The Lehigh Valley was a great place to celebrate the Early American Industry Association’s 85th Anniversary during our 2018 Annual Meeting! Beautiful weather, fantastic historic sites and museums to visit, great workshops, ,demonstrations,tool trading, and member displays. All done while we enjoyed lots of learning, friendship and fun in and around Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. Watch the slide show below and enjoy the memories. Can you find yourself?
Thanks to all of you for coming and special thanks to my co-hosts – David Lauer, David Pollak, and Eileen Van Pernis who helped make it all possible. We hope to see all of you and many more EAIA members in Lowell, Massachusetts for the 2019 Annual Meeting May 15th thru the 18th, 2019!
This is the first of what is intended to be an occasional series describing some of the Stanley Model Shop tools in my collection and sometimes giving opinions and historical tidbits relating to them. Many of the Model Shop tools are prototypes and, thus, are either one-offs or very limited production models. Although information about a number of Model Shop tools has been published in journals such as The Chronicle, The Gristmill, and Fine Tool Journal and in various blogs, information about many others is not generally available to the tool collecting community. I hope this series will help spread information about a few more of these very interesting tools.
Stanley maintained the Model Shop from the earliest times . The Model Shop gave Stanley inventors an opportunity to try out new ideas and develop prototypes for new tools, to test prototypes and production parts, and to evaluate competitor’s products. The Model Shop also stored prototypes for future reference. Stanley actively solicited ideas for new tools from users at least as early as 1900 with the August 1900 Catalogue No. 26 stating on page 2 “We are frank to state that the design of many of the special tools which we show originated in the suggestions of our customers. We are always pleased to receive suggestions from the tool-user.”  I have heard, but I can’t remember where, that Stanley held regular Tuesday morning meetings to consider ideas and prototypes for production.
There were a number of authorized clean outs of obsolete prototypes, casting patterns, and other material from the Model Shop over the years with the largest happening in 1964 and 1974. Typically, the removed materials were designated as “junk” and employees were allowed to take what they wanted. This accounts for many of the prototypes seen today.
Many of the model shop tools share characteristics that differentiate them from production tools. First, they are very limited production tools or one offs, some of which are unlike any regular production Stanley tools and some of which differ from regular production tools only in minor details. Many Model Shop tools use mostly stock parts, but have specially made unique features. The stock parts may be parts pulled off the production line or may be unfinished, imperfect, or seconds not of acceptable quality for sale. Cutters may or may not be marked. Lastly, many (but not all) of the Model Shop tools have Model Shop identifying marks painted or scratched on them, often in several places, or have tags identifying them as model shop prototypes. Most of the identifying marks are numerical, although some are alpha-numeric. These Model Shop marks don’t seem to have any particular chronological order and may have been put on at the whim of whoever was cataloging the prototypes that day. Most Model Shop tags I have seen have dates which are useful for telling when the prototypes were made.
With that introduction, we now turn to the subject of this piece, a transitional furring plane prototype (Figure 1). This is one of my favorite prototypes because of its simplicity and its self-documenting provenance. As with many Model Shop planes, this one shows no signs of use.
The prototype is based on a regular production Type 10 (1893-1899) Stanley No. 35 transitional plane. Features of Type 10 include an S casting mark on the lever cap, left hand threads on the adjusting nut, three patent dates on the lateral lever, and a STANLEY / PAT AP’L 19 92 stamp on the cutter. The stamp on the cutter is quite weak on this example. The patent date refers to Edmund A. Schade’s Patent No. 473,087 “Plane Iron” of that date for placing the large hole in the iron at the bottom of the slot in the iron rather than at the top as had been done previously on Stanley bench planes.
Although the patent for the “Schade slot” was not issued until 1892, Stanley had been producing and marketing the feature in 1890  . These dates became important because features made publicly available more than two years before the patent was granted rendered the patent void. Among others, the Ohio Tool Company copied the large hole at the bottom of the iron (Ohio Tool used a hexagonal hole rather than a round one). Stanley sued for patent infringement with the trial beginning in 1901. Ohio Tool asserted that the low hole was a prior invention available to any company. The court agreed with Ohio Tool, noting that the patent was an obvious solution to a simple problem, and Stanley lost the case.
Edmund A. Schade was born August 29, 1855, in Saxony Germany . The family immigrated to America about 1864 and Edmund apprenticed in the Sargent & Company machine shop prior to 1873, when he was employed by Stanley Rule & Level Company. Shortly thereafter he rose to foreman of his department and by 1900 became Mechanical Superintendent and remained so until his death in 1932, ending a 59 year career with Stanley. The April 19, 1892, plane iron patent was Schade’s first known plane related patent. Other notable Stanley plane patents by Schade include the design patent for the No. 20 circular plane (1893), patents for the No. 55 combination plane (with Justus Traut, 1895), the early Bedrock plane frogs (1895), the tilt handles on the No. 85 and 10 ¼ planes (with his brother Albert, also employed by Stanley, 1905), the new style Bedrock planes (1911), brass bushings and machine screws to secure the frog on transitional planes(1912), Gage iron planes (1920), the design patent for the No. 144 plane (1925), and the patents for the No. 164 plane (1927) and Ready Edge Blades (1927).
Returning to the prototype furring plane, it was made by modifying the sole of a No. 35 plane. As can be seen in Figure 1, Figure 2, and Figure 3 the sole has been by hollowed out ahead of and behind the mouth, leaving small bearing surfaces at the mouth and heel (the purpose of the two small bearing surfaces is to allow the plane to follow the contours of rough sawn lumber when planing the “fur” off rather than to produce the flat surface that typical smooth planes produce). Figure 3 shows that the hollowing out at the toe was not done very carefully; the cut is slanted across the toe of the plane. Figure 3 also clearly shows the markings on the nose of the plane: the Model Shop number 3706 and STANLEY / RULE & LEVEL COMPANY / NO. 35 with the last line being cut in half.
