>Ted said;
>I just drilled a bunch of random holes, thinking that this
>would have to give a better bond than a smooth non-porous
>surface.
>
Thanks Ted,
I have one very nice RW tote that was on a 3 pat. date Stanley Jack. 
I have replaced the original tote with one from the "box" (the "box" 
is a place where extra stuff falls during my MANIC repair sessions.) 
As I am not certain of the origin of said tote,  I feel compelled to 
repair the original but want to do the best that is possible.  Your 
advice is the first that makes me feel I might have success.

Has anyone else noticed that the machining on triple pat. date 
Stanley bench planes is superior to other era Stanley planes or is it 
just me?  I have a triple #4.5 (heavy smoother Jeff) that day in and 
day out preforms above and beyond my same size LN and my other 
Stanley smoothers.  It is in fine+ condition and I fear I might wear 
it out ;-).

The type 11 Stanley model is recognized by many as superior. The
three patent dates is an indicator of it's 'type'. It's what I prefer
to own and use.

That era was after the last of the major improvements, and before the
decline of handtools. You can even find some type 11s with low knobs
(mostly) and some with high knobs, so that dovetails with that
particular preference choice, as you can get either. The blades are
sometimes laminated (all the time?) and sometimes they are Sweetheart
blades (replacements... still cool).

I believe the Type 13 is the proper Sweetheart era plane. If I recall it
has only 2 patent dates.

When shopping in my early galoot days, after a little bit of research,
I realized I couldn't do much wrong if I bought a plane is good
condition with ANY patent date on the bed. Those models are all from
the golden age.

(I'm going by memory here. I decided which type I wanted years ago and
lined up all the reasons in my head then. I may have 'misplaced' a
reason or two.)

Jay Sutherlands page has a lot of Type info:
http://www.hyperkitten.com/tools/stanley_bench_plane/dating/

--
-Chris Schwartz, Ex-Brewer Stealth #97 Silver Spring, MD

>
> Has anyone else noticed that the machining on triple pat. date
> Stanley bench planes is superior to other era Stanley planes or is it
> just me? I have a triple #4.5 (heavy smoother Jeff) that day in and
> day out preforms above and beyond my same size LN and my other
> Stanley smoothers. It is in fine+ condition and I fear I might wear
> it out ;-).
>
> Archive: http://www.frontier.iarc.uaf.edu/~cswingle/archive/

> To unsubscribe or change options, use the web interface:
> http://galoots.law.cornell.edu:81/read/?forum=oldtools

Hi Galoots:
  Yes, type 11 is among the best of the Stanley planes, last of the
low knobs, nice blade logo, frog adjuster, really superior
craftsmanship on these, great wood, luxurious japanning.....I can
picture myself quailing in a hardware store of the period, seeing the
top-heavy type 12s on the the shelves---I can feel my blood running
cold....what's next, improved Coca Cola?
  Great minds will always disagree, I ain't saying otherwise, but
there are heresies---Shemp is funnier than Curly; Jack Daniels is
bourbon; Cannibal Corpse outrocks Killdozer, people can believe
anything, it turns out.
  Stanley's history of "improving" tools is a sad and shameful
legacy---some would say it all started with the Bailey depth
adjuster; some would name the lateral lever system, or the frog
adjuster---a long line of things nobody really "needs"---many of the
finest planes ever made have none of these features. But if you
believe, as I do, that the family of Bailey style bench planes has
validity, a line HAS to be drawn somewhere between the truly
wonderful types 1 and 2 and the embarrassing dreck masquerading today
as the culmination of 150 years of toolmaking knowhow.
 I put the line at the type 11, and indict the high knob. 
  Not to say that there's anything wrong with the high knobs---some
prefer them, just as some prefer scissors with blunt points, or
small, lightweight spare tires. If it was a matter of taste, and of
choice, that'd be one thing. But because the dopey-looking high knob
replaced what had worked perfectly well for fifty years, and in the
process, slandered and defamed the truly lovely and comfy lowknob,
it's the devil. 
  ---on that "it's the devil" thing---I've said before that curses
become endearments over time; words like "dirty" and "damned" no
longer have the power to incite riot that they had in my
grandfather's day.  To tell someone to "go to the devil" in Leonard
Bailey's lifetime was the most insulting kind of talk, liable to get
you gossiped about forever in the town where you said it, if they let
you stay. 
  I'm using the term "devil" in that sense.  I could go on like this
forever, as many of you know, but I'll stop around here,
somewhere---it's glad I am that so many love the SW Stanleys--they're
easy to find cheap, and easy to trade for the vastly superior earlier
types; everybody wants them!?!?  So, almost 100 years later, the hype
is still paying off for the true, secondhand-buyin' believers.  And I
guess that's why they call me 'galoot". 
                           it's GAM, in Seattle, off to work 
   

