Plane ID

Re: Plane ID

Todd Hughes

>Sounds like a very late Stanley no. 5 probably from the 1970's or so....by most accounts they are pretty much crap, probably better off getting an old one to use befor you put much time or effert into this one......Todd

Todds got it...

Scott Burr in Ben Lomond,CA

>It's a newer POS Stanley. Good luck with it.

Re: Plane ID

Moses Yoder in White Pigeon, MI

>I'm not quite sure I understand why people would refer to these as "crap", unless perhaps they have never had one to use. I have a dark blue version, which I think was made just before the burgundy color, and it is a very good plane. In my opinion you can't go wrong with a $5 plane. Make sure the frog is bedding flat, check the flatness of the sole, and if the toe, the area right in front of the mouth, and the heel are pretty much on the same plane try it out and see how it works. In my opinion, you can buy a Hock or LN or LV iron, fettle the plane a little bit, and have something that works every bit as good as a new LN. I like the versions that have the larger depth adjusting nut, just because it gives a much easier adjustment.

Re: Plane ID

Tom Price

>I had one of these maroon Stanley #5's and it was crap. Low frog - wasn't fully machined between the frog receiver and the frog, bottom wasn't flat. etc. I spent a lot of time on that plane and finally junked it when I got an old pre-war Stanley #5 and a couple of Millers Falls #14's.

Only parts I kept were the lever cap, blade and chipbreaker.

- Tom

I have used them...

Scott Burr in Ben Lomond,CA

>And IMHO they take WAY too much fetting to get a somewhat usable plane. I say somewhat because an older Stanley or other makers are much better quality and heaver. They are not nearly as hard to set up and use as the newer planes.

I never have had much luck with type 17 and up Stanley planes.

Re: I have used them...

Tom Hamilton

>Thanks for the info. So it is a Stanley afterall, but not their best effort. The chase was worth the $5! TJH

Re: Plane ID

Dave Poulin

>I have one of these planes. There was a discussion about them on this site starting Sept 10th. I milled the paint off the contact surfaces, reground the blade to a 4 inch radius and used it as a scrub plane because the throat was very wide. It worked well but not quite as good as a Stanley 40 scrub plane I acquired later.

Dave

Re: Plane ID/opened throat

George in Lowell, Mich.

>Dave

How much have you opened the mouth? I did the same thing but left it "stock". I'm thinking it would help the use.

George

Staying inside it's 0* outside. ;^(

Re: Plane ID

Dave Poulin

>The throat was wide as built, but it would work better if it were wider. Garrett Hack recommmends 1/8" to 3/16" in "The Handplane Book". I highly recommend purchasing it. My planes throat was someplace between these two dimensions. After using my #40, I think a smaller plane like a #3 or #4 may be better than a #5. A shorter radius should also be considered.

Dave

OK I feal better now

Ernie Miller

>it worths the price I just sold one on ebay a couple weeks ago for 25 and it had a broken plastic tote

Re: I have used them...

Alan Hamilton

>Cousin Tom,

I've picked up a few yard-sale planes over the years. I've gotten non-descript Stanleys and Records, along with one or two Brand X planes. They all needed work; and with some loving care, and perhaps a new iron, they're users.

I don't know about them being as good as a Lie-Nielsen. I have the great good fortune to have a couple Lie-Nielsen planes, and I think they are quite a bit better than my garage-sale specials; it's obvious to me that the Lie-Nielsens work better, are easier to use, blah blah blah. But I'm not a fanatic. Again, my bargain-bin planes are good enough--and as someone said, for five bucks it's hard to go wrong.

Alan