Details of the markings on the sole of the plane are shown in Figure 4. I have observed the I15 mark on other Model Shop prototype planes. Its significance is unknown to me. The sole behind the mouth also contains the signatures of E. R. Van Vleck and Boyer Lilpho(?) and the date March 26 / 04. The toe of the sole is signed “Made April 9/04 by E. A. Schade.” I have seen other examples of Schade’s signature and this appears to be in his hand. It is interesting that Schade, who claims creation of this prototype, signed it two weeks after the other two. E. A. Schade has been discussed above, but the identities of E. R. Van Vleck and Boyer Lilpho(?) are unknown to me. Were they employees of the Model Shop or did they have other positions with the Stanley Rule and Level Company? If anyone knows, let me know.
The date this prototype was made raises a question about its intended purpose. It was made more than a year after Jefferson Allen’s “Plane” Patent No. 721,771 of March 3, 1903, but before the cast iron bodied Stanley No. 340 furring plane was marketed in 1905 (Figure 5) . Was this intended to be a quick and dirty prototype of the No. 340 or did Stanley consider making a transitional furring plane. If the latter, one suspects that the time of consideration must have been very brief because the wood sole of the plane with its small bearing surfaces near the mouth and heel would have worn away very quickly when used on rough lumber.
It should be noted that the transitional prototype furring plane and the production No. 340 plane resemble the plane shown in Allen’s patent (Figure 6) only in broad concept. The patent states “This invention has for its object the production of a novel plane in which the cutting edge of the plane-iron is situated some distance below the sole of the stock, whereby the plane may operate upon portions of the surface to be planed which are below the level of the higher portions thereof.… [S]ince the sole of the plane is above the level of the surface being operated upon it is possible to plane or smooth the depressed portions in the surface.… My improved plane is especially useful in such operations as smoothing up the boards of a floor.… My improvement is of such a character that it may be applied to any type of plane.”
The primary feature of the plane is “a gage rib [6 in Figure 6] which extends across the sole thereof adjacent the mouth through which the cutting edge of the plane-iron projects. Preferably this gage-rib will be constructed to be detachably secured to the plane, so that the plane can be used with or without it, as desired.”
The plane also features a detachable nose piece (nose-plate) (8 in Figure 6) and a rocking support toward the rear of the body (13 in Figure 6): “I have herein illustrated said rib as being formed integral with a nose-piece 8, which is detachably secured to the front end of the plane, whereby said nose-plate and rib may be removed whenever it is desired to use the plane in the ordinary [w]ay…. I will also preferably provide the heel of the plane with a detachable half round or semispherical projection 13 to form a sort of rocking support for the plane when my improvements are applied thereto. This rocking support provides means whereby the plane may be regulated slightly to better accommodate it to uneven surfaces.”
The Model Shop prototype furring plane (Figure 1) and the production No. 340 furring plane (Figure 5) resemble each other closely in concept and design and are a great simplification of the rather complicated design described in Allen’s patent. Allen promotes his plane as “especially useful in such operations as smoothing up the boards of a floor” while Stanley recommends the No. 340 plane “[f]or preparing lumber as it comes roughly sawed from the mill. The construction is such that it will remove the fur, grit, dirt, etc., and in fact “clean up” the surface and get it ready for the bench plane quicker than any other hand tool.” 
If you have additional information or comments about this or other Stanley Model Shop prototypes, please contact me at email@example.com or reply to this blog. I look forward to hearing from you.
 C. Blanchard, “The Stanley Model Shop or Barrel Days,” Fine Tool Journal, vol. 50, pp. 22-23, Fall 2000.
 Stanley Rule and Level Company Catalogue No. 26, August, 1900.
 J. Walter, Antique & Collectible Stanley Tools, Guide to Identity & Value, Marietta, Ohio: The Tool Merchant, 1996, p. 806.
 R. K. Smith, Patented Transitional & Metallic Planes in America–Vol. II, Athol, MA: Roger K. Smith, 1992, pp. 224-229.
 J. Walter, Antique & Collectible Stanley Tools, Guide to Identity & Value, Marietta, Ohio: The Tool Merchant, 1996, pp. 457, 809.
 Stanley Tools Catalogue No. 110, 1911, p. 38.
The 85th Anniversary Early American Industries Association Annual Meeting is not far off. Join us in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania as we explore the diverse and fascinating history of the Lehigh Valley May 23rd through May 26th, 2018. We guarantee you’ll have a good time, make new friends and learn more about early American industry and the fascinating history of the Moravians.
On Thursday one of our stops will be the Kemerer Museum of Decorative Arts which is housed in three interconnected mid-1800’s homes in Bethlehem. The museum is one of only 15 museums in the United States dedicated to the “decorative arts”. The period rooms, and galleries highlight furniture, paintings, china, clothing, and silver from over three centuries of decorative arts. The museum is named for Annie S. Kemerer who was born in 1865 just south of Bethlehem. Annie married into a prominent Bethlehem family and she and her husband had one son. Annie and her family enjoyed surrounding themselves with beautiful furniture, paintings, and decorative objects. After the untimely deaths of her son and then her husband, Annie became a recluse but continued to be an avid collector of antiques. Through her generous bequest, the Kemerer Museum of Decorative Arts was established in Bethlehem after her death in 1951. Annie Kemerer’s extensive personal collection includes lovely examples of Pennsylvania German textiles, exquisite furniture, priceless Bohemian glass, and her breathtaking 200-piece wedding china.
The Historic Bethlehem Collection Resource Center was added to the Kemerer Museum in the fall of 2013. This is a two-story environmentally controlled vault that houses all of the most sensitive objects in the collections of Historic Bethlehem Museums and Sites. On the interior there are floor to ceiling glass walls making it possible for visitors to see the collections.
The second floor of the vault is home to the distinguished Elizabeth Johnston Prime Dollhouse and Toy Collection, forty-four structures and 6,000 pieces, making it one of the largest antique dollhouse collections in the United States. This collection, spanning the period from 1830-1930, recounts 100 years of architectural and decorative arts history. Mrs. Prime was so precise in her collecting that she only put pieces in each house that were period-appropriate, down to the china. Because the collection is so vast, the museum feature select houses throughout the year. During our EAIA Annual Meeting we’ve arranged special “behind the scenes” tours of both the dollhouse collection and the Kemerer’s extensive textile collection.
