Menu
What's new

Tuned up my Stanley "Sweet Heart", however...

I am new here…

Looking at the images, that is not a Stanley plane.

I have not seen a Stanley with that type of frog mount.

If it was from the Stanley Sweet Hart period, there are a lot of things that would be different.
1) The frog would have a notch in the front edge to align with a rib cast in the base.
2) Bailey would be cast into the toe area.
3) The knurling on the brass adjuster is diagonal, Stanley only did this from 1946-1948. The frog from those years was different.

The lateral lever is like those on Sargent planes.

These are sources for more information:

http://www.brasscityrecords.com/toolworks/graphics/plane id.html
http://primeshop.com/access/woodwork/stanleyplane/pftsynch.htm
https://home.comcast.net/~rarebear/planes101/typing/typing.htm

It is my understanding that the last site is undergoing corrections to the errors that occur in such a large project.

The problem being encountered with the blade adjustment may be due to the cap iron being a Stanley. If the adjustment slot is in the wrong position in relation to the pawl, it will never work quite right. This could be off by just a fraction of an inch and cause all kinds of havoc.

jim
 
Hi Jim

Jim,
I took a look at the photos and I don't think this is a Stanley Bailey. I'm thinking that it is a Stanley Defiance which was their value priced line in the 30s and 40s (someone correct me if I have the wrong years here). This could also be a Shelton or Sargent plane. I say this because of the shape of the lateral adjusting arm. Notice how the end is bent to form the place you grab between your fore finger and thumb? Stanley levers have a distinctive shape.

As to the blade; someone probably dropped a Sweet Heart blade it in it some time in the past.

Now I'm not saying that this plane is worthless!! It's still a nice solid old plane which can be a good "user". I just sold a Defiance No3 whose lever and adjuster knob looked an awful lot like this one.

I've struggled with the same problem on a number of my planes. Most notably my Sargent No6. When I purchased it, the chip breaker was missing. I tried to use a replacement from a Stanley No6 and I had the same experience as you. The blade would not extend beyond the mouth opening. I found out that in order to get this plane to work, I needed a chip breaker from another Sargent No6. Luckily Clint Jones from Woodnet sold me one and I installed it. Now it works just fine.

One thing I found was to make sure that the disc from the lateral adjusting arm is sitting in the slot in the blade. The blade needs to sit comfortably in there with just enough slop so that it can move. I've found that between some brands there is a difference in the sizes of those slots. Not by much. But enough to cause problems.

Another area to look at is the nut that attaches the blade to the chip breaker. When the blade/chip breaker assembly is installed into the frog, this nut sits in a little circular cavity. This cavity is sized to allow room for the nut when the blade/chip breaker assembly is moved by the yoke. Check to see that the nut is not bottoming out on the bottom of this cavity. Some blades from early planes had a smaller diameter nut. Hence the cavity was sized for them. Drop a chip breaker/blade assembly from a Stanley in there and the nut is so big that it hits the end of the cavity and won't allow the blade to advance.

This again is a function of the chip breaker. If the square hole is not in the right spot, it messes up all the other settings.

Good luck and keep us posted.
 
Hi All,

Again thanks for all of the info. Obviously the plane is not a collector type. It seems to be working fine now so I guess it is a user. If it is a user and it works I guess it does not matter if it is a thoroughbred.

Dominic you raise some interesting points. I will give the plane another inspection tomorrow and see what I learn.

Enjoy,

Jim
 
That does look like a Sargent jack plane, they made them for just about anybody who cared to resell them, most notably Sears. Every Sargent lever cap I have seen has the plane size embossed on the back side of the lever cap, 409 for the 2" width. As near as I can figure the 4xx designated bench planes and the 3xx designated block planes while the xx9 was the length of the sole. Hence a #414 was a 14" jack plane a #409 was a 9" smoother, a #307 was a 7" long block plane, etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top