Subscribe | Give a Gift | Subscription Customer Service
How We Are Different Order Back Issues Interactive Glossary Weblog Contact the Staff Subscribe to Woodworking Magazine

Woodworking Magazine Weblog

Posted 1/15/2008 in All Weblog Posts | Handplanes

Memory is a funny thing, especially in my family. But I swear that during my last days as a college undergrad there was a car dealership in Chicago that offered a special deal to its customers.

Buy a car and get a Yugo for just $1.

If there is a Yugo of the woodworking world, it has to be the Stanley planes that are called “the transitionals.” These poor suckers have a wooden body with a metal Bailey-style adjustment mechanism that works a bit like an Australian toilet (that is, they spin backwards than what we are accustomed to).

Most modern woodworkers first encounter these planes through Patrick Leach’s venerable web site “Patrick Leach’s Blood & Gore.” This site offers commentary on almost every plane made by Stanley. Tool collectors print out every page of this enormous site. They put the pages in a three-ring binder. They live by the advice, which is, for the most part, totally dead on the money.

For example, Leach contends that the Bed Rock series of planes are overrated (bingo). He laments the fiberboard planes (fair enough, but so do small children, invalids and lunatics). And he mocks the No. 55 (which deserves it). But he also runs down the No. 6, a plane that I find quite useful. And he advocates the ritual burning of almost all the transitional planes. He even has photos!

Let me be the first person to say that the transitional planes aren’t perfect. Many of the defects he points out are dead-on. But some of these tools have some distinct advantages that, when realized, are impressive. Here’s my take.


Downside: The adjustment knob is too puny.

The transitional planes are excellent for some jobs, and are fairly worthless for others. You just have to think about it for a minute. Personally, I think the transitional planes that are jointer planes and fore planes are outstanding. I’m not so fond, however, of the many transitionals that are smoothing planes.

Let’s take a look at the way these planes work for a minute and I think you’ll see where I’m coming from.

In essence, these planes marry a Bailey-style blade adjuster with a wooden body. The advantages of this sort of tool are:

1. The sole is tremendously easy to true compared to a metal plane.
2. The tool is lightweight, thanks to the wooden body.
3. You can purchase enormously long and accurate jointer planes (up to 30") in this form because the wood is so inexpensive.
4. You can dial in your shaving thickness with great accuracy thanks to the patented Bailey adjuster.
5. You get the same sweet wood-on-wood feel as you would when working with a traditional wooden plane.

The disadvantages are:
1. Closing up the mouth of this tool is a stupid exercise in shimming under the blade with cardboard.
2. The tote and knob are poorly attached to the plane (most are wobbly).
3. The blade-adjustment mechanism works opposite of the same adjuster on a Stanley metal plane – you spin the wheel counter-clockwise to extend the blade.
4. The blade-adjustment wheel is too puny.

If you carefully sort through these advantages and disadvantages you’ll see why these planes make excellent jointers and fore planes. First, the soles are easy to true – far easier than truing the sole of a metal plane. When I fixed up my first jack plane, I spent days (yes, days) lapping the sole to dead flat. I want those days back.

When I flatten the sole of a transitional plane, I set my power jointer to the lightest cut I can manage and make a pass on the plane’s sole. Then it’s dead-flat and done. When readers ask me how to flatten the sole of a metal jointer plane, I’m at a total loss. I’ve never been able to manage it to my satisfaction. I just make the sole worse, turning it into an iron banana.

With a fore plane and a jointer plane, the mouth aperture is fairly unimportant. So the fact that it gets larger as you true the sole is immaterial. However, it’s this problem that makes the transitionals troublesome as smoothing planes. You can stupidly adjust the plane’s frog forward to close up the smoother’s mouth, but that just makes the iron chatter because the wooden bed and the iron bed that hold the iron are then out of alignment. The best way to close up the mouth on a transitional is by patching the mouth with an extra piece of wood.


Downside: The metal frog and wooden bed are two separate pieces. Close the mouth (or open it) and you'll make chatter, not shavings.

