe to around the mouth is most important for cutting performance.


----------



## adamsputnik (Aug 16, 2013)

I'll give it a bash. Thanks all for your help thus far.

My sharpening system seems to be doing alright - my chisels are taking some very nice, fine shavings tonight. 

Can't say the same for my measuring and sawing abilities.

After taking another look at the bottom of the plane, it might not be as convex as I thought. I also disassembled it all and there is a good bit of surficial rust and dirt. I'll have a play around with it tomorrow and see how it goes. Looking forward to cleaning it up and getting it in working order.

Not super keen on the colour, it's a sort of burgundy - any tips on repainting it?


----------



## Dave Paine (May 30, 2012)

adamsputnik said:


> Not super keen on the colour, it's a sort of burgundy - any tips on repainting it?


Getting the original paint off can be tedious. I use a paint stripper, but some areas come off easier than others. I spend a lot of time on the small areas which do not react to the stripper.

If you want to get close to the original black of the vintage Stanley's, then use *Dupli-Color Engine Enamel DUPDE1635 Ford Semi Gloss Black* spray paint.

This is what I use for my restorations. Recommended by TimeTestedTools. 

Easy to apply, but pay attention to the instructions.

Several coats 10 minutes apart, but stop after 1 hour. Then DO NOT try and recoat if anything missed for at least 7 days.


----------



## adamsputnik (Aug 16, 2013)

Any tips on applying the paint thinner?

If I do go down that route it won't be for a little while, but every hint and tip will help while I'm thinking about it.


----------



## Dave Paine (May 30, 2012)

adamsputnik said:


> Any tips on applying the paint thinner?
> 
> If I do go down that route it won't be for a little while, but every hint and tip will help while I'm thinking about it.


If you mean paint stripper rather than thinner, I use water based low odour strippers.

http://www.woodcraft.com/Product/2083445/34092/SOY-Gel-Professional-Paint-Stripper-Quart.aspx

Less expensive is Ready-Strip which I found at my local True Value. This is Home Depot link
http://reviews.homedepot.com/1999/1...-environmentally-friendly-reviews/reviews.htm

These take time to work. Apply thick coat, and leave overnight. Most of the paint will be softened. It will need to be scraped off.

Typically some areas will be stubborn and require more scraping, wire brush etc.


----------



## timetestedtools (Aug 23, 2012)

here is some general restoration help if you'd like, http://timetestedtools.wordpress.com/bench-plane-restore-the-dw-way/


----------



## adamsputnik (Aug 16, 2013)

Just bumping this thread to report some progress, finally.

I have been working on the Miller Falls plane. The sole seems pretty much flat from my perfunctory attempts to flatten it - the marker wore out consistently from front to back.

I've also flattened the back of the iron and begun to sharpen the edge. I don't have an edge grinder so I've been using the wet-dry sandpaper method. I think it was going pretty well, but there is a very thin bevel that I couldn't flatten after about half an hour or so of trying. When I made my first attempt at actually using the plane, it was very inconsistent with the shavings - some were pretty decent, but a lot of them look more like flakes, and it the blade left scratches all along the wood. I don't have enough experience using it to know exactly what might be causing those scratches, though I have to assume it's not nearly sharp enough yet and is catching the fibres.

Maybe some of your more experienced gents can take a geezer at this image of the blade and might be able to glean something useful from it.


----------



## amckenzie4 (Apr 29, 2010)

Scratches, in my experience, mean something is catching. It could be the corners, or it could be a really tiny nick or burr in the edge.

As to the bevel you couldn't remove: what grit sandpaper are you using? Actually, that's relevant to the scratches, too. The other question here is how you're holding the iron at a constant angle. Are you free-handing it? Using a side-clamping jig? Using one of the fancy high-end jigs? If you're free-handing, my initial guess would be that you're doing what I used to do, and holding it at too low an angle. That means you're never going to get rid of that secondary bevel. Try the marker trick on the edge of the iron: blacken the entire bevel/secondary bevel, and then make a few passes over your sandpaper. That should show quite clearly whether you're holding the iron properly.


