I am looking for a #7 or #8 in decent usable condition.
I kick myself because last weekend my wife and I went on a little vacation.
At a antique shop I found a #8 for $65.00 and a #7 for $45.00. I should
have bought them then but I didn't.
If someone has a #7 or #8 that they are willing to sell in good condition
for something around that price let me know.
Thanks.
KYHighlander <[email protected]> wrote:
> LOL ok but how do you deal with the fact that the iron and chipbreaker are
> thicker than the original? Do you enlarge the mouth? Am in a quandary
Yes, you need to enlarge the mouth to use some of the thicker blades and
chipbreakers in old planes. To summarize a method someone conveyed to
me on this newsgroup, you get a silicon carbide marking tool and using a
straight edge scribe a line 1/32-1/16" over from the front edge of the
current mouth. Then using a small single cut mill file (I found one at
a hobby shop), file the mouth until you meet the line. Then test the
blade and chipbreaker. If the mouth is still too small repeat and
enlarge the mouth a little more. I was nervous doing this with my (to
me) precious old Stanley Sweetheart #7 that I purchased on eBay, but it
was easy and I was able to fit a Clifton chipbreaker and blade to this
nice old plane. Works great!
--
To email me use: sjusenet AT comcast DOT net
This has to be a troll! :-)
"Joe Willmann" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I am looking for a #7 or #8 in decent usable condition.
>
> I kick myself because last weekend my wife and I went on a little
vacation.
> At a antique shop I found a #8 for $65.00 and a #7 for $45.00. I should
> have bought them then but I didn't.
>
> If someone has a #7 or #8 that they are willing to sell in good condition
> for something around that price let me know.
>
> Thanks.
I use the Clifton breaker with Hock irons in my Bedrocks. I can put the
irons and breakers in my Baileys also.
I use my 604 and 607 Bedrock's mostly. :-)
My 604 set up like I described does a great job. I've even gotten to where I
can smooth the face on a board with out leaving a groove from the corner of
the iron (after Paul Sellers showed me how to hone the iron).
I can get full width, translucent shavings with all of the planes, but it is
really impressive to see the 607 work. When I set the iron progressively
finer as I work the board, it will produce a straighter edge than my power
jointer will.
"KYHighlander" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I've been buying older Stanley's, Dunlap's and Fulton's and tuning them up
> to use. I replaced some of the irons with Hocks, though I think I can
> salvage some of the older ones. I bought some Hock chipbreakers but
couldn't
> get them to allow the shavings to exit. What do you guys do for that? I
love
> the Hock irons btw.
>
> KY
>
I don't have knowledge of the Hock breakers, but the Clifton breakers
perform better with finer shavings than the Stanley breakers. I never have
a chip lodge under the Clifton breakers.
The Clifton breaker is a two piece breaker that allows you to hone the iron
without removing the bolt and breaker.
I have never had to enlarge the throat on a plane to use a Hock iron. I did
adjust the frog to accept the iron though. I set my irons really fine and
I'm not aware that the breaker extends through the throat.
I've used the irons and breakers on Baileys as well as the Bedrocks.
"KYHighlander" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Thanks, is there any benefit to the heavier chipbreakers over the old cap
> irons? I bought mine just because of the rust on the old cap iron.
>
> --
>
> http://users.adelphia.net/~kyhighland
>
>
> "Steve James" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:1ga8qhv.w96lxx1fds21uN%[email protected]...
> > KYHighlander <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > LOL ok but how do you deal with the fact that the iron and chipbreaker
"KYHighlander" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Ok here is something you may want to look at. you can buy them new here for
> not much more.
>
> http://www.tools-for-woodworking.com/subcatmfgprod.asp?0=243&1=425&2=-1&6=1
Er, not to start a flame-war, but Anant planes are not going to be
anywhere near as good as old Stanleys.
He would be better served by going to the Oldtools group and
looking for "FMM" postings. "FMM" stand for Flea Market Monday, and
it simply means that on the first Monday of any month, participants
are allowed to advertise old tools for sale. (I assume they still
have FMM; it's been a while since I followed them closely.)
