Stanley no 1

[engineerone]

checking a couple more places, it would appear that the number 1 was in fact the first metal plane produced by stanley using the bailer patent which they had just bought.

so the engineer in me suggests that as much as anything this was a production test product initially to see whether it was in fact possible to mass produce decent metal planes with the bailey adjuster. if it did not work, then the economics even that far back would have been such that it was not too disasterous.

it was not meant to replace the block plane, but rather work more effectively in places where the bigger competitors were not able to work.

since most people were less well fed than us today it is also likely that they were smaller, and had smaller hands which made it a more effective tool.

this is just conjecture, but does offer an explanation for the numbering.

paul

[Head clansman]

HI guys

umm nice little debate going on hear about sizes of plane etc but um correct me if i'm wrong was'nt this thread about what was the the intended use of stanley no 1

[mrgrimsdale]

Dec 21, 2008 13:36:32 GMT engineerone said:

snip
since most people were less well fed than us today it is also likely that they were smaller, and had smaller hands which made it a more effective tool
snip

What; and all the planes the others had made were too big? Seems improbable- somebody would have noticed sooner, I'm sure. ;D ;D

[Head clansman]

HI JACOB

I intend to agree with you there jacob , thats one of the reasons i dont think they were intended for in school use's either, whilst all other tools and other planes were made normal size. hc

[engineerone]

sometimes jacob i think you read something else before you reply to my posts ;D

what i said quite carefully was that the stanley number one was the first made after they took over the bailey patent.
by chance they were also smaller than us, that is true too.

but the relevant fact is that once they had proved the concept worked within their manufacturing capability, then they could expand the range toward the similar sizes we know and understand today.

certainly they were not designed for use in schools, since in those days there was no publicly centrally funded education
either here or in america, and most of these places would not
have woodworking facilities on site. and hence no need for smaller planes.

like all tools, there comes to be a commonly accepted size, shape and weight, for instance the 20oz hammer. the 8 inch file,
a 11-12 inch chisel. they are an evolution of manufacturing skills as well as usage.

paul

[Head clansman]

Hi Paul

purely out of interest where did you get the info that it was the first plan bailey produced .hc

[engineerone]

www.supertool.com
its's a stateside one, but i think most of the basics are true, if not some of the comments ;D

paul

[Head clansman]

Hi Paul

I thought you might have got it from there , IMHO it actually says( it's the first plane of the series) which it is being no 1 it doesnt say it's the no they started with in production after stanley bought the patent, might depend on how you read it i suppose . hc

[smudger]

The whole Stanley-Bailey bench plane range (#1 - 7) came out in 1869, according to Patrick Leach. The #8 was later. Did Bailey make a #1 before the Stanley R&L takeover? A quick internet search doesn't find any sign of one, the illustrations of Bailey planes look #5 sized, with some talk of a #3.

[engineerone]

i make no claims to be an expert, but this is the first line
from leach

1 Smooth plane, 5 1/2"L, 1 1/4"W, 1 1/8lbs, 1869-1943. *
This is the first plane of the Bailey series, which Stanley made into the world's standard plane configuration after they bought the patent rights to the design from Leonard Bailey, who was making the planes in relative obscurity in Boston, Massachusetts during the 1860's. Bailey had experimented with several designs, but finally settled upon a style that is still being manufactured, with minor modification, today.

and as an engineer, i cannot see any company starting out with tool number 4 or 5 it would make no sense to a logical mind like those of post american civil war mass producers.

personally thinking more about bailey and his inventions, i wonder whether this was a design to help finish off the stocks and so on of the federal rifles that were mass produced in springfield in the early 1860's

like so many of these stories which are now interesting, at the time i would think many of the files were thrown away and it will not be properly possible to obtain all the accurate information we might like to have now.

paul

[smudger]

Record, who never made a 01, did exactly that. The 03 - 08 range were brought out in 1931, and the 010 in 1932 and the 02 in 1933. The 400½ scrub plane had to wait until 1935. Of course, they were also producing block planes and plough planes in between. That represents the popularity of the different sizes, I would suggest, get the most saleable out there first and then worry about the minority stuff, filling in gaps as they went along.