On Friday we’ll visit Martin Guitar in nearby Nazareth, Pennsylvania. Established in 1833 by Christian Frederic Martin the company is highly regarded for its steel string guitars and is a leading manufacturer of flat top guitars. The company has been run by the Martin family throughout its history. The current chairman and CEO, C.F. ‘Chris’ Martin IV, is the great-great-great-grandson of the founder. The firm was the first to introduce many of the characteristic features of the modern flat top, steel-string acoustic guitar. Martin instruments can sell for thousands of dollars, and vintage instruments occasionally command six-figure prices. We’ll take a tour of the factory to see how these world class guitars are made and spend time in the delightful museum that is housed in the factory.
Friday will also allow us an opportunity to visit the Moravian Historical Society in Nazareth. Housed in the George Whitfield house (1740-1743) the Moravian Historical Society museum houses one of the oldest and most distinguished collections of artifacts, art, and architecture related to Moravian history in North America. You’ll see the first violin made in America, early Moravian made organs and an amazing collection of Moravian musical instruments. The eighteenth and nineteenth-century Moravians considered music a necessity, an essential part of their daily lives. Many Moravian clergy and laypeople were trained in music before they came to Pennsylvania by the same composers who influenced Mozart and Haydn. In Moravian life there was no distinction between the “sacred” and the “secular.” Each person’s gifts were used for the benefit of the entire community. While there was little emphasis given to music as a distinct profession–many of the composers were also teachers and pastors–music was an essential part of everyone’s education.
Throughout the history of the Moravian Church, instruments have been used consistently in worship as well as entertainment. Instruments came to America early with the Moravians; by 1742 Bethlehem had flutes, violins, violas da braccio, violas da gamba, and horns. Beginning in the early 18th century, Moravian settlements in America used the trombone choir consisting of alto, tenor, and bass trombones as a distinctive part of worship. In 18th century Moravian settlements, the trombone choir, playing from the church tower or from in front of the entrance, served to call the congregation to worship, and served as the congregation’s “portable” ensemble for accompanying outdoor services, burial services, and the Easter sunrise service traditionally held in the graveyard adjacent to the church.
On Friday afternoon we’ll have lunch at the Jacobsburg Historical Society (just 4 miles north of Nazareth) home of the Pennsylvania Long Rifle Museum. The Pennsylvania Longrifle Museum features more than 100 historic arms on either permanent display or in rotating, topical exhibits. Displays feature Henry firearms dating from the American Fur Trade, the War of 1812, the Civil War, the American West, and the early twentieth century. Most of the firearms were made by the Henrys of Bolton, but the collection also contains arms made by Abraham Henry (1768-1807), who apprenticed in Nazareth under his brother William Henry II (1757-1821) but returned to Lancaster to practice his trade. The Bolton area itself produced guns for more than 100 years. Here are a few tidbits about Jacobsburg and the Henry family.
And of course, we’ll have our Whatsit’s session on Thursday night, so don’t forget to bring that tool you just can’t quite figure out and we’ll see if we can collectively give you an answer.
There’s a lot to do in the Lehigh Valley in and around Bethlehem. You may want to come a day or two early or extend your stay for a day or two just to spend some more time in this fascinating part of Pennsylvania. Here are a few possibilities:
It’s not to late to sign up! Do it today! Don’t forget to bring your “Whatsit” and please think about bringing something you’ve made or an item you want to donate to our Silent Auction. It’s scheduled to take place right before our Saturday night banquet. All the money raised helps support EAIA! Come and join us as we celebrate the Early American Industries Association’s 85th anniversary in the Lehigh Valley!
by Paul Van Pernis
The Early American Industries 2018 Annual Meeting is only about 3 months away. On May 23rd through May 26th, 2018, we’ll celebrate EAIA’s 85th anniversary during our annual meeting in the Lehigh Valley of Pennsylvania. What follows are a few historical facts, some teasers, and hopefully an enticement or two that will convince you to come join us for all the fun.
Did you know that the Moravian church has been around for over 550 years? Founded in 1457, the Moravian Church, or Unitas Fratrum (Unity of Brethren) as followers of John Hus gathered in the village of Kunvald, about 100 miles east of Prague, in eastern Bohemia, and organized the church. This was 60 years before Martin Luther began his reformation and 100 years before the establishment of the Anglican Church.[i] The eighteenth century saw the renewal of the Moravian Church through the patronage of Count Nicholas Ludwig von Zinzendorf (What a great name!).
The Moravians settled in Pennsylvania on Christmas Eve in 1741 founded their communal society in Bethlehem. Here’s a fact – Moravian College in Bethlehem traces its origin to a girls’ school called The Bethlehem Female Seminary founded in May 1742 by sixteen-year-old Countess Benigna von Zinzendorf. The young countess, was on an eighteen-month visit to the Moravian settlements in the New World with her father, Count Nicholas von Zinzendorf when she felt moved to start the school. Because the Moravians consider every human soul a potential candidate for salvation, they feel every human being should be educated. Their philosophy is summed up by one of their early bishops Amos Comenius who said, “not the children of the rich or of the powerful only, but of all alike, boys and girls, both noble and ignoble, rich and poor, in all cities and towns, villages and hamlets, should be sent to school.” The Moravians therefore considered schools secondary in importance only to churches. Come and see the wonderful architecture of the Moravians. Experience their culture and learn more about their communal society. We’ll visit not only the buildings, but we’ll have a chance to visit the Moravian Archives during an open house in the evening on Wednesday May 23rd. The Moravians kept great records of all of their activities, and these records, pictures, drawings, and artifacts are preserved in the Moravian Archives.
Bethlehem Steel can trace its roots to the Saucona Iron Company which was established in Bethlehem in 1857. On May 1, 1861, the company’s title was changed again, this time to the Bethlehem Iron Company. Construction of the first blast furnace began on July 1, 1861, and it went into operation on January 4, 1863. The first rolling mill was built between the spring of 1861 and the summer of 1863, with the first railroads rails being rolled on September 26. A machine shop, in 1865, and another blast furnace, in 1867, were completed. During its early years, the company produced rails for the rapidly expanding railroads and armor plating for the U.S. Navy. During World War I and World War II, Bethlehem Steel was a major supplier of armor plate and ordnance to the U.S. armed forces, including armor plate and large-caliber guns for the Navy.
