Stanley No 60-1/2 Resurrected

The block plane I picked up look like a basket case a first sight but, if nothing else I could always used it for parts.
I would not pay much for a basket case, save for parts.  So nothing to loose really.
NOT for the faint of heart, yes that is a lot of elbow grease involved, but worth it.
And, very important to me, I did not erase any marks of its manufacture. Casting flaws, coarse linishing marks, etc, just stop the rust and leave original finish, wherever I can.
Why?  As a collector, all of these marks are important, down to the flaky shellac or varnish over the colored wood.  We need it "as is" to study the tool.  Not all tools acquired by collectors end up shiny on a shelf.  We are interested in the tool history, its makers, how it was built and etc.  Important as part of Type studies.

If I was selling tools (I AM NOT) that is as much as I would do to salvage the tool and ensuring no cracks, defects, missing or broken parts etc.  Leave the final tweaking to its next owner.
And personally once I'm done documenting and studying, all I'm interested is putting it back to work as a user, not as a show pieces.

I blogged about this model before, so I will just link back to it for its history.
This would be mostly a pictorial documentation from as found to cleaned up

As found

Yes, it is a tad rusted.

But is it past redemption??

Nothing moves, everything is frozen in rust.

Pretty much a lump of rust.

It's either save me now or forget about me soon ...

The center bolt, look like an alloy, the only shiny thing on it 

and looks like a tad short replacement. And the only thing not stuck, 

so obviously not made of steel.

Sole and sides are totally covered in rust, 

hopefully it has not pitted too much yet 

so that it can still be saved??

The blade bevel up

Back side.

Yes, will require some elbow grease before it gleams once more :-)

Stanley MADE IN ENGLAND

It is an English made plane

but still japanned black

Evaporust to the rescue.  That stuff literally dissolved rust and will not attack good metal, only the rust.  You can leave it soaking for as along as needed without fear of damages.  

My No 1 all time rust removal techniques.  Not cheap, about  Cdn $33 for a 4 liter jug, but worth its weight in gold :-)

First time out of the Evaporust soak, about one hour later

Look not too bad...

But under the flash, lots of rust blooms shows up, back soaking

Looking pretty pitted but far enough 

The sole is going to need more soaking, brushing, soaking repeat and rinse.

In order for the chemical to do its job thoroughly and keep your precious liquid cleaner 

and more active, scrubbing under running water is important to expose fresh rust.

Yes Evaporust is reusable.  

Front sliding plate is still suck pretty good. 

Starting to be able to push in a putty knife on both side.

More soaking etc...

Have to be gentle all too easy to damage plate or plane casting.

It finally came out unhurt, pretty gunky inside.

Dissolved crap from Evaporust action

After a few repeated soaks, scrub with a steel brush, soak and repeat.

That is when I stop soaking, when the flash no longer

 picks up brownish rust bloom

Quick passes on 80 grit runway.

Yes that would sand away just fine, but there is not really a need to go much shinier 

as long as sole does not scratches.  To fettle it better it would need to be sanded 

until front of mouth is shiny, back of mouth look even already

And the final look for now.  All I'm interested at this point is to stop further deterioration and make sure everything works and no broken or missing parts. 

Fine as is for now, will not keep on rusting

The Japanning is in great shape under all that gook I removed

You can now see clearly the stamping.

The big scratches are original, from the coarse linishing they used

I did not sanded the sides, just Evaporust and wire wheel

then protected by Autosol

It will make a fine tool in my son's kits.

Have not road tested it yet, but everything on it works as it should.

A lump of rust, it is no more, it is back to life as a tool.

Bob, with rusty tears in his eyes, moving on to the next candidate :-)

Stanley No 60-1/2 block plane

As I mentioned previously, most of Stanley regular Block Planes are derived from two models:
The No 9-1/2 in the regular 20 degrees bed and the No 60-1/2 in the Low Angle, 12 degrees bed.

Lets have a look at the No 60-1/2, which was introduced in 1902.  Made 1902-1982
I happened to have three (3) on hands.
An original Stanley No 60-1/2, late Type, made in England
a Lie-Nielsen No 60-1/2.  Made in good old Maine USA, and
a Record Marples No 060-1/2.  Made in England.