----------



## adamsputnik (Aug 16, 2013)

amckenzie4 said:


> Scratches, in my experience, mean something is catching. It could be the corners, or it could be a really tiny nick or burr in the edge.
> 
> As to the bevel you couldn't remove: what grit sandpaper are you using? Actually, that's relevant to the scratches, too. The other question here is how you're holding the iron at a constant angle. Are you free-handing it? Using a side-clamping jig? Using one of the fancy high-end jigs? If you're free-handing, my initial guess would be that you're doing what I used to do, and holding it at too low an angle. That means you're never going to get rid of that secondary bevel. Try the marker trick on the edge of the iron: blacken the entire bevel/secondary bevel, and then make a few passes over your sandpaper. That should show quite clearly whether you're holding the iron properly.


I started at 220 grit and worked up to 1200. I probably should have spent more time on the coarser paper though.

I'm using one of those side-clamping jigs, so I am pretty certain the angle is being kept consistent - the iron wasn't slipping around in the jig. I know I don't have the experience or the coordination yet to free-hand it.

If I can get that bevel out then I should also be able to get the edge nick-free. Just need to keep at it I guess.


----------



## amckenzie4 (Apr 29, 2010)

adamsputnik said:


> I started at 220 grit and worked up to 1200.


If you're trying to grind out a microbevel, start at 80. It'll look ugly, but it'll work. 220 is where I started for a touch up, when it just needed a little sharpening. For irons that really needed to be heavily re-ground I've gone as low as 60 grit. It leaves huge scars in the metal, but those smooth out as you go up.

The other thing is that someone may have ground that extra little bevel intentionally: I didn't think of it because I don't use it, but a lot of people grind one large bevel at a low angle, and a secondary (and very small) bevel right at the cutting edge at a higher angle. That might be what you're looking at.


----------



## adamsputnik (Aug 16, 2013)

amckenzie4 said:


> If you're trying to grind out a microbevel, start at 80. It'll look ugly, but it'll work. 220 is where I started for a touch up, when it just needed a little sharpening. For irons that really needed to be heavily re-ground I've gone as low as 60 grit. It leaves huge scars in the metal, but those smooth out as you go up.
> 
> The other thing is that someone may have ground that extra little bevel intentionally: I didn't think of it because I don't use it, but a lot of people grind one large bevel at a low angle, and a secondary (and very small) bevel right at the cutting edge at a higher angle. That might be what you're looking at.


I have 120 grit paper - I could try that out.

the blade was actually a bit of a mess, a bit rounded by the looks of it and with multiple bevels. I began with a 30 degree bevel and then went to 25 for the secondary bevel, but there's still a bit too much going on with the blade I think. The bevel I am trying to work on may actually be around 20 degrees, which makes me wonder if I can actually get rid of it if I am trying to put a 25 deg bevel on the edge.

too much bloody work with the sandpaper!


----------



## Dave Paine (May 30, 2012)

adamsputnik said:


> I began with a 30 degree bevel and then went to 25 for the secondary bevel, but there's still a bit too much going on with the blade I think. The bevel I am trying to work on may actually be around 20 degrees, which makes me wonder if I can actually get rid of it if I am trying to put a 25 deg bevel on the edge.


This does not make sense. I can imagine an initial bevel of 25 deg and then secondary bevel of 30 deg, but if you start with 30 deg, then any secondary bevel has to be higher deg.

If you want to send me your blade and cap iron I will sharpen for you. It will be easier for you to maintain an edge than to create a good edge.


----------



## adamsputnik (Aug 16, 2013)

Dave Paine said:


> This does not make sense. I can imagine an initial bevel of 25 deg and then secondary bevel of 30 deg, but if you start with 30 deg, then any secondary bevel has to be higher deg.
> 
> If you want to send me your blade and cap iron I will sharpen for you. It will be easier for you to maintain an edge than to create a good edge.