In the 1930s, the company made the steel sections and parts for the Golden Gate Bridge. During World War II, as much as 70 percent of airplane cylinder forgings, one-quarter of the armor plate for warships, and one-third of the big cannon forgings for the U.S armed forces were turned out by Bethlehem Steel. Bethlehem Steel ranked seventh among United States corporations in the value of wartime production contracts. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corporation’s 15 shipyards produced a total of 1,121 ships, more than any other builder during the war and nearly one-fifth of the U.S. Navy’s fleet.
At the end of 1995, Bethlehem Steel discontinued steel-making at the main Bethlehem plant. After roughly 140 years of metal production, Bethlehem Steel Corporation ceased its Bethlehem operations. During the Thursday tours we’ll learn more about the history steel making during our guided tour of the blast furnaces and the buildings remaining on this historic site. We’ll top that off with an evening tour of the National Museum of Industrial History located in one of the 100-year-old Bethlehem Steel buildings. The museum which is within walking distance of our hotel is being closed to the public for our group and we’ll enjoy our Ice Cream Social and Whatsit’s session at the museum Thursday evening, May 24th. The museum staff will be on hand to answer our questions and the museum will be ours to enjoy. This Smithsonian affiliated museum houses a great collection of machinery that was displayed at the 1876 Philadelphia Centennial Exhibition. In addition, they’ve got great information on the steel industry.
Did you know that the Lehigh Valley was the home of America’s silk industry? More people including women and children were employed in the Lehigh Valley’s silk mills than steel mills. The museum has a wonderful display about the silk industry including a Jacquard silk loom.
There’s all of this and lots more to do and see during EAIA’s 2018 Annual Meeting. If you have registered already, do it now! I’ll tell you more in the next installment of Tales, Teasers, and Enticements.
by Paul Van Pernis
[i] John Hus (1369-1415) was a professor of philosophy and rector of the University in Prague. The Bethlehem Chapel in Prague, where Hus preached, became a rallying place for the Czech reformation. Gaining support from students and the common people, he led a protest movement against many practices of the Roman Catholic clergy and hierarchy. Hus was accused of heresy, underwent a long trial at the Council of Constance, and was burned at the stake on July 6, 1415
In my professional travels in developing countries, I’ve been amazed how analogous work methods are to those used in America in the early period of our trade history. Several years ago we had the opportunity to join our son in Kenya where he was finishing his junior year at UMass. As Peace Corps volunteers in the early 1970’s in the northwest corner of Kenya near Uganda we hadn’t an opportunity to explore the coast despite my interest and experience as a wooden boat builder. Knowing the era of traditional construction of wooden Lamu dhows was declining, we took the opportunity to fly from Nairobi to Lamu Island in a small plane to sail a dhow and explore the construction and maintenance of these venerable vessels. Lamu Island is located on the Indian Ocean on the northern coast of Kenya about 60 miles south of Somalia. The island had been the center of dhow construction for several hundred years and has not changed the construction techniques or the general structure in all that time. All of the construction is done on the island, from selection of ribs in the endless mangroves that surround the island to the forging of all the fittings that are used in fastening the hulls of the boats. Consequently it’s a time capsule and a window on the entire construction process. In many respects it’s an analog to the methods employed for shipbuilding in America two centuries ago, but with much more basic tools.
Since my son and I are amateur blacksmiths, we made sure we saw that component of construction. After sailing along the coast in a hired dhow we moored on the northwest side of the island at the small town of Matondoni, famous for centuries as a boat building center. There were a number of dhows and other small craft under construction or maintenance along the shore. After enquiring about forging of the nails and other fittings for the boats we were led through narrow passages in the crowded village to a small rectangular shelter made from palm leaves on a bamboo frame.
We were introduced to the elderly occupant who was seated on the floor before several pieces of random iron and a small fire. He was the nail maker for the boatyards in Lamu and also sent nails down the coast toward Mombasa. He also forged other fittings, but his primary focus was the very long tapered nails that fasten the ribs together and the planking to the ribs, hence are of vital importance to the integrity and water tightness of the hull.
He very generously demonstrated the forging process from beginning to end, starting with a piece of reinforcing rod and ending with a perfectly tapered and headed spike. He also challenged our son to make a nail who did so with modest success after some coaching.
The smith’s forge was a small hole in the ground into which two metal pipes had been inserted to provide forced air to the fire. The fuel for the forge was charcoal and the bellows were made from two modified plastic lined cement bags. The bottom of each bag was attached to the end of one of the pipes. The other end of each bag was open; each side of the opening had been sewn to a straight sticks that formed a crude but effective valve. The bag was filled by lifting the open end, closing the sticks together and compressing the bag to push air into the pipe and then into the forge. By operating one bag in each hand, the smith was able to provide a continuous flow of air as shown in the photo below.
Note the great care that he has taken to economize on charcoal and maximize the forge fire by placing a small piece of metal over the fire to concentrate the heat. In the lower left-hand corner note the piece of corrugated steel roofing that was moved around to minimize the effect of wind.
The forging process started with the heating of rebar in the forge as shown above, drawing it out using a partially buried sledge hammer head as an anvil.
The piece was straightened and partially cut with a hot chisel on the 3” x 3” steel bar beside the smith.
It was reheated in the forge and the cut end upset in preparation for forging the head,
the head forged in a rudimentary nail header, a hole through a vehicle leaf spring,
and resulted in a very neat rose-head on a 5 in. spike.
I was very interested in how the spikes were driven into the boats since it appeared that a small pilot hole would result in splitting when the spike was fully pounded in place and a larger hole would potentially leak. Much to my surprise each hole for a spike is typically drilled with three or four bow drill bits in sequence corresponding to the taper in the spike. Consequently the spike doesn’t split the wood, holds well, and is virtually leak proof.
