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/

Repaired links, I hope.

Bill W.
Nottingham, PA
Woodworkers visit me at http://billwebber.galootcentral.com/

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

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:

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

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/

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/

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/

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

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/

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

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/

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