OldTools Archive

Recent Search Bios FAQ

269467 "Ed O'" <edo@e...> 2019‑11‑27 Remaking the Stanley No. 94
I'd be excited about a remake of the Stanley No. 94 Cabinet Makers Rabbet
Plane, but the No. 94 Butt Gauge?

https://www.woodpeck.com/onetime-tool-no-94-dual-beam-scribe-2019.html

The order deadline is December 16.  Only $129.99.

They seem to be pushing it as a good tool for laying out hinges on boxes.
As designed and made by Stanley it is a genius tool with built in square and
with 3 cutting points with the bevels situated the correct way toward the
waste from the reference edges for setting door hinges.  That is not the
case when trying to use it on boxes.  The 4th and 5th picture shows that the
bevel will push the chisel wall away from the hinge. 

Currently they have remade a tool that is a very high priced gauge suitable
for hanging doors.  If they had reversed that bevel it would have been good
for boxes, but no longer for doors.

Here's the original patent for the tool:
http://d
atamp.org/patents/displayPatent.php?pn=985389&id=5563

If you read the actual patent and look at the directions on line you can see
why the bevels on the cutters point different ways.

Ed O'
269468 Ed Minch <ruby1638@a...> 2019‑11‑27 Re: Remaking the Stanley No. 94
"At the beginning of the 20th Century the term “Pre-Hung Door” didn’t exist.
Neither did hand-held routers or routing templates. Hinges were mortised into
doors and door frames with keen chisels and skilled hands. Seeing how much time
finish carpenters spent laying out these mortises, Stanley Tools invented the
Butt Gauge

They got that wrong - Fulton actually patented one with 3 blades, not 2, in
1888, and his was not the first one

http:
//datamp.org/patents/displayPatent.php?number=386,428&type= <http://datamp.org/pa
tents/displayPatent.php?number=386,428&type=>

The Marden was the first one - 16 years earlier in 1872

http:/
/datamp.org/patents/displayPatent.php?number=125823&type=

And Stanley made their 95 by modifying the Fulton patent just enough.  I don’t
know why Woodpuckers copied the 94 when the 95 was the most popular - made from
1897 to 1984 instead of 1909 to 1942.  So Stanley didn't invent it, it was in
the 19th c not the 20th, and they didn't copy Stanley’s most popular version.
Oh, and the cost - you can get a vintage Stanley for $6-10.

I have never figured out what the third cutter is for on the 95, but here it is
on my Fulton too:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/ruby1638/49133401842/in/dateposted-
public/ <https://www.flickr.com/photos/ruby1638/49133354757/in
/dateposted-public/>

This little guy is in excellent condition, complete with name and patent date

Ed minch
269470 "Ed O'" <edo@e...> 2019‑11‑27 Re: Remaking the Stanley No. 94
Ed,

I too never really understood the three cutters, but do now.

I found this old thread that still has a live link to the instructions: http://swingleydev.com/ot/get/169
585/thread/

Direct link is here: http://kaccardi.net/Other/Stanley-95_outside-lo.jpeg

The second link is the one you want.  Look at the picture with Figures 9 & 10.
The rod with 2 cutters set the barrel side to edge width of the mortise.  One
end references off the jam and then the other end references off the door. One
setting does both and the opposing bevels create just enough space so the door
doesn’t completely bind when closed.  The rod with one cutter is set to the
thickness of the hinge, or to the near center of barrel depending on if you have
swaged or unswagged hinges.  It really is genius.

The body is also a square that allows you to define the ends of the mortises.
The screws for the rods are set below the lip of the body so they don’t get in
the way of it being used as a square.

The one tool really replaces 3 (not 2)marking gauges and a square and built into
it is clearance so the door doesn’t completely bind when closed.

I figured out you can reverse the 2 ended rod and it would work well on setting
hinges on a box (the bevels would be correct with the chamfer pointing to the
waste side).  Each rod on my No. 95 does have 2 Tapped holes on it so it is easy
to do.
I never gave these a second thought, but really have just gained an appreciation
for the genius of them.

I was wondering the same thing with regards to remaking the No. 94 instead of
the No. 95.

Ed O’

----------------------------------
From: Ed Minch [mailto:ruby1638@a...] 

I have never figured out what the third cutter is for on the 95, but here it is
on my Fulton too:

Ed minch
269471 Kirk Eppler 2019‑11‑27 Re: Remaking the Stanley No. 94
I do have a color pdf of this file.

I got it here

https://archi
ve.org/details/StanleyImprovedNo95ButtGauge

I too need to learn how to use it, as I have a vintage box needing hinges
installed.

KE


On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 9:56 AM Ed O'  wrote:

> Ed,
>
> I too never really understood the three cutters, but do now.
>
> I found this old thread that still has a live link to the instructions:
> > http://swingleydev.co
m/ot/get/169585/thread/
>
> > Direct link is here: http://kaccardi.net/Other/Stanley-95_outside-lo.jpeg
>
> The second link is the one you want.  Look at the picture with Figures 9 &
> 10.  The
>
-- 
Sent from my iPad, apologies for the Auto Correct errors. Kirk

Recent Search Bios FAQ