We left Matondoni with a great deal of admiration for the quality of craftsmanship with very basic tools…and little bit of practical experience with bellows we never imagined existed. A classic case of innovative “making do”, something for which blacksmiths have been known for times immemorial.
During my professional career I’ve spent much of my time overseas including a 3-year period running an engineering and construction company in India, many of the projects of which were in the south. Due to the 1100 mile commute back to my family in New Delhi, I spent a number of weekends at various project sites and wandered through villages and towns of the area. As is the case for many EAIA members, I was fascinated by skilled craftsman and their tools, most of which they purchased from local shops or, more typically, constructed by the craftsman after buying critical components such as blades.
One Saturday afternoon in the industrial district of Chennai (southeastern coast of India), I was attracted to a hardware store that sold a remarkable range of locally and internationally sourced tools. Over one of the display cases was a large array of wooden planes. To my surprise they were not locally produced as was typically the case, but came from the north and were all branded “ALFA”. The proprietor of the shop told me that they are a bit more expensive than those that could be sourced locally, but were provided by a small company, EN-TECH Engineers, that wanted to develop a nation-wide brand that represented consistent quality for wooden tools at an affordable price. The owner of the company had personally traveled to Chennai with a trunk load of planes to develop the market.
I couldn’t help thinking that I had fallen into a time-warp, an analog of American plane making and marketing that was occurring more than a century and half later than similar business models in the US. I also realized this was a rare opportunity to examine the model, not through records, but through witnessing the process and the people who were implementing it. I bought one of the planes.
The address on a small “rack-card” that contained advertising and the entire line of products gave me enough information to track down the owner, Zakir Hussain, who I contacted by phone. I expressed my interest in seeing the entire process and meeting the people involved. He immediately invited my wife and me to come up to Muzaffarnagar, his base of operations only 80 miles from our home in New Delhi. He also suggested that we make it a two-day visit to include seeing the craftsmen of Saharanpur, a city of approximately 700,000 people of which over 75,000 were in woodworking trades, primarily furniture and carving. Saharanpur also had a number of skilled blacksmiths and edge-tool makers from whom Zakir sourced some of his edge tools.
We drove our trusty Tata Sumo, a bare-bones Indian SUV that seemed indestructible but equally uncomfortable on Indian roads, to Muzaffarnagar where we met Zakir and retired to a small hotel to rest for a very full couple of days ahead. Early the next morning we set off to the wood auction in Saharanpur to begin the journey along the pathway of manufacturing a wooden plane.
The wood auction is truly a one-stop source for every part of a tree. The small straight branches not used for firewood are sold to weave into the walls of homes, large logs are sold for sawn timber, and the remaining smaller pieces are sold to make small carvings.
Most of the wood used for planes is sheesham (Dalbergia sissoo) of the rosewood timber family which grows in the Himalayan foothills of northern India. It is both hard and wear resistant, more so than white oak. It is also used for carving and furniture, but has been replaced to a large degree by teak, both species now being plantation grown. An important characteristic of sheesham is the resistance of its heartwood to insects. However, its sapwood is susceptible to infestation, an important consideration for Indian craftsmen making or selecting a plane to be used in India.
There was a bit of clowning and dancing for the benefit of my wife, Alice, who was a great novelty; our host told us that they’d had never seen a European women at that wood auction.
The successful bidders moved their wood out of the yard to the mills or their furniture shops.
Zakir then took us into the havelis (old townhouses that now typically have commercial activity on the ground floor) of Muzaffarnagar to see some carving, but more importantly the source of edge tools that his manufacturing team used in making their planes.
We initially went through some of the small craft shops where carvers were working but quickly moved to the source of edge tools, spending some time with an edge-tool blacksmith and some of his family.
His operation was a typical small family operation, including his young son who was turning a wheel that ran the blower for a very small forge. He should have been in school, reflecting a common problem of child labor among lower income families in India despite a constitutional prohibition prohibiting children under 14 from working.
His father was using discarded high speed still drill bits to forge chisels and gouges several of which I bought based on his “cataloge” burned into a small piece of plywood.
We traced the next step in the plane-making process to the saw mill where the logs were sawn into slabs and the slabs were edge-cut.
Other than the pulleys and belts from an old “one-lunger” gas engine, the process was essentially as it was (and in some cases is) in the US. The one significant difference was the hospitality which included the elderly owner’s offer to smoke an Indian hookah. Somewhat to our surprise, it was started with cow dung which the elder sawyer assured us was quite sanitary due to the heat.
The boards were then sorted, edged, and sent off to the carvers of Saharanpur and Zakir’s shop.
The next step was at EN-TECH: cutting the plane blanks to length and some very preliminary shaping.
Clearly hand safety was not a significant concern and the electrical code was dealt with “economically” (wire in outlet without plugs!).
The plane blank was then trued with a fore plane.
The actual plane shaping then started with scribing the dimensions for the mouth and blade recess.
Note that these operations used the craftsman’s feet as the vise, very similar to a number of craft techniques elsewhere in South Asia and Southeast Asia.
The bed was filed flat, and
the inlets for the wedge and blade trimmed with file and float.
In parallel, the blade was straightened, sharpened, and the cap trued.
The blades for rabbeting and molding planes were cut, forged and shaped from discarded band saw blades. As was often the case in the US, bench plane blades in India were purchased from reputable edge tool manufacturers and were made from high carbon steel. I can attest that they held a very good edge having used mine for several years.
The overall body of the plane was finally and carefully shaped.
The blade, cap and wedged checked for fit. The final “QC check” was actually trying the plane which is perhaps the most important QA test: real functionality!
The stages for producing a smoothing plane are shown below.
Although the process I‘ve described is for a smoothing plane, the company produced a wide range of planes using basically the same processes.
I obtained one of each type produced under the ALFA brand.
