# view point from a collector point of view?



## MasterSplinter (Jan 12, 2013)

I am wondering how collectors view on restoring, cleaning and make them look new? Im refering to old vintage tools. Does it effect the value? Collectability?


----------



## jjboozel (Mar 11, 2013)

MasterSplinter said:


> I am wondering how collectors view on restoring, cleaning and make them look new? Im refering to old vintage tools. Does it effect the value? Collectability?


I am a young collector, I can tell when it has been restored and when it hasn't an original condition tool is always more sought after but it also depends on the amount if cleaning and restoration and also the condition of the tool before it was touched. I would say that a full restoration devalues a tool by a lot. Where as if you replace a cracked Handel not so much. But it does effect the value and desire, sometime though, someone has that pride and joy that they have always wanted like for example I have always wanted a Stanley 45 if I came Acrosse one in original condition and it was all rusted and japanning was gone I would still want it but it wouldn't be that jewel I'm looking for if I found one that was restored to look brand new I might pay slightly higher for it just because I know I will love that tool for a long time and never try to sell it. Now another example, if I'm collecting the bailey series and I have 3-4-5-6 and I need a 7 and find one totally restored I might shy away from it because it's not what I'm looking for. I want that great original condition because someday I might sell the whole set. Hope this makes sense. All in all it depends 95% of the time it will devalue it. But if you find someone who has been looking for that particular tool and wants it to keep forever then fully resorted might be better for that person.


----------



## EastexToolJunky (Mar 25, 2013)

My take is this. Tools should be in usable condition. A tool that has wear on it is not the same as a tool that has been neglected. I love taking a rusty doorstop and making it function the way it was intended. There are probably some super rare tools that belong in a museum, and those are the exception. Every tool I find I think of as a rescue from the scrap heap. If I can make it useful and pass on some knowledge and tradition, then I am satisfied.


----------



## jjboozel (Mar 11, 2013)

EastexToolJunky said:


> My take is this. Tools should be in usable condition. A tool that has wear on it is not the same as a tool that has been neglected. I love taking a rusty doorstop and making it function the way it was intended. There are probably some super rare tools that belong in a museum, and those are the exception. Every tool I find I think of as a rescue from the scrap heap. If I can make it useful and pass on some knowledge and tradition, then I am satisfied.


See my view is different and I want to stress I'm not arguing at all I think it is cool that you out them back to use, my collection right now is at about 35-40 planes. When I see one that is really old dusty and rusty I know that for over 100 years it has served many people the purpose that tool was made for. And at that point I save them and put them up away from everything. Saving them from being neglected. It might sound weird but I feel as though the tool deserves to be done. It was used for that long and now I'm going to display it. Might be just me I'm not sure but that's what I think when I see an old tool. I have TOATALLY redone transitional planes I just did a bailey transitional stripped sanded removed all rust and put it all back together and that tool will stay with me forever it served its purpose and now I'm giving it a good home. That's the way I see it. What do you think?


----------



## EastexToolJunky (Mar 25, 2013)

The beauty is, we are both right. A hobby should provide pleasure as well as a chance to gain new perspectives. If you enjoy looking at old tools and pondering the many hands that used them, then you are fulfilling both tasks. I enjoy stripping the rust and dirt off of them, and pondering the many hands that will be able to use them in the future. As far as "value", that is something you have to determine. I personally don't let EBay prices drive my purchasing decisions. If a tool looks good and can be useful, I buy it.


----------



## jjboozel (Mar 11, 2013)

EastexToolJunky said:


> The beauty is, we are both right. A hobby should provide pleasure as well as a chance to gain new perspectives. If you enjoy looking at old tools and pondering the many hands that used them, then you are fulfilling both tasks. I enjoy stripping the rust and dirt off of them, and pondering the many hands that will be able to use them in the future. As far as "value", that is something you have to determine. I personally don't let EBay prices drive my purchasing decisions. If a tool looks good and can be useful, I buy it.


You are right. And I have taken some really old ones and ran them over wood a couple times just to use it. And it feels great. And I fully understand yours as well and that is actually a great way to put it for all the hands that will use it. And I agree on the value. Most of the times I but my planes for $5- $10 a piece the most I ever payed was $25 and that was for a Stanley 113 type 1! Yes I am absolutely positive it is a type 1. And I love it.


----------



## EastexToolJunky (Mar 25, 2013)

I still leave a little patina on em just so the past won't be forgotten.


----------



## TobyC (Apr 30, 2013)

It all depends on what it is and who you're trying to please. If it's rare don't touch it, or just lightly clean it and take care of it. 
If it's not so rare they seem to sell better and for more money if they're clean and sharp. Take a look on Ebay completed listings and you'll see what I mean. Type in the tool of your choice and look at the condition versus price, and look at the ones that didn't sell. 
If you choose to fix one up try to do an accurate restoration, don't alter it or paint it funny colors or mix and match parts.
If it's a keeper and a user do what you want.