The light weight of these planes makes them excellent jointer and fore planes. They are easy to wield, even if you have the arms of a little girl (of which I am guilty).

And you don’t have to create a perfect surface with these two classes of tools – that’s the job of the smoothing plane. So if you have a jointer plane iron with a few pits in it that leaves a few plane tracks behind, then so be it. The smoothing plane (or Fein sander, or Timesaver wide-beltsander, or the abject blindness of your loved ones) will fix that.

But here is why you really should buy these planes. They are dirt, dirt cheap. The No. 32 shown in these photos was $35, and I overpaid. You can get transitionals really cheap. In fact, some tool dealers think they are too lame to even sell them.

Some people give them away like Yugos.

— Christopher Schwarz

1/15/2008 9:41:46 PM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)
Oh man, I have one of those - although it's a no-name transitional so I probably should have been paid to take it. :p The mouth is over a quarter inch wide so I was thinking of laminating an extra slab on the bed. Maybe I should buy a couple hundred dollars worth of Lie-Nielsen floats and make a new wood body.

Maybe I'll just let it continue to collect dust on the bookshelf. But something about it speaks to me. Make the voices go away!

Thanks for this, I just may do something with the old gal.
1/16/2008 12:53:55 AM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)
Huh, I've never had trouble lapping the sole of a metal plane; stick some wet/dry sandpaper on plate glass (or even just hold it) and go to it. It's tedious, no argument there, but I never thought of it as particularly difficult.
1/16/2008 6:33:08 AM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)

Graham,

Perhaps I wasn't as clear as I should have been -- I'm talking about truing jointer planes. I have yet to see a successfully hand-flattened jointer plane. Perhaps they exist, but I haven't seen one.

I true the soles of bocks and smoothers all the time. That's routine maintenance.

Sorry if this wasn't clear.

Chris
1/16/2008 9:40:26 AM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)
Chris,

I came to the same conclusion. After rehabbing 3-4 of these ,, they're best suited as try planes. I don't think they were ever intended for fine smootihng, even applies to the smaller smother class of transitionals.

I wanted to mention however, that I re-soled 3 of these transitionals ( the ones with chewed up soles), and in 2 others have added a new exotic wood insert in the sole just ahead of the iron. Both these changes have closed the mouths off significantly, it sort of resets the mouth opening to where it might have been when new, if not tighter.

They work quite a bit better afterwards.

Norman
1/16/2008 9:49:18 AM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)
Here! Here! Why do we see so many transitionals? Why are so many transitionals featured in old photographs of carriage makers, wagon makers, house carpenters and shipwrights? Cause they liked them, they where affordable and they worked. Why do we see so few bedrocks? Cause they where expensive, a pain to adjust and heavy. Plus Patrick's Blood & Gore had not yet been published.

Gary
1/16/2008 10:09:09 AM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)
Chris.

Very nice left-hand technique in the jointing photo! Just like Marc Adams shows in this month's jointer safety article.
1/16/2008 10:42:38 AM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)
Norman,

Send us photos!

Chris
1/16/2008 10:43:31 AM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)
Thanks for that, Chris, I have been struggling lately with my #7, tried to true it up with some paper glued to my TS. I thought I was getting somewhere, but when I put the plane to use, things just aren't right. I do have one of those transitionals laying about. I'll have to get it out and see how it compares.

About half way done with my hard maple Roubo by the way. I need to recruit some help to move the glued up top around. I feel sorry for those guys...

Corey in Milwaukee
1/16/2008 1:17:46 PM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)

Norman provided photos of these three transitionals he modified (copy and paste the URLs into a new browser window):

http://www.woodworking-magazine.com/blog/content/binary/TransCoffin.jpg

http://www.woodworking-magazine.com/blog/content/binary/TransJointer.jpg

http://www.woodworking-magazine.com/blog/content/binary/TransPadauk.jpg

His notes on the three planes:

Try plane - has a new padauk sole and goncavo alves mouth insert. The idea is to mortise or rout a mortise cross-wise into the sole came to me for reasons of expediency. No more inlaying and a mouth insert could easily replaced simply by routing a 3/4 in. mortise and inserting a new one. If you use the same wood for the insert as the sole, it even has a seamless look.

