Stanley #66 Beader

Re: Stanley #66 Beader

Derek Cohen (in Perth, Australia)

>Davy

I short while back I resurrected a Stanley #66. Good body minus fences and blades. I obtained the fences from Lie Nielsen and a set of blades from Veritas (for their beader) as these were much cheaper. Mistake! The blades do work in the #66 but are much shorter and thinner than the LN beader blades, and they do not cut as cleanly. This I discovered when I eventually bought the LN blades and was able to compare them directly. Now I am not sure if the LN blades are the same as the original Stanley blades. I suspect that the latter are thinner. In which case my comparison of the Veritas and LN beader blades is not necessarily helpful for you (unless you choose to get the LN #66).

In turns of usefulness, I think this is a great tool. I can easily replicate edge detail that would otherwise require a p*w*r r**t*r. A lot less mess, noise, and dust, and a whole lot more satisfaction.

Regards from Perth

Derek

Re: Stanley #66 Beader

William R. Duffield, on the Cohansey

>I think the performance of a #66, whether L-N or original Stanley, is superior to a wooden scratch stock, in terms of flexibility, durability and performance. If you get a Stanley #66, definitely get the L-N blades for it. Looking at the photos in Leach's B&G, and also from what I remember from Stanley scratch tools I've seen at auctions, the L-N blades are thicker. I know they are harder. Therefore, they will cause less chatter and will last longer between sharpenings. You can also get fully annealed blade blanks from L-N that you can shape, sharpen and then temper yourself. They are O1 tool steel, so tempering them is not that difficult. The L-N also comes with a router blade.

Regarding performance, the wooden scratch stocks, whether LV or homemade, do not allow removal of the fence, since it is integral to the handle. Therefore, they are severely limited in how far they can work away from an edge. This includes uselessness for routing the bottom of a hinge mortise. You can remove the fence from a #66, or put both fences on it at the same time, for working the edge of narrow stock. The #66 comes with a curved fence, which is superior to the short straight fence of wooden scratch stocks for following a curved surface. It comes with a long straight fence, which is superior to the short straight fence of wooden scratch stocks for following a straight surface.

Regarding durability, bronze or nickel plated cast iron wears much longer than wood. You will notice it first in the fence.

The #66 has two comfortable handles, which are less tiring to use than one handle, and minimize skewing the tool, especially when you are working anywhere except right up against the edge of the stock. Two handed operation, as well as the extra mass, also tend to dampen vibration and chatter.

If you need to go the least expensive route, especially if you have to dupicate short runs of an existing molding, it makes a lot more sense to make your own wooden scratch beader, and use an old bandsaw or hacksaw blade, shaped with files, grinders or a Dremel tool. To make the body and fence, all you need is a scrap of wood, a saw, a small drill, a spokeshave to shape the handle, and a small machine nut and bolt. This will work almost as well as the Lee Valley tool, with very little effort.

Re: Stanley #66 Beader

Frank Mutchler

>I use the LN #66 for beading stock that is narrow and would require some 'jigging up' to use a combination plane. Frames for long narrow pictures/mirrors, etc. It works great (when pushed/pulled in the right direction...not so well otherwise (DAMHIKT)). It's expensive but it's cost should easilly be amortized over 2 or three projects.

Re: Stanley #66 Beader

paul womack

>I think the performance of a #66, whether L-N or original Stanley, is superior to a wooden scratch stock, in terms of flexibility, durability and performance.

I disagree strongly except on durability, which I contend is unimportant.

here's my design (and thoughts).

If I was worried about longevity I could plate up the running surfaces, but the dang thing is easy enough to make, I'd probably just make a new body.

I accept that my scratch stock is perhaps not what the good Mr. Duffield had in mind for his comparison.

BugBear

Re: Stanley #66 Beader

Bob Rozaieski in Eastern PA

>I agree with BugBear. I made a version of his scratch stock with a removable fence out of rock maple and it seems like it should last a good long time and works pretty well with old hacksaw blade. But I was also thinking about using a couple of old rusty plane blades to make some cutters since they are thicker and I think would have less chatter and hold an edge better. The blades are no good for a plane anyway.

Dang it, Bugbear!

Bill Houghton, Sebastopol, CA

>I was beginning to think that I'd eventually be able to see the end of my "round tuit" list for tools; now I realize that you'll never let me finish!

Cool scratch stock.