Toby


----------



## timetestedtools (Aug 23, 2012)

it really depends. If a tool is old and rare and in original condition I tend to leave it. But does anybody think I should have left this blue?


----------



## firemedic (Dec 26, 2010)

timetestedtools said:


> it really depends. If a tool is old and rare and in original condition I tend to leave it. But does anybody think I should have left this blue?


Oh, ya went get it! Sweet! How's it feel? Is the bedding angle common? Looks low but probably just the pictures. Cool Beans! :thumbup:


----------



## EastexToolJunky (Mar 25, 2013)

Here's an example. I found this at a store for $17. Rusty as all get out with the wood knob an tote apparently burned in a fire. I cleaned it up and made new handles out of my favorite wood Bois d'arc. 









Now instead of sitting on a shelf rusting, it gets used almost every day. No where near original, so it all depends on what "value" means to you.


----------



## jjboozel (Mar 11, 2013)

firemedic said:


> Oh, ya went get it! Sweet! How's it feel? Is the bedding angle common? Looks low but probably just the pictures. Cool Beans! :thumbup:


Nope but that is sweet!!!!! I love the lever cap
On it! Have you done any research? Looks like a victor to me those are worth a lot of money.


----------



## jjboozel (Mar 11, 2013)

timetestedtools said:


> it really depends. If a tool is old and rare and in original condition I tend to leave it. But does anybody think I should have left this blue?


I love that!!!! What kind is that? Bailey what? Looks like a victor almost..... Want to sell it? Hahaha


----------



## jjboozel (Mar 11, 2013)

jjboozel said:


> I love that!!!! What kind is that? Bailey what? Looks like a victor almost..... Want to sell it? Hahaha


Nope not a victor...... Perhaps a defiance?? Whatever it is that is sweet and a perfect example of one that I would redo and sit up. Just because it's cool


----------



## timetestedtools (Aug 23, 2012)

Its a defiance #17. Made by Bailey Tool Co. which was owned by Selden A Bailey and William Bailey (no relation to Leonard Bailey). Located in Woonsocket, Rhode Island. And definitely not for sale.

I'm trying to put together some history on the Bailey's outside of Stanley. I guess I'm going to have to break down and buy a copy of Patented Transitional and Metallic Planes in America.


----------



## jjboozel (Mar 11, 2013)

timetestedtools said:


> Its a defiance #17. Made by Bailey Tool Co. which was owned by Selden A Bailey and William Bailey (no relation to Leonard Bailey). Located in Woonsocket, Rhode Island. And definitely not for sale.
> 
> I'm trying to put together some history on the Bailey's outside of Stanley. I guess I'm going to have to break down and buy a copy of Patented Transitional and Metallic Planes in America.


Very cool! Any idea on value? And hold on I have a plane book on American plane makers let me look


----------



## timetestedtools (Aug 23, 2012)

I haven't found a #17 for sale. The #14 (#4 size) seem to go for anywhere from $300 to $1000. If you've got an idea, I'd like to hear it.


----------



## jjboozel (Mar 11, 2013)

timetestedtools said:


> Its a defiance #17. Made by Bailey Tool Co. which was owned by Selden A Bailey and William Bailey (no relation to Leonard Bailey). Located in Woonsocket, Rhode Island. And definitely not for sale.
> 
> I'm trying to put together some history on the Bailey's outside of Stanley. I guess I'm going to have to break down and buy a copy of Patented Transitional and Metallic Planes in America.


The earliest known woodworking planes manufactured by The Bailey Tool Company were made under Patent No. 112,675. granted to Joseph R Bailey on March 14, 1871. Manufacturing of the planes began after the formation of The Bailey Tool Company in 1872 by Selden A Bailey. The following year, on November 11,1873. an improvement of the 1871 patent was granted to William H. Brown and David F. Williams. This patent provided a revised design for the cutter clamping mechanism of the planes. No doubt. production of the earlier planes manufactured solely under the March 14, 1871 patent did not extend beyond the patent improvement date and therefore were made for less than two years.

The purpose of the March 14, 1871 patent was to protect the method of securing the cutter in placing using an eccentric lever bar combined with a plate that slides at right angles between the bar and the cutter. This combination is Joseph R Bailey's patented feature that sets his plane design apart from earlier plane designs that may have used a curved rod to hold the cutter in place. The clamping bar extended through the plane side rails and the lever was located on the outside of the rail. A cap iron was included which had no provision for attachment to the cutter, a feature that is quite different from most other planes. The planes were manufactured such that they require cap irons with the original cutters to make up the space between the cutter and the clamping plate. The March 14, 1871 patent also introduced the plane side rail shape that was characteristic of all planes manufactured by The Bailey Tool Company.