Incidentally they were acquired in reverse order.  The Record Marples was an early purchase at Lee Valley in Ottawa in the early 90s.  My very first real hand tool purchase :-)

So being all essentially a copy of the original Stanley model, they are all alike?
NO in features, NO in design and material.  Between these 3 samples they span perhaps 50 years.
The LN is a 2005 model, the Record Marples 1994 and the Stanley late 1950-60s at the earliest

From L-R

Stanley, Lie-Nielsen, Record Marples.

Yes the Record is wider.

The LN use a different lever cap design, made of brass not cast iron.

Notice that none has a lateral lever.  More on that later.

All sport an adjustable mouth aperture. Only the Record still has the original eccentric lever design, down turn at the end.  Both the LN and Stanley have the later up turn design.

Which one works better?  Strictly a matter of preferences IMHO

Same cutter adjuster mechanism (Traut patent), slightly different.

All have slop on the main shaft, Record is worse, LN best.

All have issues with rubbing on blade or hood cap, bed etc when adjusting blade.

The big knob on the Stanley is the easiest to adjust and has less issues with rubbing.

But it is also the easiest to knock off its setting accidentally with your hands, and also easier to bend the shaft :-(.

So yes, the design has some issues but nothing too serious.  It is a solid performer.
The No 60-1/2 was a prolific seller and they are a plenty out there.
On any given day, the one you will see on my bench the most are:  The LN, the Record Marples or the Sargent 5302 (20 degrees).  Depending on blade conditions :-)  That Stanley model shown is a new acquisition, has not been inducted into my regime yet.  You see it as found.

The original of this series is the No 60 introduced in 1898 and made until 1950.
The No 60-1/2 came later in 1902.  The difference? No 60 has nickel plated trim while the No 60-1/2 is japanned.  Other than that, same.
No 60 never had a lateral lever since the lower bed angle did not provided enough space to accommodate the mechanism.  The 60-1/2, probably because of its longer run, had one in its later modern incarnation.  It used a very different lever mechanism and thus fit in the space.

The Record 09-1/2 has the lateral lever and so does both the Stanley 9-1/2 and 60-1/2

but not the Record 060-1/2

LV catalog 1996-97

From Top to Bottom

Stanley No 9-1/4, Stanley No 60-1/2, Sargent No 5302, Stanley No 19.

In this line up only the No 60-1/2 is a LA (12).

You can see why it required a different blade adjuster mechanism.

And BTW, the vertical post patented by Leonard Bailey 1867, the horizontal slider, patented by Justin Traut 1897-1900, who also patented the throat lever adjust 1894 and the lever cap in 1897.  Not much Bailey DNAs and royalties left over from his No 9 block plane....  Even the side's figure changed from the Excelsior shape to the centered hump we know today. 

Record Marples never saw a use for the lateral lever (You guessed it Traut's patent 1888) in its models, neither did LN and others would be copy cat.

There was also a Model No 61 which is essentially a No 60 but without the adjustable throat feature.
It also always had a Rosewood front knob, never a metal one. The No 60 debuted with a Rosewood knob, but quickly switched to a metal one.  Ironically having a  shorter production run 1914-1935, albeit less ideal than the No 60-1/2, the No 61 command more $$$ because of its scarcity.

Yes, there is a No 62 (not related it is a bevel up 14 in jack) and the No 63 which is like a No 61 but in a 7 inch long version.  Why?? Why not!

Then of course we have the 7 inch body versions:
No 65 like a No 61 but 7 in, and
No 65-1/2 like a No 60-1/2 but 7 inch

What we have in essence is
No 9-1/2 (20) = No 60-1/2 (12) adjustable mouth
No 9-1/4 (20) = No 61 (12) fixed mouth

Stanley No 60-1/2 

The No 60-1/2 was made from 1902-1982
Body is 6 in long, 1-3/4  wide with a 1-1/2 in wide cutter
Became 1-3/8 in wide cutter starting in 1914 (1913 for No 60, was always 1-3/8 for No 61)
and cutter was 1-5/8 in wide for the 7 in model (No 63)
Weight  1-1/4 pound (the lightest of these 3)

I gave the body a quick scrub with WD 40.  Japanning is in good shape

Cutter stamped Made in England 

Cutter is 1-3/8 in wide, after 1914

Two steps shaft threads. 

Yes there is a bend in it

Another clue to its origin.

After 1926

The only damages to the bed casting.

