OldTools Archive
Recent | Bios | FAQ |
272593 | Bill Webber | 2021‑01‑17 | Cowell and Chapman dilemma |
GGs, This is a Cowell and Chapman screw arm plow plane. Note the frame style... and the expired price estimate. https://www.the-saleroom.com/en-gb/auction-catalogues/david-stanley- auctions/catalogue-id-2850660/lot-13609724">https://www.the-saleroom.com/en-gb /auction-catalogues/david-stanley-auctions/catalogue-id-2850660/lot-13609724 Here are a couple more pictures of other Cowell and Chapman plow planes. http://billwebber.galootcentral.com/Cowell & Chapman.jpg http://billwebber.galootcentral.com/IMGP0464.JPG http://billwebber.galootcentral.com/Cowell n Chapman 2A.jpg Now to the point. Here are some pictures of my plane. Note the similarities in the major frame and the walnut handle. http://billwebber.galootcentral.com/1.JPG http://billwebber.galootcentral.com/2.JPG The fence is crude. When pushed up next to the plane, the fence does not line up with the arms as evidenced by the rounded cut outs that are supposed to align with the fence rods. The fence has wooden blocks as extenders. The brass bar is actually 3 pieces riveted together. The thumb screw is crude, homemade looking. http://billwebber.galootcentral.com/3.JPG http://billwebber.galootcentral.com/6.JPG The lever cap is crudely made of steel with red paint. http://billwebber.galootcentral.com/4.JPG The brass rods appear to be professionally made. They are tight fitting with nicely knurled screw caps. http://billwebber.galootcentral.com/5.JPG Where do you think this thing came from? My guess would be a factory piece, either rejected or lifted unfinished, and someone modified it or perhaps a maker attempt at something different? So, the dilemma. I didn't pay a lot of money for this plane. In addition to the things I've described, the skate is badly pitted, there is no depth stop, the wood is damaged/deteriorated, etc. I'm tempted to keep the frame and the arms and rebuild everything else. It would be a fairly time consuming project but not a big money investment. I would wind up with a nice fancy plane and a good story to go with it. Actually, the only reason for my hesitation is the big asking price in the old auction listing. I had offered mine on Ebay a few years ago with no takers. I'm likely to take my own advice offered the last time one of you guys posed a similar dilemma which was "it's yours, do what you want with it" I thought the plane was somewhat unusual and interesting and thought I'd just toss the discussion out here to pass the pandemic... Regards, -- Bill W. Nottingham, PA Woodworkers visit me at http://billwebber.galootcentral.com/ |
|||
272594 | Bill Webber | 2021‑01‑17 | Re: Cowell and Chapman dilemma |
Repaired links, I hope. Bill W. Nottingham, PA Woodworkers visit me at http://billwebber.galootcentral.com/ |
|||
272595 | Spike Cornelius <spikethebike@c...> | 2021‑01‑17 | Re: Cowell and Chapman dilemma |
Dear Bill, were it mine I would rebuild it, however, I have a reputation for taking on weird projects. I think that it looks like a fun project! Best regards, Spike Sent from my refuge |
|||
272596 | Kirk Eppler | 2021‑01‑17 | Re: Cowell and Chapman dilemma |
That's definitely not right as is. You're better prepared than most of us to take on this task. If it's not generating interest from others as is, go for it. Kirk Eppler from the Droid On Sun, Jan 17, 2021, 1:32 PM Bill Webber via OldTools < oldtools@s...> wrote: |
|||
272597 | John Ruth <johnrruth@h...> | 2021‑01‑18 | Re: Cowell and Chapman dilemma |
Bill, A close examination of those photos reveals a difference in the shape of the wood-to-metal interface at the bottom of the tote. You may have a different "type," although I sense that these Cowell & Chapman plows are too rare for anyone to make a formal type study. Yours might be a prototype, or a patent model, which would explain the lack of markings and the less-refined appearance of some parts. Most likely, your assessment as a "repaired" tool with ersatz parts is correct. Whatever you have, FWIW, its body is not exactly the same as the Cowell & Chapman shown in the David Stanley Auction. It's a very interesting piece. Making nicer parts will probably improve its value in addition to its usefulness. Go for it! John Ruth |
|||
272598 | Bill Webber | 2021‑01‑18 | Re: Cowell and Chapman dilemma |
Hi Kirk, Thanks for he reply. I'm leaning that way. I've learned that trying to make major repairs to old tools is not nearly as satisfying as 1) making a completely new one or 2) careful cleanup of an otherwise well maintained old one. I've been working on a level for my Hilton tool chest and while the mechanics involved are not too challenging, I have no knowledge of how to blend old and new parts to get an acceptable appearance. I'm torn between making something too new and something too faked. I'll do my best to please me; no profit involved either way. Stay well, friend, Bill W. Nottingham, PA Woodworkers visit me at http://billwebber.galootcentral.com/ |
|||
272599 | Bill Webber | 2021‑01‑18 | Re: Cowell and Chapman dilemma |
Hey Gary, No argument, me thinks recent could be last 20 to 50 years. Regards, Bill W. Nottingham, PA Woodworkers visit me at http://billwebber.galootcentral.com/ |
|||
272600 | Bill Webber | 2021‑01‑18 | Re: Cowell and Chapman dilemma |
