>In my response to Derek's comment in the thread below (see link at bottom here), I suggested we could have some sarcastic fun writing ad copy for selling a No. 75 on eBay. Herewith my contribution to get us started.
"For sale, Stanley No. 75 plane. This plane is small and kind of cute, as long as you don't actually want to use it or anything. The iron is capable of being sharpened (just like a real plane!) and is carefully engineered to fit into the plane. The mouth is adjustable from moderately coarse to swing-a-cat wide, and the mechanism to clamp the iron down designed to maximize chatter - when you use this plane, people will know that hand tools were used! It was intended for working into corners and tight spots, though, as the poet said, 'The best-laid schemes o' mice an 'men gang aft agley.'* If you buy this plane, you'll never forget the day that it arrives in your mailbox."
*"To A Mouse, On Turning Her Up In Her Nest With The Plough," Robert Burns, 1785 (http://www.robertburns.org/works/75.html, for anyone who wants to read the full poem)
>Does anyone have the long sarcastic and satirical letter to Stanley on the #75 that I posted a couple of years ago. It was apparently lost with all the older archive material when Ellis changed servers, and I didn't save a copy of it for myself.
>I think you guys are missing the point about the purpose of the little 75 Plane....The 75 was one of Stanleys biggest sucessful sellers, except for some common Bench planes and block planes I probably see more 75's then any other Stanley plane, Certainly see many more of them then other Stanley Rabbets like the 90, 91 series.I think where the problim today comes in is that wood workers doing "fine" work get one and expect it to perform on hard wood like a high quality rabbet plane and then dish it when it doesn't. The 75 was never sold as a tool for this use. Looking in an old 1920's catalog the 91,92,93,and 94 rabbet planes are listed as "Cabinet Makers Rabbets" with a big speel about how well they work etc. While the humble 75 is listed else where and just says it is good for working into corners and other difficult places.I think the market for the 75 was obvious more the Carpenter then the Cabinet makers who the 90 series of planes were aimed at. Is interesting to see that the 75 was probably the cheapest plane made by Stanley, in 1929 it sold for just .70 cents[!] while a no. 90 went for $3.90 ,[same price as a no. 3 plane ] kind of unrealistic to expect it to perform like one of these more expensive planes. While I certainly don't have a bunch of experance with the 75 I have used one once when fitting a door and it seemed to work fine and I think this was the type of work this cheap plane was intended for and was for what most were bought. I just don't believe it that any tool that was so popular and for so many years,[they were sold for over 100 years!] didn't work as it was intended to. I think if you judge a tool on how well it performs it's job it was designed for,which may be different then what you want it to do, by how popular it is with the original tool buying market you would have to say that the little no. 75 is a much better plane then say a Bedrock.....Todd plane....Todd
>This is STANLEY we`re talking about here.These are the same folks who brought you things like aluminum planes,and planes with disposable blades.These are also the folks who took a once great company and turned it into something that can`t even get a hammer right.
Perhaps the 75 was just the start of the downward slide.
Mainely,Bob
BTW-I think you`ll find that a sharp chisel will work far better than even a finely tuned 75 will for the things it was designed for.
>Aluminum planes and Disposiable blades must have been very popular with users because they are very common to find today just like the no. 75....Opps! What! They're not common!? Guess thats right, don't know when the last time i saw a A5 plane and I have never seen a A78 or A45 in the wild or for that matter an older disposiable blade. No doubt these marketing ideas were an answear looking for a question and i am sure if that was the same with the 75 they would be just as rare and probably would be worth the $300 the ebay seller is trying to get.Remember too that the 75 dates back to the 1870's being one of the first planes made by Stanley and was made for over 100 years continusly .Don't know how it could be thought that a plane that was sold by the millions for over a 100 years was a tool that was not a success or was a great plane for the market it was aimed at even if other planes may work better for the job you want to use it for.....Guess it is sort of like saying a Harley ain't a great Motorcycle because other makes of motocycles can go faster are more dependable and are cheaper.....Todd
Remember when you were a kid and you used to get those line drawing pictures where the game was to find out how many things you could identify that were wrong in the picture? Well, getting your model #75 plane today made me realize that is what you were doing with it too. Here�s my list. After you read it, please tell me how I did, I�m really interested to know how many I missed.
Thanks
Lyn
1. The Japanning is ugly, being thick and unevenly applied.
2. There is no Japanning at all on three patches of the left side of the plane.
Should I be listing these separately for full points?
3. The Japanning is spread all over the mating surfaces between the upper blade carriage and the sole structure, preventing them from evenly mating.
4. Of course the above doesn�t make all that much difference as even when the matting surfaces are cleared of the paint the machining is so poor that you can see large gaps between the castings.
5. The sole isn�t flat. But you almost made that one too easy to find since there are large areas were finer grinding marks weren�t able to obliterate the original coarse milling.
6. Neither side of the plane is ground square to the sole, and both are off by different amounts. Again, should I be listing each side separately to get full points?
7. The bedding area on the upper blade carriage was layered with gloppy paint and had to be stripped down to metal
8. Although I do think you did #7 just to try to fool me so I wouldn�t notice that even with the paint removed, the blade cannot bed fully as the angles of the sole structure and the upper blade carriage are different. Actually the lower bed surface is even ground slightly concave on one side.
9. The front of the bull nose, and the back area that establishes the mouth have actually been ground about 2-3 degrees off from perpendicular to the sides of the plane, and the blade. Better yet, they aren�t ground off orthogonal equally between front and back so that one side of the sole of the bull nose is 6 mm and the other side is 7 mm.
10. The lever cap/chip breaker is ground unevenly on the end so that it does not contact the blade on the left side.
11. And I know this might not count as it is a design decision rather than a manufacturing failure, but the chip breaker/lever cap is so far back from the end of the blade that it is useless as a chip breaker and only functions in the most minimalistic sense as a lever cap.
12. Again a design failure, but you cannot access the blade carriage bolt without removing the blade. So just how are you to set the mouth? Perhaps from memory of where the blade was?
13. The blade edge was not ground orthogonal to the blade sides.
14. Both sides of the bullnose are not ground in line with the sides of the sole structure.
15. I know I�m cheating again, referring to errors in basic design, but the blade projects so far up that your hand must press against its end in use, meaning that if you use the plane for any length of time, you blister your palm.
16. And finally, maybe just to let one know that this is not a plane but a game, even your name has been applied at a good 25 degree tilt.
I�m just sure you meant there to be 20 errors and I surely I have missed some. Could you tell me the others, just so I can do better next time. And thanks again for the fun, but would you tell me one last thing�now that I�ve finished the game, just what am I really supposed to use this misshaped chunk of metal for?
>Far more than I want to, I do carpentry rather than fine furniture, and I don't use my 75. As Lyn points out, the iron projects right into delicate spots on the hand, no matter how you hold it. It's also so light that it's capable only of VERY light cuts. I can do it better, faster, cheaper, with a chisel than with my 75.
You see lots and lots of Black and Decker, Skil, etc. saber saws (aka jigsaws) too, but that doesn't make them good tools; it just means those companies had good marketing programs to lots of newbies.
>I have a 75 I need to list can I barrow this add copy? Strange thing this 75 came in a box with a 45, 80, and some molding planes. and it liiks like it was used.
>Based on my own experience I figure that the 75 has endured because almost everyone came by it the same way. A novice carpenter/woodworker/homeowner and budding tool junkie with little if any knowledge of planes spots a small fairly inexpensive different looking piece among the "specialty" tools behind the glass at the store counter. The rest is history.