Re: Stanley #66 Beader

William R. Duffield, on the Cohansey

>A couple of improvements to your stock would help to obviate my arguments, to some extent:

Yours doesn't have the capability to attach two fences at the same time. Two fences keep it from falling off of narrow stock (admittedly, not the most common configuration for using it, but it came in handy when I was making the windlass for my bowsaw, for example.)

Make the square beam more comfortable, on both ends. My contention is that the further from the edge you need to scratch a profile, the more damping is needed, using the other hand, to keep it from chattering. Also, the further from the fence the blade is set, the more torque around the fence, and the less chance you will keep the profile parallel to the edge. A comfortable grip for a second hand will mitigate this effect. In fact, a comfortable grip for the first hand will also mitigate this effect, especially if you can figure out how to get the wing nut out of your way.

How do you put a router blade in the wooden one you show? Doesn't adding a router capability to a scratch stock increase its flexibility?

Thicker blades and a stiffer and more massive frame chatter less than thinner blades. This enhances performance.

Re: Stanley #66 Beader

paul womack

>A couple of improvements to your stock would help to obviate my arguments, to some extent:

Always willin' to improve a design :-)

Yours doesn't have the capability to attach two fences at the same time.

Agreed - Robert Wearing mentions this option. In practice (so far) I've found that the large fence mitigates against its neccessity. If it were required, it would be easy enough to add - the stock is square (more or less) and the nuts and bolts are fully recessed.

Make the square beam more comfortable, on both ends.

Agreed. I just haven't used it enough to feel the need. If any corner started digging into my hand, I assure you it would be removed.

My contention is that the further from the edge you need to scratch a profile, the more damping is needed, using the other hand, to keep it from chattering. Also, the further from the fence the blade is set, the more torque around the fence

I have not used my stock for this purpose, although it was intended to be usable as a "stringing router". I don't (fully) agree with your mechanical analysis though; the long body is intended to keep the cutter (more or less) between the 2 propelling hands, thus minimising torque. This was a key design feature.

especially if you can figure out how to get the wing nut out of your way.

I haven't found a problem with the wing nut, in practice. But my practice has (admittedly) been limited.

How do you put a router blade in the wooden one you show? Doesn't adding a router capability to a scratch stock increase its flexibility?

I don't understand what you mean by a "router blade". If you can give a synonym I will endeavour to answer.

Thicker blades and a stiffer and more massive frame chatter less than thinner blades. This enhances performance.

Sounds about right :-)

BugBear (happy to discuss tool design)

Re: Stanley #66 Beader

William R. Duffield, on the Cohansey

>The router blade that comes with the L-N #66 is similar in cutting functionality to a #71 router blade. It is shown in this photo from L-N website, between the curved fence and the array of flat blades. Like a router, it requires space above and in front the blade for the curvature of the blade, and for chip relief. The blade is double ended, one end is 1/4" (6 mm) wide, the other 1/8" (3 mm) wide. These blades are not as stiff as the blades in a #71, and the #66 base is much smaller, so the #66 doesn't perform as well as a #71 for this function.

Another minor advantage of the #66 is the blade angle, optimized for scraping at about -5�. OTOH, with a wooden beam and a 90� kerf, you need to twist it forward, which lifts the cutter out of the wood.

With a wooden scratch stock, where do the shavings go once the cutter has reached full depth?

Re: Stanley #66 router blade

Pam Niedermayer - Austin, TX

>For what types of work do you use the router blade vs flat blade?

Thanks,

Pam

Re: Stanley #66 router blade

William R. Duffield, on the Cohansey

>I have a router, that I built, so I don't use the #66 much for that purpose. I just wanted to point out that the capability exists. When I do use the #66, it is mostly for the bottoms of hinge mortises, and for wide inlay banding. Note that attaching a large bottom plate to it would take a little more work than for a #71, since it doesn't have round screw holes. Instead, you might want to build up a block on the bottom plate to fit the slot for the fences, and might want to bore and thread a pair of holes in it.

Homemade Beader

Paul D. May

>I made this a long while ago...

I wish I had the LN stock instead of the Veritas.

I want to make another one but when? Too busy making non-tools (ie. furniture :-)

Paul

Re: Stanley #66 router blade

Pam Niedermayer - Austin, TX

>Thanks, William. You mentioned the bottoms of hinge mortises before; and I still don't understand this. I use the LN Butt Mortise Plane for this; but before I got the LN, I used chisels (still do for shallow and/or small) or the 71 (deep and/or big). I also don't understand why the distance to a hinge mortise precludes using a wooden beader if one wanted to use a beader for this task.