 Chris wrote----
> The type 11 Stanley model is recognized by many as superior.  The
> three patent dates is an indicator of it's 'type'.  It's what I
> prefer to own and use.

=====
____________________________________________________________

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired
signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and
are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. D. D. Eisenhower
____________________________________________________________

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus

I agree that the type 11 is among the best.  I've had pretty good 
luck with the WWII planes, though.  I'll usually risk buying anything
older than the planes with the rounded top to the iron - type 18 
I think.  

If the japanning ain't black, though, I run.

Gary K
Close to Buffalo NY

GAM, in Seattle, wrote:

> Hi Galoots:
>   Yes, type 11 is among the best of the Stanley planes, last of the
> low knobs, nice blade logo, frog adjuster, really superior
> craftsmanship on these, great wood, luxurious japanning.....I can

--snip, snip--

 
>  Chris wrote----
> > The type 11 Stanley model is recognized by many as superior.  The
> > three patent dates is an indicator of it's 'type'.  It's what I
> > prefer to own and use.
> 

I am intotal agreement that the Type 11 is the best of the best. Type 10
is the same thing low knob with adjuster but two paten dates. It was
only made for two years acording to the type studies so it doesn't turn
up as often. Having said all that, with the 4 1/2 there are other things
ar play than the type. The 4 1/2 is a design that Stanly got right and
any type, properly tuned is a real eye opener as to what a metal plane
can do. I have to fess up that this is the one number where I found a
user that I like better than my Type 11's. I found a war casting with an
adjuster and the extera weight(I guess) makes it work even better.
Absolutly unbelieveable what this plane will do. Steve who is about
three quarters to his goal of at least two Type 11's in No. 3 thru No. 8

Gary wrote;
  " Great minds will always disagree, I ain't saying otherwise, but
there are heresies---Shemp is funnier than Curly; Jack Daniels is
bourbon; Cannibal Corpse outrocks Killdozer, people can believe
anything, it turns out."

Wait just a dadgum minute there hey - out rocks Killdozer?   Great 
post Gary, does this mean that someday I will be able to trade my 
type 11 #4.5 (low knob triple date smoother Jeff) for one of your 
#4.5 heavy Stanley planes?  I am still searching for a  type 11 #2 
fine condition smoother.  Does anyone know  if Stanley produced many 
of these smaller type 11s?

  Chris wrote----
>  The type 11 Stanley model is recognized by many as superior.  The
>  three patent dates is an indicator of it's 'type'.  It's what I
>  prefer to own and use.

I would trade any plane in my meager pile - o - planes for same size 
fine type 11 planes (low knob).  Might keep my type 3 #8 mint though 
;-)  A transitional is still junk even with that revered low knob, 
eh.., right?