Still slides in/out smooth

Now lets have a look at this Record Marples version of the same plane No 060-1/2 

It was produced 1982 to 2004
Body is 6-1/4 long, 2 in wide
cutter solid Tungsten steel is 1-5/8 in wide
Weight 1-1/2 pounds

Same number of pieces, but the adjuster mechanism is slightly different 

Blade is 1-5/8 in wide and will not fit the Stanley's 60-1/2

On the Left Stanley, on the Right Record-Marples

The machining of the slots in the back is the same

But like I said the mechanism is different and introduces more slop than the two other (Stanley and LN)

It is made of a turned and threaded steel shaft screwed in a brass knurled knob.

The slider is retained loosely on the shaft by a smaller dia. portion were the shaft meet the knob

There is only one raised nibs (two on the original Stanley)

but they cleaned up the raised nib by a small machining steps for surer engagement.

The two nibs on the Stanley are left as is 

That slop between the brass knob and the steel shaft is causing quite a noticeable slop.

Seen pushed back.

Seen pushed in forward.

Look at the letter N in England.

Pulled back.

You can see the bottom of the frog showing.

And pushed forward.

The blade is even or sticking out slightly. 

The slop in question is very noticeable view from the adjuster side.

Pulled out.

Pushed in.

So what does it means during operation?  Well if you don't account  for that and always adjusted the blade in,  never outward you are asking for problems.  When you have to back up the cutter always finish by tightening the screw knob back in to take up the slack.  If not the blade will pushed in when it encountered resistance.  And if you attempt to fix that by going Cro-Magnon on the cap lever tightening mechanism all you are going to do is create stress cracks eventually and in some design the cutter edge will slightly flex up at the mouth.  Neither scenario is good.

Look closely at your plane and learn to live with its idiosyncrasies, no big deal and it will be less frustrating :-)

The Cadillac version, Lie-Nielsen No 60-1/2

Truly a premium plane, you are paying for machining and lots of brass.

Body is cast in ductile iron (not breakable like grey cast iron) 6-1/4 long, 1-3/4 in wide
Cutter is 1-3/8 wide by 1/8 thick and come really flat.
Weight 1-1/2 pound
The lever cap used a different mechanism but made of cast brass instead of cast iron, it should not develop stress cracks like cast iron often does (Damn Cro-Magnons...)

It is my all around go to block planes... until it need sharpening :-)

Same number of pieces, except that the cutter adjuster shaft is screwed in tight.

Notice the large landing area for sitting the blade in (frog). 

Machining is up to par on everything.

Notice the single groove milled near the top of blade back.

Look at the size of the eccentric adjuster.  Thick piece of brass with a steel pin.

Should be bomb proof.

And the cutter adjustment mechanism?

The threaded shaft is fixed in the bed casting.

The threaded nut screw in and out on the fixed shaft.

The front of the screw nut has a raised portion which engage in the single slot 

cut into the top of the cutter. 

The only slop in this mechanism is caused by the slightly wider slot than the screw nut ridge.
It it were a tight fit, you could not adjust the screw nut.  The backlash from the threads is minimal, but as always, finish the adjustments going in (blade out).

Mouth close up nicely.

Yes, I'm overdue to show it some love :-)

All three planes had their mouths closing nicely on the blade. Indicating they have the correct eccentric lever. The ones for the 9-1/2 are slightly bigger and wont have the same range if you swapped them. 

All together now...

Top to Bottom

Best Lie-Nielsen

Better Record Marples

Good Stanley

Here is why.

Take a look at the landing area for the blade...

With the reduced amount of machining thru the years, the Stanley (and most copies) do not have a much wide landing area.  When you over torque the lever cap, the pressure felt at the tip of the lever cap is pushing down in an unsupported area, lifting the blade edge slightly.

Even with the quirk of the adjuster mechanism on the Record Marples, I give it the edge, slightly over the Stanley.   Now if you were to compare with an older Stanley No 60-1/2 before they reduced the machined surface area, the Stanley would won hands down.

Looking at an early No 60.

See the larger machined area?

How do you tell the No 60 from the No 60-1/2?

  The lever cap is plated, making it a No 60.

Pic from Patrick Blood and Gore

Bob, with a seemingly growing pile instead of going smaller...hummm.

Jean is away, hence my messy piles :-)

It's just Rudy and I roughing it tonite.