Q's about No. 7c Plane

Hi,
I just received my (long deceased) grandfather's No. 7 hand plane. Here are 3 pics of it, as received:
http://home.comcast.net/~bmlerner/Misc/As_Received_Assembled.jpg
http://home.comcast.net/~bmlerner/Misc/As_Received_Apart.jpg
http://home.comcast.net/~bmlerner/Misc/Frog_and_receiver.jpg
This is my first hand plane. It's in rough shape, and I'm going to try and restore/repair it this weekend, using this webpage as a guide: http://www.yesterdaystools.com/Tuiningindex.htm
I did have a few questions (after googling for hours, I promise).
1. It looks just like a Type 7 or Type 8 plane, as per pictures on eBay http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category 874&itema43878270&rd=1 and info from Stanley Plane type study http://www.tooltrip.com/tooltrip8/stanley/stan-bpl/bailey-types.htm and Patrick's Blood and Gore http://www.supertool.com/StanleyBG/stan1.htm
However, it doesn't say Stanley anywhere on the tool (the only marks I've found are the "No. 7" on the toe and "E8" stamped on the iron), which leads me to suspect that it's another brand. Is this correct, and any ideas who made it?
2. The lateral adjustment lever is snapped about 1 1/2" up. Is this going to interfere with use? If so, any suggests for repair?
3. The japanning is in bad shape on the toe (where I cleaned) and probably on most of the rest. Should I try to re-paint the base, and if so, what paint would most resemble the original finish? Precautions?
Thanks for reading, sorry I went on so long,
Brian
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Welcome to the slippery slope! And congratulations on the receipt of your grandfather's handplane. I believe that old tools are another means of reaching across generations, and better understanding who we are, and from whence we came. My grandfather's drawknives, fencing pliers and other hand tools are gentle reminders of what they accomplished without straightedges accurate to .002".
There are many more qualified in the intricacies of old handplanes than am I, but let me offer some experience I've gleaned, over the past several years.
Handplanes needn't be shiny, polished, painted and spiffy, in order to do what they were intended to do. Get the rust & crud wiped off with kerosene and/or mineral spirits, sharpen the blade, maybe file the chip breaker a little bit, and use the tool your grandfather used. Unless the old blade is seriously pitted, you needn't replace it. Several of my planes have blades older than my father, and they sharpen well, hold an edge, and take wispy curly shavings as well or better than new.
If you believe, after some months, that you want to 'pretty this thing up', then follow that path. But it's not really needed.
Oh. Try Pete Niederberger for old parts & tools. pniederber at aol dot com for email
Patriarch, once in a while, old school.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 22:37:00 -0700, "B. Lerner"

Stop now. Find an old #4 (cheap, even if you have to buy it from eBay). Restore that one first.
A #7 is awkward to work on, just because of the size. This one is also corrugated, and has personal history. Practice on an easy one first.
Electrolysis is worth doing, lapping isn't.
--
Smert' spamionam

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Andy Dingley wrote:

also
Andy doesn't need anybody to bolster his opinion, but I'm doing it anyway. He's right, find yourself a practice plane first. That baby is too valuable, in so many ways, to be the first plane you restore.
If I may suggest, Frank Klausz, http://www.frankklausz.com/ has a video called Hand Tools with Frank Klausz, that goes through the process of restoring an old flea market plane along with several other tools. It's a great addition to your reference pile. Watching someone do it really helps.