Comments below... On 1/17/2021 7:41 PM, John Ruth wrote: > Bill, > > A close examination of those photos reveals a difference in the shape of the wood-to-metal interface at the bottom of the tote. > Haven't noticed that, I'll look at it more closely. > You may have a different "type," although I sense that these Cowell & Chapman plows are too rare for anyone to make a formal type study. Agree... > > Yours might be a prototype, or a patent model, which would explain the lack of markings and the less-refined appearance of some parts. Wishful thinkng on your part, me too! > > Most likely, your assessment as a "repaired" tool with ersatz parts is correct. Not so much repaired as modified... > > Whatever you have, FWIW, its body is not exactly the same as the Cowell & Chapman shown in the David Stanley Auction. Major differences I noted (Stanley auction and the other pictures) the hole for the depth stop has not been drilled, there is a bridge missing on mine where the depth stop goes and he sides of that opening are more tapered on mine. Could be the same casting but modified somewhat for who-knows what reasons. > > It's a very interesting piece. Making nicer parts will probably improve its value in addition to its usefulness. Go for it! I don't sell much so we will likely never know. I'll post pictures if I get it made over. Not likely to sell anything I put that much effort into. > > John Ruth > Regards, Bill W. Nottingham, PA Woodworkers visit me at http://billwebber.galootcentral.com/ |
|||
272601 | Ed Minch <ruby1638@a...> | 2021‑01‑18 | Re: Cowell and Chapman dilemma |
Is it possible that someone cast a copy for themselves way back when? Any way to compare dimensions of a known version and yours to see if there is the proper “shrinkage”, as George Costeanza would say? Ed Minch |
|||
272602 | Bill Webber | 2021‑01‑18 | Re: Cowell and Chapman dilemma |
Hey Ed, Possible, of course though methinks unlikely. It is a rather involved casting. I don't have access to an authentic, fully functional example. I know the two planes pictured have been moved along and are not available to study. Bill W. Nottingham, PA Woodworkers visit me at http://billwebber.galootcentral.com/ |
|||
272603 | John Ruth <johnrruth@h...> | 2021‑01‑18 | Re: Cowell and Chapman dilemma |
Bill, I'm sure you already found this page, which reproduces an advert giving a 31-DEC-1889 end date for Cowell & Chapman: https://www.lumberjocks.com/Brit/blog/28488 Your plane is "better" than the David Stanley example in respect to the fence adjustment. The fine-pitch brass screws and beautifully rope-knurled nuts on your plane are more practical and offer finer adjustment than the wooden threaded parts of the David Stanley example. Brass is a more "certain" manufacturing material than wood; there's no fragile grain and less likelihood of a hidden internal flaw ruining a partially-finished piece. The whole design could possibly be reproduced with modern techniques and materials for the "bespoke" market, a la Karl Hotley. The body could be "hogged out" of solid material or built up from pieces like as is done on an infill plane made from brass plates. John Ruth Sent from my iPhones |
|||
272604 | Bill Webber | 2021‑01‑18 | Re: Cowell and Chapman dilemma |
Hi John, Thanks for the info. I had not seen that page. Appears you jumped ahead a little in your conclusion regarding the fence adjustment. The fine thread and turned nuts only hold the fence arms in place. The arms are simply smooth bars on which to slide the fence. See again these two: http://billwebber.galootcentral.com/2.JPG http://billwebber.galootcentral.com/5.JPG As a progress update, if what I've done can be called progress, I have reduced the current value of the plane to near zero. :-) The most difficult part of the rehab effort would be to make a new handle. The handle is shaped to fit inside the brass frame and it looks like terribly finicky work to make a new one. To find out what is really going on I removed the skate to get access to a single screw (I hope) that holds the handle to the brass. As luck would have it, the screw broke when trying to extract it. Today I'll focus on removing the broken screw and removing the handle. Regards, Bill W. Nottingham, PA Woodworkers visit me at http://billwebber.galootcentral.com/ |
|||
272606 | Ed Minch <ruby1638@a...> | 2021‑01‑18 | Re: Cowell and Chapman dilemma |
John Very interesting site. The author came up with a saw with a pretty unique etch in pretty remarkable condition and it was a lesson in why they make chocolate and vanilla ice cream. He says this "Now if this was a common saw with a common etch, I would have no compunction in sanding the saw plate. Of course I would do my best to keep the etch, but if it wasn’t possible it wouldn’t be the end of the world. However this isn’t a common saw. For all I know, this could be the only surviving saw from Cowell and Chapman bearing this historic etch. While it is in my custody I won’t be doing anything except cleaning and polishing it so that the next owner can hopefully get as much pleasure from owning it as I do. I did decide to refinish the handle though because the finish was wearing very thin in places and the bottom horn had a tiny chip that was annoying me.” Now us Muricans would consider razor blading the tiny spots of rust and putting some oil on the handle, but check what this guy did for his conservative conservation with future owners in mind Ed Minch |
|||
Recent | Bios | FAQ |