Part of my routine is to identify what exactly I got myself into this time around :-)
Part of that, was an early Excelsior block plane. I am well aware of the various block planes Type studies (Sellens, Bob Kaune and etc) but I recently came across this table at Timetestedtools which purport to quickly narrow down a "Type" or approx vintage.
And that is how I went down that rabbit hole quickly... Such a slippery slope they say... :-)
The one topmost is the Excelsior body, the others came out as references.
In the end I ended up with 3 Low Angle (12 degrees) Block planes: 3 variations of the Model 60-1/2
and 3 Regular angle (20 degrees) Block planes: 9-1/4, 5306, 19
What's in a name, Excelsior??
In Stanley block planes parlance we are referring to the side look of the wings. Your everyday block plane, have the side wings, hump, roughly centered on the sides.
The earliest Stanley, so called Excelsior's, have the hump clearly off centered toward the back.
Roughly from 1888-1898.
Excelsior, off centered side hump.
They did not stamped the model number on this side back then.
Which one is it??
That was essentially the basis of the "falling out" between Stanley and Leonard, the amount of royalties.
And thus ensues a variety of seemingly similar block planes from Stanley. But thank fully they can all be boiled down to two basic type and models; The Low Angle (12 degrees) represented by the Model No 60-1/2 and the regular angle (20 degrees) represented by the model no 9-1/2.
And guess what? That is essentially which models are shown in that table, so printed and off I go...
What model do I have?
The earliest Stanley's never had their model number stamped on the side. They were differentiated by the trim and features. The No 9-1/2 and 60-1/2 represent the fully kitted, adjustable block planes in both 20 and 12 degrees. Most others are derived from them, some by the material finish (plated), some by omitting some features (throat adj., Lateral adj.) and various Lever cap design. Other than that? Same, same, down to the casting of bed, with or without the extra machining steps for some adj. mechanism. Oh, and they came in 6 or 7 inches long beds.
The lever cap is of the earliest knuckle cap, having the patent No on it of Dec 28 1886. Patent would expire in 1903 (17 years patent)
The cup being made of cast iron, often break at the two lugs. It is also said to be capable to induce stress cracks at the mouth of the plane. For these reasons, the cap was redesigned in 1913. It went from two pieces to a complex 4 parts linkage and material changes. The casting was also reinforced near the mouth, used to be thinner.
If you look at the thickness of the lugs which are pulling against the bed screw, you can guess that it would require a longer screw than normally used with the other styles of cap.
On top screw from No 9-1/4 and bottom No 19 as used with knuckle cap.
Notice also the length of the unthreaded shank.
That knuckle cap would make it either a No 18 or 19.
The difference? No 18 is 6 in long, No 19 is 7 in long. Mine measured 7 inches, making it a No 19 (1888-1949)
The side wings do not have the Hand-y feature milled. Pat in 1897 introduced in 1900s
Both the bed casting and the throat plate have the "S" marking. (1880-1900)
The bed has some damages, but nothing to hurt its performance.
The iron seems proper, according to its markings.
It has the throat adjuster but no lateral adjuster (?). Supposed to have one.
Being a loose piece it is M.I.A. :-(
The nut for the depth adjuster is RH threads (before 1898)
Top plane is No 19 RH threads, bottom is 9-1/4 LH threads.
Stanley switched threads directions around 1898
This type of cutter adjuster was patented by Leonard Bailey in 1867
Throat adjuster patent Feb 20 1894
John Walter book
Antique and Collectible Stanley Tools
Being introduced in 1894, I would had expected this cam lever to be showing the patent date.
Does not appear to have any markings...or does it?
Lateral adjuster patent 1884, 1888 (disk)
Which one of the two styles of lateral lever would it had?
The first one with the curved lip or the later one with the disk?
John Walter book
Antique and Collectible Stanley Tools
The introduction of the rotating disk at the end of the lateral lever, necessitated a bigger cut out in the web between the screw and the blade advance mechanism casting. Was 3/16 of an inch now 3/8 in.
I was not quite sure what that meant, so I gathered a 3/16 and 3/8 drill bit stock. It became quite obvious...
The 3/8 bit fit nicely, therefore we have the disk type of lateral adjuster.
There are only two styles of lateral lever but they were various patents dates combination on them.
- First one LL1 1888 had 3 patent dates: Pat Feb. 8, 76. Pat Oct. 21, 84 and Pat Jan. 17, 88 and STANLEY stamped on the bent down part of the lever end.
- Next one with the disk LL2 1890-1894 had 4 patent dates at first: Pat. 2-8-76, 10-21-84, 1-17-88 and 7-24-88, STANLEY stamped as before.
