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.

Thanks Mike
PS: This is also a drive by gloat. I got it for $10
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 

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

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "mike" <mds@o...>

>     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.
>
> Thanks Mike
> PS: This is also a drive by gloat. I got it for $10
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

A #289 for $10 is indeed gloatable.  Can't remember what I paid for mine, it 
was many, many years ago, and a lot more than $10.  Here is a photo which 
shows the general shape of the fence.

http://home.comcast.net/~kvaughn65/stanley_289.jpg
http://home.comcast.net/~kvaughn65/stanley_289_1.jpg

Get back to me if you need exact measurements.

Ken Vaughn 

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

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John Manners" <jmanners@p...>

> 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
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi John,

Your comments concerning a "side relieved" or beveled edge for a #289 cutter 
iron caught my attention.  I assume that you are talking about a blade which 
is trapezoidal in cross section, like those of the #46 skew cutter 
combination plane.  If this is the case, then my #289 has such a cutter 
iron.  My #289 was US made and bears the Stanley "Sweetheart" logo.

Ken Vaughn 

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

While re-reading my reply, I began to question whether trapezoidal was the 
correct geometry description.  Perhaps I should have said that the cross 
section was a rhomboid, 4 sides parallel but not at right angles.

Ken
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ken Vaughn" <kvaughn65@c...>

> Your comments concerning a "side relieved" or beveled edge for a #289 
> cutter iron caught my attention.  I assume that you are talking about a 
> blade which is trapezoidal in cross section, like those of the #46 skew 
> cutter combination plane.  If this is the case, then my #289 has such a 
> cutter iron.  My #289 was US made and bears the Stanley "Sweetheart" logo.
>
> Ken Vaughn
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Any galoot contemplating making his/her own 289 fence rod should be
forewarned that Stanley used non-standard threads in many of their
tools. (The reasons for this have been debated on OLDTOOLS in the past.
See archives.) You will find oddball sizes AND you will find "rolled"
thread profiles. If I were lucky enough to score a 289 w/o rod &
fence=2C my first move would be to place an order for same with
http://www.stjamesbaytoolco.com/ St. James Bay offers many parts of a
289 from stock - and they have the necessary knowledge of the non-
standard threading so that their parts fit old planes. [No relationship
beyond being a very satisifed customer.] As a sort of P.S.=2C I just
want to say that "Of threads and threading systems=2C there is no end"
(TM me) The more I research oddball threads=2C the more I realize that
one could NEVER have a comprehensive set of taps and dies that would
cover all old tools. Heck=2C you'd be lucky if you had a set which would
cover every tool currently being made! John Ruth
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-

On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 10:20 AM, John Ruth <johnrruth@h...> wrote:

>
>
> If I were lucky enough to score a 289 w/o rod & fence, my first move would
> be to place an order for same with http://www.stjamesbaytoolco.com/
>
> St. James Bay offers many parts of a 289 from stock - and they have the
> necessary knowledge of the non-standard threading so that their parts fit
> old planes.  [No relationship beyond being a very satisifed customer.]
>

Mr Howard has not returned my last call or email, so if you are lucky
enough to get a response, please let me know.  I am trying to track down
#67 spokeshave parts.

Kirk in HMB, CA
------------------------------------------------------------------------

A couple of years ago I checked with SJB for a 289 rod and fence. While
the parts were listed on the web site, they were not available. If
anyone learns that they are available, please post - I'm still looking.

Steve aKg

On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 1:20 PM, John Ruth <johnrruth@h...> wrote:
>
> Any galoot contemplating making his/her own 289 fence rod should be
> forewarned that Stanley used non-standard threads in many of their
> tools. =A0(The reasons for this have been debated on OLDTOOLS in the
> past. See archives.) =A0 You will find oddball sizes AND you will find
> "rolled" thread profiles.
>
> If I were lucky enough to score a 289 w/o rod & fence, my first move
> would be to place an order for same with
> http://www.stjamesbaytoolco.com/
>
> St. James Bay offers many parts of a 289 from stock - and they have
> the necessary knowledge of the non-standard threading so that their
> parts fit old planes. =A0[No relationship beyond being a very
> satisifed customer.]
>
> As a sort of P.S., I just want to say that "Of threads and threading
> systems, there is no end" (TM me) The more I research oddball threads,
> the more I realize that one could NEVER have a comprehensive set of
> taps and dies that would cover all old tools. =A0Heck, you'd be lucky
> if you had a set which would cover every tool currently being made!
>
> John Ruth
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0
> =A0 =A0 =A0
=A0------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------ OldTools is a mailing list catering to the interests of hand
> tool aficionados, both collectors and users, to discuss the history,
> usage, value, location, availability, collectibility, and restoration
> of traditional handtools, especially woodworking tools.
>
> To change your subscription options:
> http://ruckus.law.cornell.edu/mailman/listinfo/oldtools
>
> To read the FAQ: http://swingleydev.com/archive/faq.html
>
> OldTools archive: http://swingleydev.com/archive/
>
> OldTools@r... http://ruckus.law.cornell.edu/mailman/listinfo/oldtools

--Steve Jones www.purdue.edu www.kokomobeach.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kirk,

Bob Howard is a really nice guy to talk to once you reach him, but he
has limited hours of accessibility. It's worth it to keep trying to
reach him via phone.

