Combination Press Plough Plane
Articles Forums Gallery Marketplace Videos

WoodCentral Forums

Est. 1998 — 27 years of woodworking knowledge

Precision you can feel — woodworking perfected with Lee Valley

# 5 legnth. I must have been asleep . . .

Posts

# 5 legnth. I must have been asleep . . .

#1

# 5 legnth. I must have been asleep . . .

s.mackay@worldnet.att.net

>during this leson ! This 5c has been laying in a local shop for a few years and I could'nt stand it's lonely face any longer so I gave it a new home. Looks pretty sad and needs some love'n. Thing is, I layed it next to the 5 1/4 and its WAY longer and a taste wider. I've got BAILEY on the front and No5 on the aft end. Pat dates ( yadda, yadda ) in the middle. If there would have been enough gunk on it o hide the number I'd have said it was a 6. What might be the scoop on the length difference between the 5 1/4 and 5 ? Blood and Gore really did'nt make a distinction I could detect. THanks you Plane Gods !

Re: # 5 legnth. I must have been asleep . . .

#2

Side by side comparison . . . 

s.mackay@worldnet.att.net

>


img

Re: # 5 legnth. I must have been asleep . . .

#3

Re: # 5 legnth. I must have been asleep . . .

Ian Smith (Sydney Australia)

>According to Blood & Gore the Stanley No. 5 is 14 inches long with a 2 inch wide blade. The Stanley 5-1/4 on the other hand is 11-1/2 inches long with a 1-3/4 inch wide blade.

Regards,

Ian.

Re: # 5 legnth. I must have been asleep . . .

#4

That is a sad little critter

Bill Houghton, Sebastopol, CA

>restoration's going to be a big project, Steve.

The point of the 5-1/4 is that it's smaller and narrower than a No. 5 (side comment: I've never understood why "5-1/4" when "4-3/4" would have made more sense; or "3.14" or something denoting the No. 3-width iron, but longer than a No. 3).

Re: # 5 legnth. I must have been asleep . . .

#5

Loks like somebody used that as a...

Scott Burr in Ben Lomond, CA

>Boat anchor. Don't look worth saving to me. If you feel the need to bring that poor thing back to life, more power to ya!

Re: # 5 legnth. I must have been asleep . . .

#6

I guess that was my question . . .

s.mackay@worldnet.att.net

>the ryhme and reason of the numbering " system ". I just have to think that it isn't completely arbitrary. But I'm catch'n on with WC's help. As to restoration . . . I fell in love when I saw its carcase a couple years ago. Its a quest now. Guess I'm funny that way. I enjoy it and get a kick out of useing them.

Re: # 5 legnth. I must have been asleep . . .

#7

"I just have to think that it isn't...

Bill Houghton, Sebastopol, CA

>...completely arbitrary."

Why would you think that? All numbering systems, since they are symbol systems, are arbitrary; it's merely the underlying mathematical structure that is built up logically from the premises of the mathematics.

My no-basis-but-speculation sense is that Stanley started out with good intentions for their bench planes (1 = little, 8 = big, that works), but then rapidly lost track, not having mapped out the whole thing from the beginning. And how could you, unless you knew whatall tool designs you would ever develop? So I think they didn't have their premises clear, and backed themslves into a corner with the numbers.

As witness the No. 10 series bench rabbets: how can the 10-1/2 be SHORTER than the pure 10, inverting the bench plane logic, and the 10-1/4, which differs from the others not by length or iron width, but by its rad tilting handles.

Re: # 5 legnth. I must have been asleep . . .

#8

Thank you Sir . The rookie learns even more !

s.mackay@worldnet.att.net

>

👍 This page answered my questions

Your vote helps other woodworkers quickly find the answers and techniques that actually work in the shop.