The OP can go to the Oldtools archive at:
http://denali.frontier.iarc.uaf.edu:8080/~cswingle/woodworking/database/
to get info on subscribing to the group.
Chuck Vance
[email protected] (Rossmoor Don) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Chuck,
>
> I know you don't want a flame war and I don't either but I disagree
> with your comments concerning Anant planes.
Fair enough. I was expecting my comment would draw some reaction.
:-)
> [little snip]
>
> As for smoothers, I have an Anant #4. The casting quality is good, it
> does have an adjustable frog and a vertical adjuster. I would put it
> on par with a Stanley made post world war II before they completely
> went to pot. The blade leaves something to be desired but can be
> sharpened to produce fine shavings. I eventually replaced mine with a
> Hock. A tuned Anant with a hock blade will put you in the clover for
> way less than a Clifton, Lee Valley, Lie-Nielsen and the knowledge one
> acquires in tuning the Anant will not be wasted.
No argument that the tuning experience will be good. However, for
less than the price of an Anant, you should be able to get a pre-war
Stanley that would tune up to be a superior plane without necessarily
upgrading to a Hock. And the original poster was inquiring about
older Stanleys when the subject of Anants came up.
> I have close to 50 other planes which include older Stanley's and some
> new Knight wood planes. I would stack my tuned Anant planes against
> the older ones.
But to me it sounds like you are very experienced with tuning and
using planes. I'm not saying that you couldn't get an Anant to
perform well, but would a newbie really be expected to get it up to
the level of an older Stanley?
> I believe it is easier for a newbie to purchase a new
> plane which he/she knows is complete and undamaged as a way to get
> his/her feet wet in tuning a plane. Once the mechanics of planing and
> tuning are learned, it is easier to know what you've just picked up at
> a flea market or evaluate what you've seen on eBay. On the other hand,
> I wouldn't walk into the local big box and purchase a current
> production Stanley #4 or into Sears and buy a plane and expect it to
> become a user no matter how much work was done to it. Those planes are
> junk.
We definitely agree on that point. :-) I bought a Stanley
"contractor grade" #4 6 or 7 years ago and despite replacing the
factory iron with a Hock, lapping the sole, filing the frog, etc.,
etc., I was unable to get the darned thing to work decently. And
besides all of that, if I wanted to use it, I would have had to
replace the plastic knob and tote with wood. (No, CW, I don't want to
hear how manly you are, and how anyone who prefers wood over plastic
is a wimp.)
It currently serves as an oversized paperweight. :-}
On to your point about buying a complete plane and learning to tune
it before moving on to getting older planes -- I would recommend that
someone who's in the market for a plane contact Patrick Leach or Tom
Bruce or one of the other reputable tool dealers with an online
presence. Tell them you are looking for a decent pre-war user, not a
collectable. That way, you are learning to tune a plane that came
from an era when planes were made to be used by folks who depended on
them for their livelihood.
Otherwise, I would recommend they just save up some extra pennies
and get a Lee Valley/Veritas. It is in a medium price range for
(good) planes currently being made, and with my recent experience with
their tools, I can see that I will be buying more of them in the
future (and they are continually expanding their line). So unless
someone is simply into older planes for their aesthetic value, they
might be better off to get a LV plane and learn on that.
> Okay, I've now stepped off the soapbox. Thanks for listening and feel
> free to disagree its all only my two cents!
You make a good argument, and I think we agree on all of the basic
concepts (learning to tune a plane, the need to upgrade to a Hock,
that current Stanleys are crap :-). I just wanted to go on record
(no pun intended) to say that buying an Anant because it is just about
as cheap as an older Stanley could turn out to be false economy.
Chuck Vance
I made a mistake buying an Anant spokeshave! Be cautious. Presume
same maker as name is the same.
On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 16:54:10 GMT, Joe Willmann
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>I appreciated the link to the Anant plane web site. I may very well
>order one.
On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 16:54:10 GMT, Joe Willmann
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Yoh guys.
>
snip
> The main criteria is it has to be inexpensive and usable.
