Re: For future reference...
William R. Duffield, on the Cohansey
>Patrick Leach's published widths for Bailey type bench planes are the cutter width, not the width overall. I would suggest you do not try for a "French Fit", because there can be quite a bit of variation in actual width over the years. For example, both of my post-war jacks (#5 and Victor #1205) are 2 7/16" wide, while my three-patent-date #4 is 2 3/8, but they all have the same width cutters. My #3 (post-war) and my #10 (1893-1899 vintage) are both 2 1/8" wide, but the #10's width really is the blade width. My WWII era #8 is 3 1/8" wide, and my true-to-the-original-design L-N #607 is 2 13/16 wide. Maybe I should have measured it to the nearest 0.01" because that's what the modern YBs expect?
Since none of these is a dado or plough plane, a precise width was never all that important, as long as the cutter fit into the body, and the plane fit the craftsman' ideals. Therefore, there was never any industry-wide standard, and Stanley, or whoever else had a "better idea," just did it.
What I do, when I lay out a space to hold tools, planes or otherwise, is attach the dividers with hot melt glue (so far, I haven't found a whole lot of other really good uses for it in the traditional handtool woodworking shop), so I can easily move them later, as my needs/requirements/tastes/�sthetics change. What are you going to do when you fall in love with your first Millers Falls or Keen Kutter or Auburn Metalic, or Spiers Infill, or Steve Knight, or C&W or....?