- Next change LL3 1898 now marked Pat, 10-21-84, 1-17-88, 7-24-88, 8-3-97 and STANLEY as before.
- Next change LL4 1901-1904 Only three patents dates; Pat. 1-17-88, 7-24-88, 8-3-97 and STANLEY as before
- Next change LL5 1908-09. One date remaining Pat. 8-3-97 and STANLEY as before
- Next change LL6 1910-19 All patent dates eliminated. STANLEY eliminated in later versions
Everything seems to point to around the turn of the 20th century. Late 1890s to early 1900s
What does our previous table came up with?
- Excelsior body 1888-98
- Hand-y grip after 1898
- Casting marks S 1889-1902
- Lateral lever Guessing LL3 with 4 patent dates 1898-1901
- Eccentric throat lever 1894 patent date is from 1894-1907
- Lever cap knuckle joint with pat date 1886, 1888-1904
I would then date this tool from 1894 to 1898. Would had been nice to have original lateral lever to pin point it.
The only sticky point remaining is the eccentric lever with no markings. Could there be some remnants of some markings??
I got this inexpensive USB microscope for about $20. Well worth the price. It does capture snap shots or video. Let's see what we can unearth with it.
Looking at the blade logo with it. The logo was stamped
Part of RULE
Part of LEVEL Co
Now that we know how stamping looks like, let see that lever again.
Hard to see but I think I make up a 0 ?
As in Feb 20 94
The lever is plated and flaking heavily obscuring much. Ill look at it again after its bath in Evaporust.
Since we had the microscope out, lets take a look at the blade edge.
It shows signs of recent sharpening.
The top part is pitting on the blade surface, lower shinier part is the bevel
Edge has some damages but is in pretty good shape
Would be curious to look at it later after its Evaporust bath.
All in all, even with the missing lateral lever, not a bad find. Especially considering I found it at a yard sale table for $5 :-) Should make a fine user.
Bob, with a growing pile that need to be put away...
I have the LN versions of the Stanley 60 1/2 and 9 1/2. They are big and heavy and work well. I prefer the smaller LN low angle plane. It is the now I use the most in my shop.
ReplyDeleteDidn't know that Stanley and Bailey fell out due to royalties. Makes business sense and an acceptable practice at that time.
HI Ralph
ReplyDeleteMy only Lie Nielsen plane is a 60-1/2 that was given to me as a parting gift from the Ottawa Woodworker Association. Its a keeper!
The Bailey No 4 bench planes really took off, it was a huge success and the royalties paid for it quickly added up. Stanley and Leonard would attempt to re-negotiate those royalties payments a few times.
Bob
Oh man, I just love that USB microscope and was looking at them a few years ago. Is 20x the highest it will go? I hope you can see more after the evaporust bath.
ReplyDeleteRegarding the royalties - isn't that always the way it goes: big company promises lots of royalties and then makes it so they have to pay much less. Big companies always win in the end.
Hi Matt.
ReplyDeleteThere are many variation of this USB microscope on line. Mine claim to magnify from 200X to 1000x but i have no way to confirm that. All I know is that it is pretty cool :-) Well worth the $20-35 on line. It comes in pretty handy to troubleshoot a problem edge while sharpening. Flimsy stand and touchy to focus but did i mentioned its cool ? :-)
Bob, full of cool ideas after a few cold ones.
Oups, looking at my USB microscope it says from 40X to 1000X. Those pics I got are roughly X100 max im guessing??
ReplyDeleteAnother thing that varies in similar looking usb microscope is the imaging chip resolution (mine has a 2.3 Mega pixel) they have up to 4, 8 and 11 Mega pixels ones (roughly in $200s range). the numer of LEDs for illumintaion also varies, mine has 8 and they are dimmable with rotary dimmer on power cord. The stand being flimsy at best vibrate when you touch the cord, making for wiggly varying focus images. Slow and steady minutes adjustments are possible but takes some time to get used to it. They also come in various oyther mounts, some seem sturdier, some have a 4.3 TTF LCD screen in it etc. Just off Amazon, the variety and price points are plentiful to find what you need, cheap. Great aid in sharpening, hint hint for problem edges.
Bob, still sipping his morning coffee
Bob,
ReplyDeleteFun and informative read on the block planes. I've thought of getting a USB microscope off and on for a couple of years but never pulled the trigger. You may have pushed me into it :-).
ken
Thanks ken
ReplyDeleteHighly recommend those cheap USB microscope, really handy and, yes, fun :-)
Bob, the gadget man