If you look at Patrick Leach's description you will see that all the bench planes have an introduction date of 1869, so it seems that the whole range came out either together or in the same catalogue year.

He doesn't actually say that it (the #1) was the first plane manufactured, he says it was the first plane in the range, ie it was the lowest number.

I've just seen the comment about people being smaller in the 1860s - well, they may have been a bit shorter, and they were probably a lot thinner, but I don't think they were half the size of people nowadays - we'd never get through the doors of old buildings! For evidence, go along to the V&A and have a look at historic costumes.

[tommo]

Dec 22, 2008 1:07:24 GMT smudger said:

Record, who never made a 01, did exactly that. The 03 - 08 range were brought out in 1931, and the 010 in 1932 and the 02 in 1933. The 400½ scrub plane had to wait until 1935. Of course, they were also producing block planes and plough planes in between. That represents the popularity of the different sizes, I would suggest, get the most saleable out there first and then worry about the minority stuff, filling in gaps as they went along.

Except of course the fact the Records are later copies of the Stanley's so the question is did Bailey assign the numbers.
Of course it should be remembered that none of these planes were in constant production and some may have been made in very small numbers.
1860 is in the middle of the Victorian era never seen a house from that era with doorways lower than 6'

Regards Tom

[Head clansman]

Hi All

we can only assume all the article we read on the INTERNET are correct after all they had to gather info from somewhere , an interesting article about STANLEY POCKET CATALOG'S part 11 hit the nail on the head.

Stanley no 1 actual intended use was (an odd job combination tool) in This article the writer he talks about pocket catalogs in which Stanley sold it planes from he goes on to say in one of them not sure which one it describes five of the ten uses it was intended for unfortunately he doesn't describe those five uses either . he often refers to( see fig no ?) but there doesn't seem to be any fig no? he also mentioned different catalogs but none are shown unless I'm missing something, but it is still a very interesting read all the same.

Also Stanley no 1 is shown as being made from this link www.hansbrunnertools.gil.com.au/ then click 1 . as early as 1867 some two yrs previously made by a different company. also a very interesting read . hc

[Head clansman]

Hi Tommo

Of course it should be remembered that none of these planes were in constant production and some may have been made in very small numbers.


UM I think you should read the above articals by close to the late 1895 stanley had sold nearly 3,ooo,ooo plane since 1869 . hc ;)

[engineerone]

this is interesting and also sending us off again ;D

few workman's houses survive from the 1860's they tend to be later, but as an example i know many exrailway man's cottages that do not have doors much higher than 6 foot, and many are in fact only 5 ft 6 or so. and as anyone who holidays in cornwall in an old house, the ceilings and doors are smaller. same in lincolnshire. most queen anne and regency houses tend to have been middle or upper class dwellings where the door sizes were designed to show affluence as well as allow for the fact that rooms were bigger because of the needs of coal fires. also many of them were modified palladian mansions which relied on size to provide the proportions.

more importantly american working class dwellings during the late 1800's were quite small and made often from green timber, therefore sizes tended to be smaller. i know about the shaker's and mega barns, but storage was more important than the dwelling, because it was what kept you alive during the winter.

people were on average about 6-10% smaller overall, 100 years ago, and you might well compare the average indian living in india, against the average indian living in britain, the sizes are quite different, not least since they rarely eat as often as we do now. it is not meant to explain the number 1's size, is just a reminder that frankly we have no idea, but there is some logic in understanding the local conditions.

since record were not first, they would only copy those sizes which in their mind most effectively competed. and maybe by then since there were many fewer mass produced wooden items in terms of carriages, and aeroplane propellors they decided the smaller two sizes were of no value.

paul

[mrgrimsdale]

I've worked in a lot of Arkwright built workers' cottages 1790 ish. Doors always bigger than 6ft. Never encountered a 5'6" door anywhere except occasionally in timber framed houses - probably because they tend to be settling slowly into the ground or leaning sideways.
I also have quite a few ancient saws and planes - all of them fit my largish hands no prob. They must all have been too big for the old pigmies - perhaps they were designed as 2 handers ;D ;D

[jake]

Dec 22, 2008 16:58:59 GMT engineerone said:

as anyone who holidays in cornwall in an old house, the ceilings and doors are smaller. same in lincolnshire.

