My First Plane Restoration Purchase

David Agnew

Member
Messages
285
Just wanted to share my recent purchase w/ folks that may care (swmbo doesn't really get it)

Anyway, we "went antiquing" :rofl: over the weekend and a rusty old Stanley plane followed me home. In hindsight, I over paid for it, but it will be fun to bring it back to life.

Thick layer of surface rust, but the sole is the easiest thing to fix.
DSC04238sm.jpg

She can still make curls, though! This actually surprised the heck out of me. Obviously somebody used and cared for this plane before the antique place got a hold of it and let it rot all to hell. I took it apart and the back of the iron wasn't polished (as is the style now) but it had obviously been worked flat. It was still sharp enough to slice notebook paper.
DSC04237sm.jpg

It is apparently a Type-19 Stanley Bailey No. 5 that has had the brass depth adjustment wheel replaced with a plastic one. Made in the USA sometime between late 40's and 60's.

This is only my second plane, other one is an English made Stanley SB4 economy plane bought from Home Depot in the late 90's. I need a longer plane and this one fits the bill. Judging from EBay, $25 was too much, but that's ok. A new US made plane is $100 or more.

I'm not going to "restore" it; this plane will be a user. I'll sand down and stain the handles, drop everything else in the electrolysis tank, then mask and use epoxy paint for all the parts that are supposed to be black. A coat of wax and some anti-seize on a few bits and this fellow will be serviceable. I don't have any sons and my nephews are all in-laws who are closer to their blood uncles; this plane will serve me well and hopefully serve a buyer well at an estate sale in 60 years. :D
 
Last edited:
...In hindsight, I over paid for it...I'm not going to "restore" it; this plane will be a user. I'll sand down and stain the handles, drop everything else in the electrolysis tank, then mask and use epoxy paint for all the parts that are supposed to be black. A coat of wax and some anti-seize on a few bits and this fellow will be serviceable...

Yeah, you over-paid by a few bucks, but not all that much. The rusted sole seems fairly decent - evenly coated, but not pitted. I'd be more concerned with rust on the blade - if the back is pitted, it might make getting an even edge a bit of a problem - but other than that, you've got a potentially pretty good user there.

Your 'reclamation' plans are pretty good. Make it a bit prettier than it is now, but mainly make it a good user. A type 19 #5 won't likely be a 'valuable' plane anytime in your lifetime, but it's one of the most-used planes in most folks 'collections.' Ya dun good!
 
Yeah, you over-paid by a few bucks, but not all that much. The rusted sole seems fairly decent - evenly coated, but not pitted. I'd be more concerned with rust on the blade - if the back is pitted, it might make getting an even edge a bit of a problem - but other than that, you've got a potentially pretty good user there.

Your 'reclamation' plans are pretty good. Make it a bit prettier than it is now, but mainly make it a good user. A type 19 #5 won't likely be a 'valuable' plane anytime in your lifetime, but it's one of the most-used planes in most folks 'collections.' Ya dun good!

You can always buy a new blade from Lee Valley, and still have paid less for your plane than for a new one. My #5s are my goto planes.
 
Yeah, you over-paid by a few bucks, but not all that much. The rusted sole seems fairly decent - evenly coated, but not pitted. I'd be more concerned with rust on the blade - if the back is pitted, it might make getting an even edge a bit of a problem - but other than that, you've got a potentially pretty good user there.

Your 'reclamation' plans are pretty good. Make it a bit prettier than it is now, but mainly make it a good user. A type 19 #5 won't likely be a 'valuable' plane anytime in your lifetime, but it's one of the most-used planes in most folks 'collections.' Ya dun good!

That was exactly my assessment. Sole's rusty, but doesn't look pitted. Back of the blade isn't pitted, nor the cutting edge. That will get sharpened up, of course.

I've never restored a plane, but am no newbie with old iron... hence I've got an electrolysis tank ready to go. My go-to machinist's vise is probably older than everyone on this board and I've got a bit of a collection of Plomb hand tools... mostly still in use.

Have I been bitten by the plane bug....... I dunno? Will probably find out later this week.
 
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.
 
Nice little plane, there. Be warned though 2 leads to 10 which leads to 100, lol

I have to agree with Joe on the type of the plane. this isn't a terrible thing though given the heavier weight of the body. The rubber wheel skinks but likely workable. The iron (blade) may be on the less desirable side but again usable.

Upgrade irons are available like the LN, Veritas, Hock or Pinnacle irons for example.

Depending on what you want to do with it you could find upgrade parts for it from older original Stanley planes. Joe at joesbucketofrust.com (different Joe than above) is good for some pretty obscure OEM parts so he could likely hook ya up with a brass knob.

I've taken some of those painted knobs and totes, removed the lacquer paint, sanded, stained and finished em with pretty decent results. Granted the tote won't effect performance, but if you wanted to pretty it up a bit.

Congrats on your first Jack plane :)
 
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. :thumb:
 
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.
 
Joe Bailey said:
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 :)
 
... 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.
 
Top