My First Plane Restoration Purchase

[David Agnew]

From my limited view here,it appears more likely that you have a Type 17 1942-1945 -- a WWII-era plane. These feature black-painted or stained beech handles (rather than rosewood), hard rubber adjuster wheels (rather than brass), and cad-plated one-piece fasteners for the handles rather than rods with brass screw-caps. These planes also (typically) have thicker side wall castings.

Yeah, I'll buy this analysis. The type 19 determination was made based on the writing of Stanley on the lateral adjustment lever. I re-read the type determiner web page and think I misunderstood what they meant.

So yeah, type 17 sounds right. I can't identify the wood on the tote or knob, but they do appear to be stained. The adjuster is definitely rubber or plastic, the fasteners are one piece. After further re-reading, the big "duh" is: no frog adjustment screw. This one doesn't even have holes for one.

Good eyes.

[Joe Bailey]

Don - Thanks for the welcome and kind words.
+1 on the notion that the extra mass of these WWII types make them superior user smooth planes.
BTW - I always wondered why the walls are thicker on these models (when everything else is in short supply due to the war effort). It turns out that the castings were made thicker to prevent grinding through ("blowing out the casting") during that part of the production process where the sidewalls and soles were ground. The problem was that the vast majority of the skilled workers were off fighting, and women were presssed into service as replacements. The thicker walls were apparently a margin of safety provided to these novice workers.

[Tom Becnel]

Don - Thanks for the welcome and kind words.
+1 on the notion that the extra mass of these WWII types make them superior user smooth planes.
BTW - I always wondered why the walls are thicker on these models (when everything else is in short supply due to the war effort). It turns out that the castings were made thicker to prevent grinding through ("blowing out the casting") during that part of the production process where the sidewalls and soles were ground. The problem was that the vast majority of the skilled workers were off fighting, and women were presssed into service as replacements. The thicker walls were apparently a margin of safety provided to these novice workers.

I hadn't heard this suggestion before and it's interesting. I had come across the idea that it was an attempt to produce a heavier plane in response to the heavier infills that were making their way across the pond. This sounds plausible until you consider the cheap route they went with other aspects of the plane... ie, hard rubber and painted knobs and totes lol.

So again I'll say it's an interesting suggestion and is more plausible than the idea of increasing quality. The other detail to support that is that I've seen a number of the later planes with inconsistent wall thicknesses on the same plane. In other words one wall is considerably thicker than the other meaning quality control and tolerances were poor. Thanks for that Joe... I now have yet another aspect to investigate

[Joe Bailey]

... I had come across the idea that it was an attempt to produce a heavier plane in response to the heavier infills that were making their way across the pond.

Everyone is familiar with the Stanley No. 4 and the 4 1/2, but (in my experience) far fewer persons realize that Stanley made a No. 4 1/2H
Patrick Leach has this to say concerning that model:

#4 1/2H Smooth plane, 1902-1924.
These planes were 'unknown' for the longest time in this country. It seems that they were specifically targeted toward the English market, where the heavier infilled planes were still favored by many.
The main casting is very much like those castings produced during WWII, with their noticeably thicker dimensions. The plane does have the letter "H" cast after the number.

Just more stuff to mull over.