-Rex
Wishing i had a #41(pretty plow plane Jeff)

On Sunday, January 18, 2004, at 03:38  AM, John R. Wilson wrote:
> Wait just a dadgum minute there hey - out rocks Killdozer?   Great 
> post Gary, does this mean that someday I will be able to trade my type 
> 11 #4.5 (low knob triple date smoother Jeff) for one of your #4.5 
> heavy Stanley planes?  I am still searching for a  type 11 #2 fine 
> condition smoother.  Does anyone know  if Stanley produced many of 
> these smaller type 11s?

	To respond to the last question first, there's probably no such thing 
as a "Type 11 #2,"  even though #2s were made from 1910 to 1918.  
Sitting beside me as I type is my #2 Stanley smoother, which I use for 
many small jobs and like a lot.  I date it to the period from 1931-33 
(because it has "UU" model No. at the toe, and STANLEY in orange 
rectangle but the older keyhole in the lever cap rather than the 
"kidney" hole introduced in 1933).  AND YET, the frog bedding is the 
same as the low, two-groove "CC" configuration introduced in 1888, 
replaced by most bench planes in 1902 with the raised frog receiver.  
And there is no frog adjustment screw in my #2 (nor was there ever such 
in the #1 or #2 Stanley planes, AFAIK).
	We need to keep in mind that the so-called Type Studies are 
after-the-fact efforts of tool aficionados to establish a chronological 
sequence of features that will facilitate the dating of tools. They 
cannot be used the same way as "model nubers" of cars, for example, 
decreed by the maker in advance of release, with the purpose of making 
the old model obsolete.   Often pinning down the sequence and timing of 
the introduction of one or another feature is a matter of educated 
guesses.  Also, the commonly used type study for Stanley bench planes 
developed (with help from others) by Roger K. Smith, reprinted as an 
appendix to John Walter's guide to Stanley tools, is explicitly based 
on the #4 smoother.  Many features of the #4 size were shared across 
the range of bench planes (and in the case of standard company logos, 
across the range of many other Stanley tools), but many features were 
not--especially in the #1 and #2.  Even the #3 line deviates from 
features of the #4, with MADE IN USA parallel to the bed in some 
models, etc.
	I, too, am partial to T11 Stanleys (3 patents, low knobs, frog adj. 
screw).  Then again, several on my user shelf are well-liked T9s (PAT. 
AP'L 19 '92, "new style" frog).  Plus which, I can say little to 
detract from the worthiness of the entire SW run, and on up through 
WWII for that matter.  So if we can conclude that anything before 1892 
is more in the realm of the collector, and anything since the 1950s a 
downward spiral, we can bracket the intervening period for further 
discussion.
	In commenting on preferences and pluses and minuses of Stanley bench 
planes from about the 1890s to the middle of the 20th century.  I think 
it again becomes useful to distinguish collectors from users.  This is 
not to set up some artificial division or to suggest that these two 
groups are mutually exclusive or in some sort of competition or 
opposition.  What I'm talking about here is an *attitude* that 
underlies the preferences in question.
	As a general statement, I think that for qualities USERS seek, the 
real differences in Stanley bench planes of the era under discussion 
lie mainly in the tuning, sharpening, fettling and techniques of use.  
IOW, ceteris paribus (all other things being equal, sticklers for 
non-Latinate English ) a T9 plane can be made to function in use just 
about as well as a T18, and vice versa (the other way around, ditto).  
Sharpening the edge until it is scary, tuning the lip of the 
chipbreaker and placing it just so, setting the mouth opening with 
precision, fettling the front edge of the mouth opening, ensuring 
reasonable flatness of sole, setting the depth of cut appropriate to 
the task, applying downward pressure (thanks, Jeff), using firm and 
smooth strokes, etc. and so forth--THESE are the factors that make the 
difference to the user.
	From the standpoint of the COLLECTER (who may also be a user--that's 
not the issue), other factors enter into the mix, many of them 
imponderable and not subject to "testing," that govern the world of 
collecting.  Generally, these factors center on aesthetic qualities ("I 
like the looks"), completing sets ("I'd give anything to fill that gap 
in my lineup"), and (assumed) market value--the convergence of supply 
and demand, testable only in conditions of actual sale.  To focus on 
just one factor crucial for use, irrelevant for collectors:  Most 
planes you will see on sale tables at tool meets have dull (or at least 
not finely honed) cutting edges on the irons, yet that doesn't seem to 
be much of a factor in the asking price or the 'Oh, Wow!" factor among 
the attendees.
	So my point, if I have one, may be a message to Newbies:  You don't 
*need* a Type 11 Stanley to plane wood, much less for your entire 
lineup to be from a specific vintage.  You need a complete and intact 
plane from the "classic era," (or some contemporary or modern 
equivalent in that range or better), and most of the rest will be up to 
you.
		Tom Holloway
Recognizing that these are not the Last Words on any of the above, and 
noting that the Bedrock adepts, and/or those who swear by modern 
replacement blades and chipbreakers by those among us, might have a 
somewhat different take on these weighty matters.