>I have an old stanley #4 but it is just two short for jointing.
snip
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3277734230&category=13874
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3278318598&category=13874
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2384149885&category=29526
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3278345746&category=13874
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3278326111&category=13874
they show up pretty regularly. bid low, bid often.
LOL ok but how do you deal with the fact that the iron and chipbreaker are
thicker than the original? Do you enlarge the mouth? Am in a quandary
--
http://users.adelphia.net/~kyhighland
"Lowell Holmes" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I use the Clifton breaker with Hock irons in my Bedrocks. I can put the
> irons and breakers in my Baileys also.
> I use my 604 and 607 Bedrock's mostly. :-)
>
> My 604 set up like I described does a great job. I've even gotten to where
I
> can smooth the face on a board with out leaving a groove from the corner
of
> the iron (after Paul Sellers showed me how to hone the iron).
>
> I can get full width, translucent shavings with all of the planes, but it
is
> really impressive to see the 607 work. When I set the iron progressively
> finer as I work the board, it will produce a straighter edge than my power
> jointer will.
>
>
> "KYHighlander" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > I've been buying older Stanley's, Dunlap's and Fulton's and tuning them
up
> > to use. I replaced some of the irons with Hocks, though I think I can
> > salvage some of the older ones. I bought some Hock chipbreakers but
> couldn't
> > get them to allow the shavings to exit. What do you guys do for that? I
> love
> > the Hock irons btw.
> >
> > KY
> >
>
>
Ok here is something you may want to look at. you can buy them new here for
not much more.
http://www.tools-for-woodworking.com/subcatmfgprod.asp?0=243&1=425&2=-1&6=1
KY
--
http://users.adelphia.net/~kyhighland
"Joe Willmann" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I am looking for a #7 or #8 in decent usable condition.
>
> I kick myself because last weekend my wife and I went on a little
vacation.
> At a antique shop I found a #8 for $65.00 and a #7 for $45.00. I should
> have bought them then but I didn't.
>
> If someone has a #7 or #8 that they are willing to sell in good condition
> for something around that price let me know.
>
> Thanks.
Yoh guys.
I am the original poster and I want to thank everyone for pitching in
and helping.
I appreciated the link to the Anant plane web site. I may very well
order one.
My needs are pretty simple. I am an unemployeed software engineer. It
has been two years now. It really sucks out here in Portland. I have
some oak flooring that I pulled up a couple of years ago when I replaced
my wood entry way with tile. My wife has this old brass and glass
makeup table she uses every moring and it is now about 15 years old. In
my spare time, of which I have plenty, I have been able to do lots of
projects around the house. A couple of built in bookcases, shelves,
several things. Anyway the wife wants me to make her a wooden vanity to
replace the brass and glass thing. A year ago I remodeled a friends
basement. I wass bored and needed something to do so I completely
finished his 1300 sq ft basement. I built 3 rooms, a bath, insulated,
hung sheetrock, baseboards, doors, trim, windows,,,,,,everything. He
gave me a Dewalt planer. Oh and I charged him two beers a day. He is
my best friend so it was basically just something to keep me buisy.
Anyway, I have a planer and tried to glue up some of the oak and it just
really needed jointing to get a good strong joint. So I need to find a
plane suitable for jointing. It doesn't need to be antique. I just
happen to find a couple at an antique store at a good price that I wish
I had bought. The main criteria is it has to be inexpensive and usable.
I have an old stanley #4 but it is just two short for jointing. No one
around here has bigger ones that are reasonable priced.
It seems that antique shops are the only places that have used planes.
They aren't really antiques but it seems to be the only place.
This weekend there is gong to be a big antique show in town. My wife
and I will be going and I will be looking for planes. If I find one in
the right price range, under $70.00, then I will get it. If not I will
call the antique store in the little town where I found those and ask
them if they still have them. If so I will have them mail/ship them to
me. If they are gone I will probably get one of the Anant.
Anyway thanks for all the suggestions. And no this isn't a troll like
one poster suggested. If I end up ordering those two jointing planes I
will be trying them out, picking the one that I like the best and re-
selling the other. Keep an eye out. I may post it here.
