spoke shave parts

I recently bought a Stanley #151 spoke shave, but it is missing the blade and the cap iron. Anyone have suggestions for finding replacements? (An unscrupulous eBayer sold it as being in "excellent condition"; photo was poor and I didn't think to ask about all the parts being there![&@#%&!] I'm in negotiations, but in case I choose to keep it I'd like to fix it.)

Dan

Reply to
Dan Cullimore
Loading thread data ...

snipped-for-privacy@gte.net (Dan Cullimore) wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@posting.google.com:

Pete Niederberger, snipped-for-privacy@aol.com, lotsa everything in Neander tools.

Patrick Leach, snipped-for-privacy@supertool.com,

formatting link
everything Stanley, and lots of everything else.

I've worked with both of these folks. They both have excellent reputations.

Have fun with the shave!

Patriarch, no affiliation, etc.....

Reply to
patriarch

You might want to try calling Lori in Parts at Stanley Works at

800-262-2161. (I don't know if that number is still current, but it's the last one I've got.) She tends to go above-and-beyond in getting parts to needy galoots.

Chuck Vance

Reply to
Conan The Librarian

Dan,

Since you need a blade anyway, you might give some thought to replacing with a Hock blade. If you don't want to do that, I may have a stock Stanley blade still laying around from when I put in the Hock. If you go with the Hock, be aware that it is thicker than the stock blade and may require a little filing on the bed to make room for the extra thickness. That is not all bad since most of those shaves could use a little smoothing and flattening on the bed anyway.

If you want me to check around for that extra blade drop me an email. The reply-to address is good.

Tom Veatch Wichita, KS USA

Reply to
Tom Veatch

A #151 is rubbish anyway, As described in Fine Woodworking a while back, the blades won't hold an edge and the cap iron isn't accurate enough to hold it down well. Brian Boggs described how to improve the mouth and bedding with epoxy, then make a brass cap iron.

But this is clearly the seller's fault, so have them take it back and give you a full refund. Mis-descriptions are one thing, but half of it missing is quite another.

Reply to
Andy Dingley

That sounds interesting. Is it in a book, web page, or a message in the archives? Give me a hint as where to start looking?

Tom Veatch Wichita, KS USA

Reply to
Tom Veatch

FWW #158, Oct 2002. Probably available at your local library.

Reply to
Joe Wells

Thanks, Joe. That issue is still available from Taunton as a "back issue". Got one on its way to my mailbox. That's probably faster (and considering fuel prices, probably about as cheap) than me fighting downtown traffic to get to the library. Besides, some of the other articles look interesting, also.

Tom Veatch Wichita, KS USA

Reply to
Tom Veatch

Andy: Could you identify the issue, (or especially anything about tuning up this "rubbish")? I'd like to read the piece. I'm considering Tom's suggestion about a Hock blade, but I'd like to get (or make) a cap iron. Thanks, Dan

Reply to
Dan Cullimore

The #151 just isn't a high quality piece. The main problem is poor fit between the mouth and cap iron, so there's a lack of rigidity in holding the iron (do shaves have blades or irons ?) and that leads to chatter. I've never seen the point in the knuckle-ripper screws either. I adjust them by laying them face down on a sheet or two of paper and gauging depth by finger pressure on the back of the iron.

The irons are also poor. A new Hock is a good idea here (or they're not a bad place to learn blade making and heat treatment)

There are several things to do with a #151:

- Throw it away. Like many people, I've collected loads of this pattern but never use them. I much prefer the #63 / #64 Stanley spokeshaves (flat and curved base). These are smaller (sometimes described as the "child's model") but they also have a simpler design that's less affected by lack of rigidity. I also like wooden spokeshaves, because of the different geometry, and this includes the modern Lee Valley version. I've also got an old #53 - don't know much about these, haven't really used it yet - but it looks promising.

- Get a decent one. The things are only a few bucks on eBay. It's really just not worth chasing after fixing a bad one. I also have examples with the commonplace broken handles. Although I have welded them to repair them, this is definitely as cast-iron welding practice, not as an economically sensible repair. I just want to improve my skills for fixing all those #10s 8-)

- Fix it. The Brian Boggs' piece made me laugh - he basically throws away everything except the handle and the clamp screw, and he reworks the handles pretty extensively. I'm sure it's a good tool when he's done, but it surely has to be easier to get a decent #151 pattern one from Lee Valley.

Making a cap iron is very simple metalworking. The article described using a woodworking bandsaw for cutting out brass. Personally I'd not do that - hacksawing by hand is less work than cleaning brass chips out of my woodworking kit.

The only complex part was using epoxy to build up the bed of the main body part. Those who shoot target rifles will be familiar with this process.