Pam

Re: Stanley #66 router blade

William R. Duffield, on the Cohansey

>A scratch beader like BugBear makes, with its removable fence, might work. The main problems, as I see them, are

- Removing the last row of material next to the edge, which supports the beam, without the beam dropping into the mortise and cutting it too deep.

- Cleaning up the corner at the ends of the mortise. A scraper moving towards or away from this edge doesn't work for this.

I don't have a butt mortise plane, but from what I've heard from others who do have them, they are vastly superior to routers and scratch beaders. IIRC, Bill Houghton built one.

Re: Stanley #66 router blade

Pam Niedermayer - Austin, TX

>OK, sure, makes perfect sense; although you (impersonal) could pick up a chisel for the corners and the last row.

I started to make the plane based on Bill's example, but got into trouble with the cheeks, also realized I didn't have an appropriate blade. At that point, the LN looked a lot cheaper, much to my chagrin. :)

Thanks,

Pam

It works great...

Scott Burr in foggy Ben Lomond CA

>for inlay work. At least untill I make an 1/8" blade for my 271

Re: Stanley #66 Beader

paul womack

>It is shown in this photo from L-N website

Thanks - frankly I'm not too concerned about that blade. For the purposes it semi-suits I'd prefer either an all-out quirk (or stringing) router, or a "true" hand router (#271 etc).

The tool I made was intended for general decorative beading, small mouldings and (possible) string inlay.

I definitely wouldn't use it for hinge mortises either.

BugBear

Re: Stanley #66 Beader

William R. Duffield, on the Cohansey

>I agree, if you have one, a #271 works better for small hinge mortises, and a #71 or, better yet, a butt mortise plane works better for large ones. A quirk router, if you can find one, or would even know what one looks like if you found it, is definitely the weapon of choice for stringing.

Preston Quirk Router and Homemade #271 Substitute

For decorative edge beads only, a simple homemade scratch beader is the way to get the job done. I wanted to point out some of the options, and issues of potential versatility that might have an influence on someone (general WC readership) trying to decide which way was the best for them to go, considering their wallet, the current contents of their tool box, and the size and shape of their round tuit list.

Re: Stanley #66 Beader

paul womack

>A quirk router, if you can find one, or would even know what one looks like if you found it, is definitely the weapon of choice for stringing.

Hee Hee. Preston also made a tool called a stringing router. Guess what that was for.

Anyway, I think we've reached a point of agreement. No tool is universal - my variation on scratch stock design was intended for the range of tasks that I expect to meet. I happen to own a #71 and #271, so my stock didn't need to address some tasks.

No tool will address all tasks, and excellence in any one task is normally achieved by the kind of specialisation that precludes excellence in other tasks.

That's why you need so many tools :-)

Of course, the low cost of shop made tools is helpful in this regard...

BugBear (who finds #66 uncommon and expensive in the UK)

Re: quirk router vs. stringing router pic?

William R. Duffield, on the Cohansey

>NO argument!

I do have a question. Is Preston's "stringing router," as you understand it, the same as what I'm calling a "quirk router", and that I show in the picture? Is the "quirk router" term just applied to the curious blades? I got mine from Tony Murland, and I think Pam has the same one, that she got the same place, IIRC.

The one in my picture has three blades, of different widths, each with two nickers for cutting the sides of the groove, followed by a flat cutter for cleaning the bottom. It also has three swapable fences, one flat and two radiused, and a blade depth adjuster. Unlike the #66, it is obviously intended only to be used near an edge with the fence, since only one handle is raised above the surface of the work.

Re: quirk router vs. stringing router pic?

Alice Frampton, UK

>William,

According to Salaman's Dictionary, yours is definitely a quirk router. A stringing router has straight cutters, rather like a #66, but with a slot for the adjuster. The quirk bit refers to its use to cut the quirks on mouldings, rather than the cutter shape apparently. Funny looking things, but clever. The stringing router has a more pronounced raising of the handle, and the other handle is provided by the long sole. Not dissimilar to a scratch stock in fact... :~)

Cheers, Alf

Re: google for "stringing router"

paul womack

>gives

(wow - look at all those retro-fitted, non original parts!)

BugBear

Re: google for "stringing router"

paul womack

>I just noticed that the cutters in the illustration have been ground with a bevel, instead of straight across (the normal practise with scratch tools)

Could this be same idea as with sharpening card scrapers vs scraper planes?

BugBear