I'll leave that decision to the more experienced. I'd be interested in why, though. There seem to be two pretty strong schools of thought on that.
Dan
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Electrolysis is cosmetic, while lapping is functional.
If you want a pretty plane, use electrolysis.
If you want a functional plane, lap the sole. Note that the sole doesn't have to be dead flat for the plane to be functional, so many don't believe lapping is necessary at all. Lapping can also adversely affect the angle between the side and base of the plane for shooting, although many bench planes aren't advertised as shooting planes and consequently haven't been spec'd as perfectly square side to sole anyway.
Brush the crap off with a stiff brush, sharpen the iron and plane away. Tune it once you understand its defects.
scott
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Thanks for responding.
I'll stop by the local flea market on Saturday, see what I can find (I know of one tool dealer in particular who may have something). My girlfriend was thrilled to hear "that I need to buy ANOTHER plane so I can use this one."
I was planning on learning how to use this, and any others, by building Bob and Daves Good, Fast, and Cheap Bench, (http://www.terraclavis.com/bws/beginners.htm ) to replace a crappy bench I made from a kitchen counter we tore out. I'd use the planes to level the top (fir, most likely). Would a #4 and #7 be all I need? I think I can see where this is going.
Anyway, thanks Andy, Patriarch and others who responded. I'll try to keep out of the electrolysis vs. lap debate.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You'll need the #7 to flatten the top, definitely. It is the perfect plane for that. I recently bought a #8 and will use it for the same purpose, as I am building a workbench as well. But a harder wood for the top is much better than DF, which is soft and chips too deeply, too easily. I spent around $150 for 32 b/f of 8/4 hard maple but the trestle will be DF.
What I read on flattening tops... use a slightly rounded edge blade to plane across* the lamination which is also across the grain (not lengthwise) once the glue is fully dry, making super thin shavings. After that, the other way with a flat edge for lengthwise planing. You'd need a new blade as a flat edge, the old blade used as rounded. My top will have four threaded rods.
Ian Kirby, Woodworker's Journal Oct. '04 vol. 28, No. 5 http://www.woodworkersjournal.com/index.cfm/bestnet
--
Alex
cravdraa - at - yahoo - dot - comment
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
<snip>

Where it's going is likely to a double digit hand plane count. Unless you're very careful. ;-)
To the two you already list, you will likely want to add a #5, and/or one of it's variants, as well as one or more adjustable mouth block planes.
After that, it depends on what you build, and if you like the quiet methods. You may never buy another handplane.
Before you head off to the flea market, visit the following sites:
http://www.lie-nielsen.com / http://www.leevalley.com/wood/page.aspx?c=2&pH940&cat=1,41182 http://www.knight-toolworks.com /
Then you can see what you can buy, new, tuned, ready-to-use, and get an idea of what you 'save' by purchasing pre-WWII Stanleys, and cleaning them up yourself. I have planes from each of them, and they are all top notch tools.
Patriarch
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Patriarch wrote:

Hmmm...
Damn. I guess you're right. I count 12. I still need a couple others.
But at least I don't have a *triple* digit count like some of you nutjobs. :)
--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan < snipped-for-privacy@users.sourceforge.net>
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Silvan wrote:

Hey! I got another one today. A Vaughn and Bushnell #805. A heavy casting version of a round side Bedrock 605 made in Chicago. Japanning's spotty, but other than that it's in great condition, even the tote's good.
Dave in Fairfax
--
Dave Leader
reply-to doesn't work
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

How about quadruple digit? See the cover of FW Tools & Shops last month?
Impressive.
Joe C.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 19:57:33 -0700, "B. Lerner"

but honey, I neeeeed it....

probably follow up with a card scraper.

<Grin>
no debate, really. both good processes, but for different things. you may end up doing both...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

If it's a Stanley (and it seems reasonable to think it is, those being the most common), then it's a type 12 or later, because it's got the high knob.

Looking very closely at the top of the iron, and also at the depth adjuster, might give some hints. Almost all plane makers seem to have stamped their brand onto the iron.

Probably not.
I'm not going to comment on the wisdom or not of trying to restore a plane of possible emotional significance :-)
John
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
John McCoy wrote:

Actually, it is the low knob, it just looks like the high because of the pics. Here's the knob, compared to the side by side provided by Patrick Leach (from http://www.supertool.com/StanleyBG/stan1.htm#num3 )
http://home.comcast.net/~bmlerner/Misc/Knob_comparison.jpg

I'll take a closer look when I clean it up. Thanks.

No sweat. My grandfather was dead 20 years before I was born, so I'm not too attached to the plane.
Thanks for responding,
Brian
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.