That's because the natives are f**k**g hobbits.

[woodyew]

Dec 22, 2008 17:31:40 GMT mrgrimsdale said:

I've worked in a lot of Arkwright built workers' cottages 1790 ish.

Crikey, you're even older than I thought! ;D

[mrgrimsdale]

Anywayze. It's good to know that the little people managed a bit of woodwork instead of sitting on toadstools all day around a pond, sometimes with their kecks down weeing continuously, even though it took two of them to handle a little Stanley no.1 ;D ;D It's a small world sure enough

PS if Paul's little people theory is correct - perhaps they were a special Irish export model?

[tommo]

Dec 22, 2008 10:57:57 GMT Head clansman said:

Hi All

we can only assume all the article we read on the INTERNET are correct after all they had to gather info from somewhere , an interesting article about STANLEY POCKET CATALOG'S part 11 hit the nail on the head.

Stanley no 1 actual intended use was (an odd job combination tool) in This article the writer he talks about pocket catalogs in which Stanley sold it planes from he goes on to say in one of them not sure which one it describes five of the ten uses it was intended for unfortunately he doesn't describe those five uses either . he often refers to( see fig no ?) but there doesn't seem to be any fig no? he also mentioned different catalogs but none are shown unless I'm missing something, but it is still a very interesting read all the same.

Also Stanley no 1 is shown as being made from this link www.hansbrunnertools.gil.com.au/ then click 1 . as early as 1867 some two yrs previously made by a different company. also a very interesting read . hc

Err.. whats a Stanley #1 Oddjobs have to do with planes?

I can't find the reference to total planes sold what page was it please.
Do you think 3000,000 planes in 26 years is a lot? That works out at 2218 planes a week , once you share that out between the different sizes its not quite such a massive number.

Regards Tom

[Head clansman]

Hi Tommo

this tread was to try and establish what was the intended use of the no 1 stanley plane as there seemed to be so many differing story about it, salesmans stock , schools used them ,small peoples used them even as small as pigmys etc etc.

Odd job combination tool was how it was refered to in stanley pocket catalogue of 1869 ish , it had ten intended uses , in one of the catalogues it mentioned five of those intended uses but the author who wrote the acticale about it never stated what those uses where unfortunatily.

references to the amount sold yearly was printed on the front of those catalogues by 1895 nearly 3 million was sold , and yes seeing they were the biggest company selling planes and proberly still are that was a a heck of a lot of planes, i certainly wouldnt want to sharpen that lot , if you spend sometime on the internet i'm sure you'll find them somewhere, i dont remember the link , try jacob water. hc

[Head clansman]

Hi TOMMO

Go to google try stanley shirt pocket catalogue partii click on first web site hear it is ok. hc

[jake]

Let's play spot the difference:

[tommo]

Hi H.C,

I know you were trying to figure out what the number 1 was made for the other ramblings are just musing about wether they were ever common or made for small hands etc.

Please look at this link to see an Oddjobs you have been at this a long time think you probably know this tool.

www.tooltrip.com/tooltrip9/stanley/stanmisc/oddjob7.jpg

Hope the link works.

I still think the little plane was just scaled down from a bigger drawing as a speculative idea that was then made more or less obsolete by the block planes.

As far as the sales figures go by all accounts the man in charge wasn't shy of bullshitting that 3 million may have just looked suitably impressive.

Cheers Tom

[tommo]

Well done Jake on the ball as always

Cheers Tom