Regretfully, EN-TECH’s ALFA brand was discontinued. The larger Indian tool firms had made relatively inexpensive copies of several Stanley and Record planes which were more durable, much easier to adjust, and relatively inexpensive. The local carpenters who couldn’t afford the metal planes continued to purchase planes from small local suppliers despite the typically inferior quality….but lower price. I believe that Zakir thought there might be an export market for amateur woodworker who wanted to use traditional hand tools. Unfortunately this wasn’t the case, although some extremely high quality wooden planes are being imported from China in addition to those from Western Europe.
Although not a success in the long run, it was very interesting to witness the process and the business model of promoting quality through brand recognition. It was also very interesting to see how the parallel to the American model for plane development was truncated by taking advantage of American manufacturers’ early metal plane designs rather than going through the period of transitional planes that we did. It’s comparable to the implementation of cell phone technology in India vs. the US. India had relatively little stranded investment in “copper” ground line communication, was able to quickly adopt cell phone technology from the west, skipped the cell network development stages we went through, and now has very robust cellular networks.
It may be hard to imagine right now in the depths of this long hard winter, but spring is coming and before we know it we’ll be gathering from all over the country for the 2018 Early American Industries Association Annual Meeting. It’s EAIA’s 85th Anniversary, so come and celebrate with us in the Lehigh Valley of Pennsylvania. If you haven’t already received your registration form in the mail, rest assured, it will be arriving shortly. We have a wonderful meeting lined up for you with lots to see and do. Fill out your registration form, sign up for the workshops you want, make your reservations with the hotel, and send it all in! Our weekend in the Lehigh Valley will be filled with history, architecture, learning, interesting workshops, and a celebration of EAIA’s 85th anniversary. We’ll be based at the Comfort Suites University Hotel at 120 West 3rd Street in Bethlehem.
The room rate is $119/night and is good for 3 nights prior to and 3 nights after our meeting. The phone number for making reservations is 610-882-9700. Be sure to mention EAIA when you call to make your reservations.
As usual we’ll start our meeting on Wednesday afternoon with tailgating in the hotel parking lot. So, bring those tools and other items from the dark recesses of your collection that you want to sell or trade. On Wednesday evening you’re invited to tour the Moravian Archives and view their amazing collection of architectural drawings, art works, day books, and journals.
The Moravians were meticulous record keepers and this archive is a treasure trove of Moravian history. On Thursday we’ll spend a full day in Bethlehem learning about the Moravians, their communal culture and their religious beliefs. We’ll visit the wonderful 18th century Moravian buildings, the Colonial Industrial Quarter, and the Moravian Church. The Kemerer Museum of Decorative Arts is also on the agenda. Housed in three interconnected mid-1800’s homes the Kemerer Museum of Decorative Arts features changing exhibits, period rooms, and galleries highlighting furniture, paintings, china, clothing, and silver from three centuries of decorative arts. The museum has over 60,000 items in their collection, so there will be lots to see.Their collection of antique dollhouses is a real treat.
We’ll also have a guided tour of the Bethlehem Steel Stacks and learn more about this vital industry that for over 100 years supplied much of the steel used throughout the world.
Thursday afternoon the Fiber Arts Interest Group will enjoy a talk by Rebecca Densmore on “Rug Punching”. We’ll top off Thursday with our annual Ice Cream Social and “Whatsit’s Session”. It will be held Thursday evening at the National Museum of Industrial History just a few blocks from our hotel. The museum staff have agreed to close the museum to the public so EAIA members will have the run of the museum from 7-10 PM. This Smithsonian affiliate museum houses wonderful exhibits related to America’s industrial history including some incredible pieces of machinery from the 1876 Philadelphia Centennial exhibition. Museum staff will be on hand to answer your questions.
You won’t want to miss it! Don’t forget to bring that “whatsit” you’ve been puzzling over and see if we can help you figure it out..
Friday will be another full day. We’ll carpool to Nazareth, Pennsylvania (just nine miles from Bethlehem) for a visit to the Moravian Historical Society which has an outstanding collection of Moravian artifacts. We’ll also take a behind the scenes tour of the Martin Guitar Factory and their wonderful on-site museum.
Lunch will be at the Pennsylvania Long Rifle Museum where we’ll tour the museum and hear from their archivists and enjoy a black powder rifle demonstration (Jacobsburg Historical Society). The Henry Family not only produced or repaired firearms for all our nation’s major conflicts from the Revolutionary War through the Civil War, but they were also the primary suppliers of rifles for one of the largest American business enterprises of the early nineteenth century, John Jacob Astor’s American Fur Company. The Henry firearm became the most prominent early weapon of the western frontier due to its durability, accuracy, and relatively low cost.
Then we can head back to Bethlehem in time for the Great Planes Antique Tool Auction scheduled for Friday night at the hotel. Mike and Sarah have put together a wonderful auction for our 85th anniversary meeting.
Saturday you’ll have the opportunity to once again spend time in the Colonial Industrial Quarter where we’ll set up Saturday morning tool trading and displays. Our display theme for this year is “Tolls that Measure and Tools that Cut”. This theme gives you lots of room to be creative! Displays are a popular and wonderfully educational part of our Annual Meetings, so please consider bringing a display! Once you’ve looked at the displays and done some tool trading you’ll have the chance to choose from several workshops on Saturday morning including:
After lunch on Saturday we’re going to hear Henry Disston Jr. talk about the history of the Disston Saw Company and hear him play his musical saw at the end of his presentation. After Henry Disston Jr.’s talk you’ll get a breather before our annual Silent Auction. This fun event will be a great warm up to our 85th Anniversary Banquet and Annual Business Meeting.
Whew! That’s a lot to see and do! So, sign up on line, fill out your registration form, sign up for the workshops, track down your whatsits, think about what you can donate to the Silent Auction and come join us as we celebrate EAIA’s 85th Anniversary in the Lehigh Valley on May 23rd thru May 26th, 2018.
by Paul Van Pernis
by Clayton E. Ray
I believe that a significant epoch of anvil-making in colonial North America has yet to be recognized and documented. Postman’s pioneering 1998 book, “Anvils In America”, the first comprehensive coverage of the subject, provides a solid foundation for further research. Its greatest value is not as a last word, but as a catalyst, a value yet to be realized. Anvils are unquestionably the most important tool in the development of civilization but remain strangely neglected. The formation of BIG (Blacksmithing Interest Group) stands to redress this lapsus.