Reply to
Andy Dingley

Excellent info, thanks. Alex

Reply to
AArDvarK

It may be rubbish, but there's been a lot of chairs made using them (and blue handled Marples chisels too).

Just keep your tools sharp and work the wood.

FWIW, I'd send the junk back to the ebay seller and buy a complete spoke shave.

Reply to
Lowell Holmes

The #53 is a decent shave. It's got the adjustable mouth (toe-piece, really), so it can be set for fine work. It was my first "favorite" shave (before I made a couple of Guntershaves and got my hands on the two Lee Valley shaves).

Yep. They've already done all the work, plus you get a nice beefy iron. They also provide you with shims for closing up the mouth.

Personally, if I had it to do over again, I'd buy the LV low-angle and #151 and pass on the other metal shaves.

Chuck Vance

Reply to
Conan the Librarian

Lowell: Why I won't send it back: I didn't pay much for it; I don't trust the seller for the refund ("once burned..."), and especially not the full shipping (which was more than the tool!); I like a challenge, and Stanley is sending the parts as I type (Conan is right about that Lori--she IS good). (The seller did offer a refund, but I'm still PO'd by the way she set the auction. I won't return it, but will be honest in my feedback. I've said my piece to the seller.)

Andy: Thanks for the useful critique, and the heads up about the FWW issue. Having never used a spoke shave I'll just have to see about how much rubbish I have when/if I get it working.

Joe: Thanks for the citation info.

Tom: Thanks for the generous offer and other info.

All: I really appreciate the critical and experienced perspectives on what shaves are worth having and why. I've thought of making my own, and will probably do so in the next few weeks, but thought it would be good to try a ready-made first, thus the eBay bid; I was surprised I won. I have also thought of making my own blade(s), but don't quite have the shop space or time just yet. I'm also more interested in building a boat.

Reply to
Dan Cullimore

Did you find out if they have an improved lever cap for it? And what are all the parts you ordered?

Reason I ask is I have a resource for a #51 and a #151 for cheap.

Alex

Reply to
AArDvarK

"AArDvarK" wrote in news:XbLCc.830$9j.753@fed1read01:

I still think the best deal for a 'new spokeshave user' is to get one (or more) from Lee Valley. No fiddling. Just clean off the protective goop, hone the blade, and go. Oh, and you can trust the seller.

Unless what you really want to do is restore an old tool...

Patriarch

Reply to
patriarch

just be sure it is the low angle one. Or better yet the wooken kit.

-- J G (thewoodworkerformerlyknownhereasspokehave)

Reply to
J G

"J G" wrote in news:KAeDc.14617$ snipped-for-privacy@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net:

I'm willing to learn from a master. Why do you say that?

Patriarch

Reply to
patriarch

"patriarch snipped-for-privacy@nospam.comcastDOTnet" "J G" wrote in

I am but a humble deciple of the ways of the NeaderDude

Because they simplay kick ass. There is no way, NO WAY you are going to get the same quality cut from a "stanley type"spokeshave as you would from a traditional low-angle spokeshave especially on endgrain.

try it you'll like it:

formatting link
?SID=&ccurrency=&page=49710&category=1,49601--J G NeanderShill

Reply to
J G

Alex: Did not think to ask about an improved lever cap (cap iron?), so I'll take whatever they send (I asked for the blade and cap iron; adjustment screws came with the body, as did a cap screw).

Patriarch: Can't get one from LV for what I paid. I also like the challenge/education of restoring old tools (to a limit I don't think this shave will exceed).

BTW--Why do you think I can trust this seller? She was already deceptive about the tool (or about her qualifications for assessing it's condition), and in e-mails has given me no reason to trust her further--she had the audacity to as much as call me stupid for trusting her judgment, even while (finally) admitting she is "no expert." To my mind, stating a thing is in "excellent condition" presumes the capacity of making such a judgment, as well as being an explicit statement about (in this case) the tool's usefulness. This person clearly had no regard for her lack of knowledge, for the unusable condition of the tool was obvious to anyone with even the slightest knowledge of it's use; or she had no concern for me as a buyer, because, after all she did name it correctly (how many non-woodworkers would know this?--not many!) and thus knew something about it's use. In short, she was deliberately deceptive. If the person with a claim to make is not qualified to make it the only honest thing to do is admit one's ignorance. I frequently see an item offered at auction about which the seller admits to not knowing even what it is, much less what it's condition or usability might be. The market then decides how to trust the seller based on honest disclosure, not falsely perpetrated expertise. Here involved is a principle of integrity. She has lost me as a customer.

Good God, I think I needed a rant--sorry, Patriarch :}

Reply to
Dan Cullimore

HomeOwnersHub website 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.