Coffin smoother - has a new steamed beech sole with a exotic wood mouth insert, can't recall the type of wood. This insert is installed the typical way, create mortise and insert the new mouth insert.

Jointer - This plane has had a new European steamed beech sole applied with no insert, but over time and once the sole wears and the mouth begins to open,an insert can be applied.
1/16/2008 1:33:59 PM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)
I always thought one of those smaller transitionals would be good for turning into a big round or compass plane. Never got around to it though or really had the need. Anybody do this?
1/16/2008 7:27:21 PM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)
Transitionals have another advantage: the soles can be given intentional shapes. I've started altering the soles to shape the inside of coopered panels. 16" diameter? No problem!
1/16/2008 9:31:39 PM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)
DANG!!! I've been hoarding them puppies for a few years now because they're inexpensive. And now you go and let the proverbial arboreal critter out of the paper satchel. Thanks guy.

But seriously folks, I've developed a fix for the mouthage. My solution also solves the conundrum with the wobbly knob. What I've done is resole the plane as in replace the wood with new wood and section it so I can create an adjustable mouth. I haven't finished it yet but I'll post some pics whenever I git-r-done. In essence the screw for the know is replaced with a bolt that when tightened locks the mouth-block and VIOLA!
1/16/2008 9:33:46 PM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)
Oh and it's made of cocobolo, sweet!
1/17/2008 6:48:45 PM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)
Hi Chris. One would imagine if SR&L wanted to continue the transitional style of planes as a long term market option, they would have produced these planes to a higher quality than was the case.

But then again, ,why would you risk making these too popular, when your future market direction was fully cast hand planes.

SR&L were no fools.

Regards Stewie.

1/17/2008 6:54:22 PM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)
My gut says these planes were eliminated as metal planes became the dominant form. Metal planes, after all, need a lot less seasonal maintenance. And they don't have loose totes or frog-adjustment issues.

Tons of these planes were made and sold. Likely many were lost due to the wooden stock. But they are so common today, it is OK to assume they were a success in the day.

Consumer tastes change. No one would buy a black & white laptop today, but do you really need color to write e-mails?

Chris
2/13/2008 6:37:26 PM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)
I have two of these, both given to me, a Stanley #32 jointer (24") and Sargent fore plane (15"). Thanks for the input here, especially regarding the chatter issue that crops up with trying to adjust the mouth. I reground the fore plane iron to a convex curve for rough flattening jobs after digging into your blog on this topic. Just trying it out, but so far, it seems nice. What are the principal differences in function between a fore plane ground in this fashion and a scrub plane? (There's the obvious fact that most scrub planes are shorter, and don't use a cap iron, but how does that work out in practice for the job of flattening a board?
Both of my transitional planes have dings and grooves in the sole plates (no surprise). So far I've ignored it. Would trying to flattening the soles with my low-angle jack be an exercise in stupidity? I don't have a planer handy.
On the topic of loose totes and knobs, a quick fix can be borrowed from wooden boat-building tricks for hardware bonding: drill the hole out in the sole OVERSIZE (i.e., about 1/2" diameter) but not as deep as the original screw hole, leaving a bit of the original hole left for the screw to bite into. Fill this cavity with a mixture of epoxy + filler (sawdust will do, but West Systems has some awesome high-density filler) and reinstall the screw + know screw into this hole (it bites in the remainder of the hole. The epoxy hardens, and the screw in now bedded into a very tough environment which adheres very well to the enlarged hole in the wood. You can actually remove the screw if needed by heating the head up with a soldering iron.
2/13/2008 6:40:30 PM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)
Sorry, typo, that's "reinstall the screw + knob into this hole"
Name
E-mail
Home page

Comment (HTML not allowed)  

Enter the code shown (prevents robots):

 Copyright © 2005 F+W Publications Inc. All rights reserved.