I have seen a few crude anvils of a certain blocky type, and have two in my possession.
These are cast iron without a face plate or cutting table, and without hardy, pritchel, or handling holes. They have no heel, a small horn, and no constricted waist, and their front and back surfaces are planar and vertical. The toes are insignificant in size, and there may be a fifth toe. The only one that I have seen having any marking is one of mine with the name “Jones” embossed on one side.
I think that these anvils were cast in one piece (excepting the horn), and were poured upside down, having no undercuts. The horn would have been added by welding.
The skilled iron workers in any of the foundries from Massachusetts to the Carolinas easily could have made these anvils clandestinely while pouring the sows and pigs that they were supposed to be making to send to the mother country to be returned as value-added finished products, including the expensive steel-faced wrought anvils for marketing to the needy pioneers, whose needs could have been met much more cheaply by the crude locally made cast anvils. No colonial community could have functioned without a smithy.
Not surprisingly, there is little or no paper trail of this activity, as production of such finished items in the colonies was prohibited. The royal appointees who supervised the Colonies (Spotswood, Byrd, and others) carefully concealed their own illicit profitable ventures. Thus far, I know of only one revealing allusion (cited by Postman, page 46), in which the writer in 1759 recommended the purchase of an anvil “of Byrd make”. William Byrd as early as 1744 had exploited his extensive iron deposits in central Virginia. There may very well be more clues to be found in colonial writing.
An additional source of documentation might be the metallurgy of the anvils themselves, but that is beyond my expertise and access. Meanwhile, I hope and expect that other members of EAIA have seen anvils of this kind, and will have better ideas for pursuit of their story. If my suspicions as to the source and age are confirmed, they would add significantly to the record of anvil making in North America.
Please share this blog with any of your friends who may have more information about possible American anvils of this period or even the anvils illustrated in this blog. Any comments should be added as comments to the blog. Your help is needed!
Part I of this post introduced you to Justus Traut’s patent No. 316,079 granted on April 21, 1885. This patent very clearly illustrated and described what became the Stanley #72 Chamfer Plane (See Figure 1).
The patent also included a drawing of the “spokeshave” style chamfer plane discussed in Part I (http://eaiainfo.org/2018/01/06/trauts-model-shop-chamfer-planes-part-1/). For consistency, the terms used by Traut in his patent description and that were used to identify the major components of Traut’s plane in Part I will be used again here in Part II.
Introduced in 1885, the Stanley #72 chamfer plane sold well enough that it remained in the Stanley line-up of specialty bench planes for 53 years until it was discontinued in 1938 . With is “V” shaped sole, the plane is designed to chamfer stock. Each side of the “V” shaped sole acts as a guide to maintain the plane at a 45º angle as the chamfer is cut. The front section or “sliding portion” of the plane can be raised or lowered to increase or decrease the width of the chamfer. The plane is capable of cutting a chamfer slightly in excess of 1¼ inches wide. With the front “sliding stock” of the plane set at its lowest position, the plane can also function as a smoothing plane. Figure 2 shows a Type 1 Stanley #72 chamfer plane and it is identical to the plane shown in the patent drawing except that the production model was fitted with a brass faucet handle set screw rather than the large round set screw shown in the patent drawing. The plane is 9¼ inches long and 2 inches wide. The cutter is set at a bed angle of 50 degrees with the bevel facing down. The cutter does not have a cap iron. The japanned lever cap fixes the cutter in place by tightening a thumb screw. The raised rib on the front “sliding stock” fits into the groove on the rear “gage” portion of the plane (See Figure 3).
The faucet handle set screw when tightened holds the front “sliding stock” firmly in place and thereby determines the depth of cut and the width of the chamfer produced by the plane. As the front “sliding stock” is moved higher on the rear “gage” section, the resultant chamfer becomes deeper and wider. “STANLEY RULE & LEVEL CO. AND PAT APR 21, 85” is stamped in three lines on the upper end of the cutter (See Figure 4).
There are no other markings on the body of the plane to identify it as a Stanley product and the sides of the plane are japanned. It appears that the “Type I” version of the plane was produced for probably less than one year. By 1886, “STANLEY” and “No 72” were cast onto the sides of the “gage” or rear portion of the plane.
The addition of a bullnose front “sliding stock” for cutting stopped chamfers was made available by 1899 or 1900 and became an attachment supplied with the Stanley #72 by 1909. On March 23, 1886 Traut received an additional patent, No.338,570, that described a beading attachment which could be substituted for the front “sliding section”. This attachment allowed the user to create various types of moldings on previously cut chamfers. This beading attachment was first made available to users in 1886. When this beading attachment was combined with the bullnose attachment and the #72 Stanley Chamfer Plane, Stanley marketed it as the #72½ Stanley Chamfer Plane with Beading Attachment (See Figure 6).
Traut’s chamfer plane obviously worked well and was popular with Stanley’s customers as evidenced by its longevity in the Stanley product line. The Stanley #72 Chamfer Plane is easy to set up and works very effectively and is actually a fun tool to use.
Recently, in March of 2017, an intriguing and somewhat mysterious chamfer plane that appears to precede Traut’s patented chamfer plane came to auction. This Stanley Model Shop plane shown in Figure 7, has characteristics that suggest that it could have been made as much as 10-13 years earlier than 1885, the year Traut applied for his chamfer plane patent. This plane, which has Stanley Model Shop #344 painted on the toe, is 10 and 7/16ths inches long and 2 and 1/16ths inches wide, so it is both longer, wider, and heavier than the Stanley #72 Chamfer Plane. It is beautifully made and machined. Like the 1885 Traut’s patent chamfer plane, the “V” shaped sole is designed to hold the plane at a 45º angle as the chamfer is cut. Both sides of the casting are milled and there is a 1 and 3/8ths inch long scale inscribed on the left side of the rear “gage” portion of the plane. The scale is divided into 1/8th inch increments. A single line is inscribed on the front “sliding stock” of the plane opposite this scale. This scale and corresponding line were obviously intended to act as a guide for setting the depth of cut of the chamfer (See Figure 8).