The outside lever arrangement and non-attaching cap iron was similar to Joseph R Bailey's July 26, 1870 patent for box scrapers. The box scraper design, however, did not provide for a sliding plate between the clamping bar and the cutter. In addition, he stated that the cutter on the box scraper could be used with or without the cap iron. Box scrapers observed do not have enough space between the bar and the frame to allow for inclusion of the cap iron. During the production period of the box scrapers, they were basically manufactured without modification.

Bailey Tool Company bench planes underwent several modifications during the relatively short period that the company manufactured woodworking planes. No doubt. the outside level location on the early planes interfered with its use during some operations. This may have been a contributing factor to the short production period of the March 14, 1871 patent planes and provided inspiration for design of the 1873 patent improvements.

Surviving planes made under the 1871 patent are rare. Planes manufactured under the 1873 patent also used a lever mechanism to secure the cutter; however, the lever was located within the confines of the side rails. This patent improvement in conjunction with later improvements were used to make planes that are somewhat more abundant than the earlier ones, but they are still scarce. Later lines of Bailey Tool Company planes are yet more plentiful, but they are also rather scarce. Anyone interested in obtaining more information on The Bailey Tool Company planes should refer to Patented Transitional & Metallic Planes in America, Vol. I & 11 by Roger K Smith.


----------



## firemedic (Dec 26, 2010)

firemedic said:


> Oh, ya went get it! Sweet! How's it feel? Is the bedding angle common? Looks low but probably just the pictures. Cool Beans! :thumbup:





jjboozel said:


> Nope but that is sweet!!!!! I love the lever cap
> On it! Have you done any research? Looks like a victor to me those are worth a lot of money.


:huh: what? I was talking about Don's Bailey Tool Co Fore Plane. :laughing:


----------



## jjboozel (Mar 11, 2013)

firemedic said:


> :huh: what? I was talking about Don's Bailey Tool Co Fore Plane. :laughing:


Ya I clicked the link sorry hahaha


----------



## timetestedtools (Aug 23, 2012)

firemedic said:


> Oh, ya went get it! Sweet! How's it feel? Is the bedding angle common? Looks low but probably just the pictures. Cool Beans!


It feels nice, regular bedding angle. It seems odd the front knob is beech (I think) and the tote is rosewood. I would like to know if it may have come that way? The tip on the tote was already fixed with a piece of non-rosewood, so I decided to leave that piece of history.



jjboozel said:


> The earliest known woodworking planes manufactured by The Bailey Tool Company were made under Patent No. 112,675. granted to Joseph R Bailey on March 14, 1871..............


I had found that article as well. I find it odd there is so little written about these guys including Leonard Bailey outside of the association with Stanley.


----------



## MasterSplinter (Jan 12, 2013)

Wow.. beautiful plane. Was the blue origin color? I prefer the black
.


----------



## timetestedtools (Aug 23, 2012)

*blue*



MasterSplinter said:


> Wow.. beautiful plane. Was the blue origin color? I prefer the black
> .


No, somebody sprayed the blue right over the japanning.


----------



## gideon (May 26, 2010)

I have had several very good to excellent, hardly if ever used Stanley 4's type 12/13/sw era. Sometimes I get a hold of some which are really nice under all the grime. One I cleaned up thoroughly, found that the japanning was like 99% to complete. It was just a beauty all the way around. I couldn't bring myself to use a time capsule like that. 

I posted it to ebay and it sold for over $100 which I was surprised at. Of course I described how I cleaned it so that was absolutely known. 

My belief is that there is a point to where a collector will tolerate cleaning. And, that is to the point where any surface rust is removed, the blade is sharp and ready for use, discolorations on the lever cap are taken care of and the smoother the sides and sole are, the more unused it looks, the more you will get. Shoot, I even polish the edges between the outer and inner jappaned portion of the sides, front and back. Mine glean with a nice luster when I'm done. 

Lastly, you must absolutely disclose everything you've done in cleaning it up - absolute honesty or you risk your reputation.


----------



## jjboozel (Mar 11, 2013)

timetestedtools said:


> It feels nice, regular bedding angle. It seems odd the front knob is beech (I think) and the tote is rosewood. I would like to know if it may have come that way? The tip on the tote was already fixed with a piece of non-rosewood, so I decided to leave that piece of history.
> 
> I had found that article as well. I find it odd there is so little written about these guys including Leonard Bailey outside of the association with Stanley.


It is odd. Maybe they got lost in the shuffle with L bailey. That could be my only guess I also read somewhere that those baileys combined with L bailey and he just basically took over. Can't be positive though.


----------