Hi Guys---
  I do believe that even the modern (available retail today) Stanley
tools are still sufficient to do quality work on most woods---and
Stanley blades are up to most tasks---just as most cars are up to the
task of driving to the grocery store.
  You would want to have a Type 4 Stanley (last no-lateral family of
Stanley bench planes, Jeff), or Type 11 (last lowknob family
of...Jeff), you'd want these for the same reason you'd want to have a
32 Ford coupe, or a 1949 Indian Chief--it never got any better than
this, and it never will.
  In all fairness to types 12 through type 19, or so, they're still
infinitely better than just holding the blade in your hands...
                     best to all galoots everywhere; GAM
  

        I have snipped the bulk of this excellent post:
  
  So my point, if I have one, may be a message to Newbies:  You don't
 *need* a Type 11 Stanley to plane wood, much less for your entire 
lineup to be from a specific vintage.  You need a complete and intact
 plane from the "classic era," (or some contemporary or modern 
equivalent in that range or better), and most of the rest will be up
to  you.
 		Tom Holloway

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus

gary may wrote:
> So my point, if I have one, may be a message to Newbies:  You don't
> *need* a Type 11 Stanley to plane wood, much less for your entire 
> lineup to be from a specific vintage.  You need a complete and intact
> plane from the "classic era," (or some contemporary or modern 
> equivalent in that range or better), and most of the rest will be up
> to  you.

I've been meaning to add my 1cent as an absolute newbie.  Nice old tools are 
difficult to find here in Oregon (USA).  I don't do ebay nor auctions.  As 
far as the modern Stanleys go, the two block planes I've fettled are just 
great.  The bull nose rabbit plane worked okay out-of-the box, but took some 
effort to make even better.

Can't speak to the bench planes, though.  Been lucky enough to find those in 
the wild, though you sure don't trip over them when you leave the house. 
Don't think I could even bring myself to pick one up by its nasty plastic 
handles, of course they are replacable.

Cheers,
Kyle Accardi

Kyle;
  I wish I wrote that, but it was Tom Holloway---so, you don't do
ebay or go to auctions, are you advertising in the
personals?---waiting for the tools to approach you in a singles bar?
  They say that if you do the things you like to do you'll meet
others who like to do those things; I wonder if that goes for
spending lots of time in the shop?
                 join the PNTC---meeting in your hood 2/7---GAM
--- Kyle Accardi <sandbox@p...> wrote: 
    gary may wrote: So my point, if I have one, may be a message to
Newbies: SNIP 
Kyle sez--- Nice old tools are difficult to find here in Oregon
(USA).  I don't do ebay nor auctions

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus

Tom has a point about what you need to do a lot of jobs. A lot of planes
will do the woods most of us work with if the are sharp and well tuned.
Much as I like the Type 11 when I broke my only Type 11 no. 5 i slaped
the knob on a Type 14 and there ain't no difference in use. Low knob
high knob, Ginger Mary Ann, less filling tastes great, You pays your
money and you takes your choice. Steve