mike writes:

>     Hello All. I picked up a 289 last summer and as usual it is 
> missing the fence. Does anyone have one? Or could you send me a sketch 
> w/dimensions and I'll machine/weld one up.I've tried the 79 fence and 
> it's very sloppy I think Patrick's web site say's this also. If you 
> have one or can supply the info it will be greatly appreciated.

The fence missing from the #289 bears simple witness to the circumstance 
that, as with the #78, fences were not found to be particularly useful 
in the matter of planing or finishing rebates. In circumstances where, 
so far as I am aware, the #79 was never equipped with a fence and had no 
fittings which would enable a fence to be mounted, I surmise that the 
fitting of a "79 fence" to a #289 would be considerably problematical 
for all sorts of reasons.

The fence rod from a #78 fits a #289 (My #78s were made in the U.K.but I 
am unsure about my #289).  I should not be too worried about the missing 
fence as it really does not assist in planing rebates.  A fence would 
probably be useful in gaining a higher price for the #289, if it were to 
be sold.  But if a #289 is to be put to work by its owner, the fence 
would seem to be superfluous.

The performance of  a #289 triumphs, a little, over that of the #78, 
both without their fences, in that the #289's iron's cutting edge is set 
askew to the plane's ordinary line of travel whilst the #78's iron is 
set square to it. Things could have been further improved with the #289 
had the iron's off-side edge been relieved with a bevel.  Then, we would 
have had a metal version of a good, standard, wooden rebate plane with 
every chance of performing as well as a wooden rebate plane.

Perhaps irons with a relieved side-edge were produced for the #289?  If 
so, I have not seen one but, in my wanders, I have encountered very few 
#289 planes.

Regards from Brisbane,

John Manners 

------------------------------------------------------------------------