Chuck,
I know you don't want a flame war and I don't either but I disagree
with your comments concerning Anant planes.
American Woodworker back in early 1996 (pre-Readers Digest days) did a
comparison of smoothers and rated the Anant a "Best Value" for the
money. My own personal experience with Anant began in 2000 when a
co-worker gave me an Anant 78 duplex rabbet plane which is a knockoff
of the Stanley 78. I liked the fact that it had a double-armed fence
instead of the single arm fence the Stanley came with. It tuned up
nicely and is one of my users.
As for smoothers, I have an Anant #4. The casting quality is good, it
does have an adjustable frog and a vertical adjuster. I would put it
on par with a Stanley made post world war II before they completely
went to pot. The blade leaves something to be desired but can be
sharpened to produce fine shavings. I eventually replaced mine with a
Hock. A tuned Anant with a hock blade will put you in the clover for
way less than a Clifton, Lee Valley, Lie-Nielsen and the knowledge one
acquires in tuning the Anant will not be wasted.
I have close to 50 other planes which include older Stanley's and some
new Knight wood planes. I would stack my tuned Anant planes against
the older ones. I believe it is easier for a newbie to purchase a new
plane which he/she knows is complete and undamaged as a way to get
his/her feet wet in tuning a plane. Once the mechanics of planing and
tuning are learned, it is easier to know what you've just picked up at
a flea market or evaluate what you've seen on eBay. On the other hand,
I wouldn't walk into the local big box and purchase a current
production Stanley #4 or into Sears and buy a plane and expect it to
become a user no matter how much work was done to it. Those planes are
junk.
Okay, I've now stepped off the soapbox. Thanks for listening and feel
free to disagree its all only my two cents!
I've been buying older Stanley's, Dunlap's and Fulton's and tuning them up
to use. I replaced some of the irons with Hocks, though I think I can
salvage some of the older ones. I bought some Hock chipbreakers but couldn't
get them to allow the shavings to exit. What do you guys do for that? I love
the Hock irons btw.
KY
--
http://users.adelphia.net/~kyhighland
"Conan the Librarian" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [email protected] (Rossmoor Don) wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
>
> > Chuck,
> >
> > I know you don't want a flame war and I don't either but I disagree
> > with your comments concerning Anant planes.
>
> Fair enough. I was expecting my comment would draw some reaction.
> :-)
>
> > [little snip]
> >
> > As for smoothers, I have an Anant #4. The casting quality is good, it
> > does have an adjustable frog and a vertical adjuster. I would put it
> > on par with a Stanley made post world war II before they completely
> > went to pot. The blade leaves something to be desired but can be
> > sharpened to produce fine shavings. I eventually replaced mine with a
> > Hock. A tuned Anant with a hock blade will put you in the clover for
> > way less than a Clifton, Lee Valley, Lie-Nielsen and the knowledge one
> > acquires in tuning the Anant will not be wasted.
>
> No argument that the tuning experience will be good. However, for
> less than the price of an Anant, you should be able to get a pre-war
> Stanley that would tune up to be a superior plane without necessarily
> upgrading to a Hock. And the original poster was inquiring about
> older Stanleys when the subject of Anants came up.
>
> > I have close to 50 other planes which include older Stanley's and some
> > new Knight wood planes. I would stack my tuned Anant planes against
> > the older ones.
>
> But to me it sounds like you are very experienced with tuning and
> using planes. I'm not saying that you couldn't get an Anant to
> perform well, but would a newbie really be expected to get it up to
> the level of an older Stanley?
>
> > I believe it is easier for a newbie to purchase a new
> > plane which he/she knows is complete and undamaged as a way to get
> > his/her feet wet in tuning a plane. Once the mechanics of planing and
> > tuning are learned, it is easier to know what you've just picked up at
> > a flea market or evaluate what you've seen on eBay. On the other hand,
> > I wouldn't walk into the local big box and purchase a current
> > production Stanley #4 or into Sears and buy a plane and expect it to
> > become a user no matter how much work was done to it. Those planes are
> > junk.