I am glad you said. It would appear that I got my sharpening arse-about. I'll try it again over the weekend and see if I can get it figured out. It would seem that I began at 25 degrees and then moved to 30 and didn't actually think about what that would mean. Makes sense though.

Edit: it would appear that I am misremembering. I am pretty certain I started out at 25 and then moved to 30 once I thought I had a pretty decent main bevel. So that would mean that the other microbevel I am seeing is at something higher than 30 degrees.

I think I'll just start over at 25, spend a bit more time and effort on it and get the entire surface flat before I try to establish another bevel. I think I just gave up too early.


----------



## adamsputnik (Aug 16, 2013)

So I sharpened up the blade and it seems to be doing much better. It could probably use even a bit more sharpening, but I wanted to see if any of you have some extra insight to add based on the results in these images:


----------



## Dave Paine (May 30, 2012)

Not sure if it is the picture, but the shaving looks like it may be thinner on the left than the right. If so, this is likely the blade not being exactly parallel to the sole. 

Sight down the sole and slowly retract the blade. You want the entire width of the blade to disappear into the sole at the same time. If one side starts to disappear first, tweak the lateral adjustment lever to that side.


----------



## adamsputnik (Aug 16, 2013)

Yes, I am just now understanding that technique. I'll give that a try. It can be quite difficult for me to judge how far out the blade has retracted sometimes. I guess it takes a bit of a practiced eye to make that judgment.

I also noticed that there is a scratch on the flat side of the iron. I am assuming that's from the chipbreaker, or could it be something else? Apparently the chipbreaker needs to be given a bit of a treatment too, but I haven't gotten around to that. It's been difficult enough just getting everything put together. What does that say...


----------



## Dave Paine (May 30, 2012)

adamsputnik said:


> Yes, I am just now understanding that technique. I'll give that a try. It can be quite difficult for me to judge how far out the blade has retracted sometimes. I guess it takes a bit of a practiced eye to make that judgment.
> 
> I also noticed that there is a scratch on the flat side of the iron. I am assuming that's from the chipbreaker, or could it be something else? Apparently the chipbreaker needs to be given a bit of a treatment too, but I haven't gotten around to that. It's been difficult enough just getting everything put together. What does that say...


You only need to sight the blade to check that the blade is parallel to the sole.

This is how I set the blade depth.

First turn the plane over and adjust the blade depth so that the blade sticks out about 1/16in. This step is to adjust the blade to be parallel. Adjust the lateral adjustment lever so the blade is parallel. Then keep an eye on the blade as you retract the blade into the casting. As the blade is being retracted, you can confirm if it is parallel to the sole.

After the blade is retracted into the sole, then start to adjust the blade in the opposite direction - but only enough to take out any backlash in the mechanism.

Get a test piece of wood, in the US I would say a piece of "2x4" construction lumber which in the US is 1 1/2in thick x 2 1/2in wide (long story). I select a piece with straight grain and no knots. I clamp this in my woodworking vise wide side down, so I am planing the 1 1/2in edge, just so it is easier.

I make a pass down the test piece. If I removed the backlash but have the blade still within the casting I should not have any shaving. I use a plane left handed, so while still holding the plane, I reach out with my left forefinger and move the adjustment wheel upward a fraction of a turn. If you are right handed you will use the right forefinger and move the adjustment wheel down a fraction of a turn.

Make another pass. You may start to get a shaving. If no shaving take another fraction of a turn on the adjustment wheel. Continue until you are getting very thin but consistent shavings. You can either stop at this point or continue until you get the thickness of shaving desired.

A scratch on the length of the blade, front or back may be annoying but it should not affect performance. It would be worthwhile to find out if something causing this, or just a one off "oops".

I sand the front edge of my cap irons to ensure they are flat side to side.

It is important for the cap iron to have a tight fit against the blade with no gaps. This ensures the chips will not get caught under the cap iron which will cause the plane to skip. If you are getting chips or debris caught between cap iron and blade, check flatness of both. Sand as needed to eliminate the gap.


----------



## adamsputnik (Aug 16, 2013)

Thanks very much Dave, this is really helpful stuff.


----------