Jim

On Feb 22, 2012, at 1:25 PM, Kirk Eppler wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 10:20 AM, John Ruth <johnrruth@h...> wrote:
>>>>>>> If I were lucky enough to score a 289 w/o rod & fence, my first
>>>>>>> move would
>> be to place an order for same with http://www.stjamesbaytoolco.com/
>>>> St. James Bay offers many parts of a 289 from stock - and they
>>>> have the
>> necessary knowledge of the non-standard threading so that their parts
>> fit old planes. [No relationship beyond being a very satisifed
>> customer.]
>>>>> Mr Howard has not returned my last call or email, so if you are
>>>>> lucky
> enough to get a response, please let me know. I am trying to
> track down
> #67 spokeshave parts.
>> Kirk in HMB, CA
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> --------
> OldTools is a mailing list catering to the interests of hand tool
> aficionados, both collectors and users, to discuss the history, usage,
> value, location, availability, collectibility, and restoration of
> traditional handtools, especially woodworking tools.
>> To change your subscription options:
> http://ruckus.law.cornell.edu/mailman/listinfo/oldtools
>> To read the FAQ:
> http://swingleydev.com/archive/faq.html
>> OldTools archive: http://swingleydev.com/archive/ OldTools@r...
> http://ruckus.law.cornell.edu/mailman/listinfo/oldtools

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

I have found the best way to deal with SJB is to mail your order along with
a check and then wait patiently.  You will not get an email response, and
the phone will in most cases go unanswered.  However, in two months or so
your order will arrive.  SJB has many, many items unavailable anywhere else
in the universe, so a bit of inconvenience is a small price to pay.

Ken Shepard

On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 2:17 PM, Jim Cook <jim-cook@c...> wrote:

>
> Kirk,
>
> Bob Howard is a really nice guy to talk to once you reach him, but he has
> limited hours of accessibility.  It's worth it to keep trying to reach him
> via phone.
>
> Jim
>
> On Feb 22, 2012, at 1:25 PM, Kirk Eppler wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 10:20 AM, John Ruth <johnrruth@h...>
> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> If I were lucky enough to score a 289 w/o rod & fence, my first move
> would
> >> be to place an order for same with http://www.stjamesbaytoolco.com/
> >>
> >> St. James Bay offers many parts of a 289 from stock - and they have the
> >> necessary knowledge of the non-standard threading so that their parts
> fit
> >> old planes.  [No relationship beyond being a very satisifed customer.]
> >>
> >
> >
> > Mr Howard has not returned my last call or email, so if you are lucky
> > enough to get a response, please let me know.  I am trying to track down
> > #67 spokeshave parts.
> >
> > Kirk in HMB, CA
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > OldTools is a mailing list catering to the interests of hand tool
> > aficionados, both collectors and users, to discuss the history, usage,
> > value, location, availability, collectibility, and restoration of
> > traditional handtools, especially woodworking tools.
> >
> > To change your subscription options:
> > http://ruckus.law.cornell.edu/mailman/listinfo/oldtools
> >
> > To read the FAQ:
> > http://swingleydev.com/archive/faq.html
> >
> > OldTools archive: http://swingleydev.com/archive/
> >
> > OldTools@r...
> > http://ruckus.law.cornell.edu/mailman/listinfo/oldtools
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> OldTools is a mailing list catering to the interests of hand tool
> aficionados, both collectors and users, to discuss the history, usage,
> value, location, availability, collectibility, and restoration of
> traditional handtools, especially woodworking tools.
>
> To change your subscription options:
> http://ruckus.law.cornell.edu/mailman/listinfo/oldtools
>
> To read the FAQ:
> http://swingleydev.com/archive/faq.html
>
> OldTools archive: http://swingleydev.com/archive/
>
> OldTools@r...
> http://ruckus.law.cornell.edu/mailman/listinfo/oldtools
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ken Vaughn writes:

> Your comments concerning a "side relieved" or beveled edge for a #289 
> cutter iron caught my attention.  I assume that you are talking about 
> a blade which is trapezoidal in cross section, like those of the #46 
> skew cutter combination plane.  If this is the case, then my #289 has 
> such a cutter iron.  My #289 was US made and bears the Stanley 
> "Sweetheart" logo.

and

> While re-reading my reply, I began to question whether trapezoidal was 
> the correct geometry description.  Perhaps I should have said that the 
> cross section was a rhomboid, 4 sides parallel but not at right 
> angles.

I, too, have trouble in ascribing the correct names to geometric shapes.

In those of my wooden rebate planes wherein the cutting edge is set skew 
to the line of travel of the plane only the off-side edge or the iron is 
relieved, the near-side edge being square with the front and back faces 
of the iron.  The relief angle is about 45 degrees and the edge 
initially produced by this relief is reasonably sharp although not to a 
degree where it would readily take a shaving from timber.

As a rhombus is an equilateral parallelogram I take it that the shape of 
the section of your iron to which you refer is simply a parallelogram 
which is not a rectangle.  No such luck for me with my #289 which, 
although it has a skewed cutting edge, is simply rectangular in section. 
Maybe my iron is a replacement for the original.  Your iron, with its 
"Sweetheart", logo, would appear to be the original.

Regards from Brisbane,

John Manners 

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

John Ruth writes:

"As a sort of P.S., I just want to say that "Of threads and threading 
systems, there is no end" (TM me) The more I research oddball threads, 
the more I realize that one could NEVER have a comprehensive set of taps 
and dies that would cover all old tools.  Heck, you'd be lucky if you 
had a set which would cover every tool currently being made!"

Many years ago, as my introduction to portable, eclectically powered 
tools,  I acquired a small Makita electric drill.  I was more than 
satisfied with the thing but, after considerable use, the three jaws of 
its chuck became rounded.  Not to worry, until I discovered that Makita 
spare parts were then virtually unknown in Brisbane.  Sought, from an 
engineering supply place, a replacement chuck only to be told that the 
thread on the stem of my drill was non-standard both in imperial and 
metric terms. Day was saved only when a fitter mate of mine turned me up 
a replacement set of chuck jaws.  Thankfully, things have changed 
considerably for the better since those times.

Regards from Brisbane,

John Manners 

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