>
> We definitely agree on that point. :-) I bought a Stanley
> "contractor grade" #4 6 or 7 years ago and despite replacing the
> factory iron with a Hock, lapping the sole, filing the frog, etc.,
> etc., I was unable to get the darned thing to work decently. And
> besides all of that, if I wanted to use it, I would have had to
> replace the plastic knob and tote with wood. (No, CW, I don't want to
> hear how manly you are, and how anyone who prefers wood over plastic
> is a wimp.)
>
> It currently serves as an oversized paperweight. :-}
>
> On to your point about buying a complete plane and learning to tune
> it before moving on to getting older planes -- I would recommend that
> someone who's in the market for a plane contact Patrick Leach or Tom
> Bruce or one of the other reputable tool dealers with an online
> presence. Tell them you are looking for a decent pre-war user, not a
> collectable. That way, you are learning to tune a plane that came
> from an era when planes were made to be used by folks who depended on
> them for their livelihood.
>
> Otherwise, I would recommend they just save up some extra pennies
> and get a Lee Valley/Veritas. It is in a medium price range for
> (good) planes currently being made, and with my recent experience with
> their tools, I can see that I will be buying more of them in the
> future (and they are continually expanding their line). So unless
> someone is simply into older planes for their aesthetic value, they
> might be better off to get a LV plane and learn on that.
>
> > Okay, I've now stepped off the soapbox. Thanks for listening and feel
> > free to disagree its all only my two cents!
>
> You make a good argument, and I think we agree on all of the basic
> concepts (learning to tune a plane, the need to upgrade to a Hock,
> that current Stanleys are crap :-). I just wanted to go on record
> (no pun intended) to say that buying an Anant because it is just about
> as cheap as an older Stanley could turn out to be false economy.
>
>
> Chuck Vance
thanks, no the breaker don't go thru the mouth, but it clogs it up pretty
quick.
--
http://users.adelphia.net/~kyhighland
"Lowell Holmes" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I don't have knowledge of the Hock breakers, but the Clifton breakers
> perform better with finer shavings than the Stanley breakers. I never
have
> a chip lodge under the Clifton breakers.
> The Clifton breaker is a two piece breaker that allows you to hone the
iron
> without removing the bolt and breaker.
>
> I have never had to enlarge the throat on a plane to use a Hock iron. I
did
> adjust the frog to accept the iron though. I set my irons really fine and
> I'm not aware that the breaker extends through the throat.
>
> I've used the irons and breakers on Baileys as well as the Bedrocks.
>
> "KYHighlander" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Thanks, is there any benefit to the heavier chipbreakers over the old
cap
> > irons? I bought mine just because of the rust on the old cap iron.
> >
> > --
> >
> > http://users.adelphia.net/~kyhighland
> >
> >
> > "Steve James" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:1ga8qhv.w96lxx1fds21uN%[email protected]...
> > > KYHighlander <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > LOL ok but how do you deal with the fact that the iron and
chipbreaker
>
>
Thanks, is there any benefit to the heavier chipbreakers over the old cap
irons? I bought mine just because of the rust on the old cap iron.
--
http://users.adelphia.net/~kyhighland
"Steve James" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:1ga8qhv.w96lxx1fds21uN%[email protected]...
> KYHighlander <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > LOL ok but how do you deal with the fact that the iron and chipbreaker
are
> > thicker than the original? Do you enlarge the mouth? Am in a quandary
>
> Yes, you need to enlarge the mouth to use some of the thicker blades and
> chipbreakers in old planes. To summarize a method someone conveyed to
> me on this newsgroup, you get a silicon carbide marking tool and using a
> straight edge scribe a line 1/32-1/16" over from the front edge of the
> current mouth. Then using a small single cut mill file (I found one at
> a hobby shop), file the mouth until you meet the line. Then test the
> blade and chipbreaker. If the mouth is still too small repeat and
> enlarge the mouth a little more. I was nervous doing this with my (to
> me) precious old Stanley Sweetheart #7 that I purchased on eBay, but it
> was easy and I was able to fit a Clifton chipbreaker and blade to this
> nice old plane. Works great!
>
> --
> To email me use: sjusenet AT comcast DOT net