Old #4 ?

1/15/05, 4:13 PM #1

Richard H.
Guest

Old #4 ?

Richard H.

>I just recieved what appears to be an older Stanley. The blade says Pat APl 19.92 The Chip breaker L. Bailey Patent Dec 24, 1867. The plane body has only the markings No. 4. The tote,which is broken, has letters stamped on it they are a bit hard to make out. One side appears to .???..SPENCE and the other side starts out with S.M. and continues but the tote is broken in half there and the wood is missing. The sole is of the thickness one would expect however the wings are thinner than I have seen in other Stanley Planes.

The Frog is more finely machined than my other Stanley representives and is a bit of a different shape [I don't know the right terms to discribe it] The brass wheel the adjusts the blade depth works more smoothly than typical Stanleys that I have.

As soon as I learn how to post PICS I will but that may be a while. I appreciate any feedback

Thank You

Re: Old #4 ?

1/15/05, 5:05 PM #2

David Miller
Guest

Re: Old #4 ?

David Miller from Iowa

>Sounds like an old Bailey, they changed the frogs and the markings often and casting thickness fluctuated as well. They just had �No 4� with no Bailey until 1902. The chip breaker and cutter 1892 patent was where they moved the hole in the cutter from the top of the slot to the bottom.

The letters on the tote are likely the owner�s name.

Re: Old #4 ?

1/15/05, 5:32 PM #3

Richard H.
Guest

Re: Old #4 ?

Richard H.

>So..would this be a user or better kept for collection? If I use it I would replace the blade and chipbreaker with Hock components.

Re: Old #4 ?

1/15/05, 6:00 PM #4

Joe Rogers, Northern Virginia
Member
Offline
979 posts

Registered: 12/30/03

Re: Old #4 ?

Joe Rogers, Northern Virginia

>Use it. If it isn't mint or close there is not a tremendous value due to sheer numbers of these planes. Enjoy it!JR

Re: Old #4 ?

1/15/05, 8:26 PM #5

Dale Stansbery
Member
Offline
714 posts

Registered: 2/7/03

Re: Old #4 ?

Dale Stansbery

>It sounds like something in the type 7 or 8 range. They are lighter than the later post 1900's #4's. In fact they're about the same weight as a later #3. If it feels good, use it since it's not mint. I just passed up a 4C and 6C today in fair condition at auction of the same vintage that went for an average $10 each.

Re: Old #4 ?

1/15/05, 10:28 PM #6

Richard H.
Guest

Re: Old #4 ?

Richard H.

>Thanks for the feedback, I start lapping the sole and put it into service.

Re: Old #4 ?

1/16/05, 1:15 PM #7

Moses Yoder in White Pigeon, MI
Guest

Re: Old #4 ?

Moses Yoder in White Pigeon, MI

>Is the adjustment nut solid at the back, or recessed? If recessed, does it have lettering inside the nut? Does it have a lateral adjustment lever or not?

Old #4 ?

Posts