The front “sliding stock” of the plane fits into a sliding dovetail on the rear “gage” portion of the plane. This sliding dovetail is machined to very close tolerances and creates a snug fit between the “sliding stock” and the rear “gage “portion of the plane. This is very different from the method of attaching the “sliding stock” to the “gage” portion of the plane on the Traut’s patent chamfer plane (See Figure 9).
As shown in Figure 10, the “sliding stock” is held in place by a compression screw with a knurled knob that is inserted through a hole in the right sidewall of the plane and is then threaded into the left sidewall. When this screw is tightened, it compresses the two sidewalls of the rear “gage” portion of the plane just enough to hold the front “sliding stock” firmly in place.
The increased length of the rear “gage” portion of this plane allows for the use of Leonard Bailey’s cutter adjustment mechanism and the graceful curve of the sidewalls provides additional strength to the casting. This plane also has an adjustable throat plate under the front knob which allows the user to open or close the mouth of the plane (See Figure 11).
The front knob screw is fixed in place in the front knob by means of a piece of metal that is stuffed into the bottom of the knob. Once the size of the plane’s mouth has been set, the throat plate is then held in place by tightening the front knob (See Figure 12).
The plane’s cutter is 1½inches wide. At just 1/8th of an inch narrower than a cutter for a #2 Stanley smooth plane, it was likely made by simply grinding down the edges of a cutter from a #2 smooth plane. There is a small 1 and 7/8ths inch by 15/16ths of an inch rectangular plate with a slot in its upper end attached to the cutter with a screw.
The slot is placed over the cutter adjusting lever which allows the cutter to be adjusted for depth of cut (See Figure 13). The lever cap also seems to have been produced by grinding the edges of a #2 smooth plane lever cap. A #2 smooth plane lever cap is 1 and 9/16ths of an inch wide, and the lever cap on this plane is 1 and 7/16ths inches wide (See Figure 14).
There are no trademarks on either the front or rear castings. The markings on the cutter adjustment screw and the trademark stamped on the cutter suggest that this plane was produced sometime between 1872 and 1875 (See Figure 15 and Figure 16.
If one assumes that the numbering system used for Stanley Model Shop planes was sequential, (and that is a big if!),  then this plane with Stanley Model Shop #344 on the toe appears to have been produced 10-13 years before both the “Spokeshave” style chamfer plane and the Stanley #72 Chamfer Plane shown in Traut’s 1885 patent. The “spokeshave” style chamfer plane shown in the 1885 patent and featured in Part I of this post carries the Stanley Model Shop #776 which suggests that it was put into the Model Shop at a later date than this chamfer plane.
So, who made this plane and when? The lever cap, the cutter adjustment mechanism, and the adjustable throat are all features developed by Leonard Bailey. The graceful curve of the sidewalls on the rear “gage” portion of the plane and the fine fit and finish of the plane are typical of Bailey’s design signature. Leonard Bailey began his tenure at Stanley Rule & Level Company in 1869, and left the company in 1874 primarily because of a dispute with the Stanley board of directors over his desire to have total control over all the woodworking planes being manufactured at Stanley. Justus Traut and the men in his shop were also manufacturing planes at that same time, some of which competed directly with the planes being produced by Bailey and the men in his shop. Is it possible that Leonard Bailey made this plane? He may have presented this prototype to the Stanley Production Committee who, for whatever reasons, decided not to put this plane into production. So, it went onto a shelf in the Model Shop and possibly got left behind when Bailey left Stanley. Perhaps several years later Justus Traut came across this chamfer plane on a shelf in the Stanley Model Shop and modified it slightly at a time when carpenters and cabinet makers were asking for a chamfer plane. Traut was adept at appropriating the ideas of the men in his workshop and turning them into patents, and it’s conceivable he may have done the same thing with this Model Shop plane. Traut’s version of the chamfer plane is smaller, less complicated, required less machining, and therefore would have been considerably less expensive to manufacture. Traut received approval for his version of the chamfer plane from the Stanley Production Committee in 1885 and went on to apply for and receive Patent No. 316,079 later that year for what became the Stanley #72 chamfer plane. If only we had access to the written records of the Stanley Production Committee. We know they exist and a review of these documents would help tool researchers find answers about this tool and so many others. Unfortunately, despite several attempts by multiple tool researchers and collectors, the legal counsel at Stanley has refused to allow anyone access to those records.
So, although we know this plane was made at the Stanley, I’m not convinced that it was made by Justus Traut. While I’m not yet completely convinced that Leonard Bailey made this plane, I tend to lean in that direction. We know that Justus Traut gets credit for the Stanley Chamfer Plane and his 1885 patent No. 316,709, but it’s my guess that the idea was not entirely his! I’d love to hear your thoughts. Can you help solve this mystery?
by Paul Van Pernis
 The first description of the Type 1 Stanley #72 Chamfer Plane was in an article by Clarence Blanchard in “Stanley Tool Collector News”, Volume 4, Number 9, Summer 1993, pp. 12-13.
 A type study of the Stanley #72 and #72½ chamfer planes, titled, “The Stanley No. 73 & 72½ Chamfer Plane”, by John Wells & Chuck Wirtensen was published in The Gristmill, No. 123, June 2006, pp. 12-16.
 Blanchard, Clarence, “Stanley Plane Truth and Exceptions to the Rule, Stanley No. 72 Bullnose Attachment”, The Fine Tool Journal, Volume 46, Number 2, Fall 1996, p. 14.
 The number 72½ was sold by Stanley from 1886 until 1917. Further information about the 72½ is available in the type study cited in footnote #2.
 See Lot 396 from the 50th International Tool Auction, March 25th, 2017 by Brown Auction Services.
 See Roger K. Smith’s excellent type study of “Bailey-Stanley Iron Planes” in Patented Transitional & Metallic Planes in America 1827-1927, pp. 279-284
 A caveat! As I’ve mentioned in prior posts regarding Stanley Model Shop planes, the numbering system used in the Stanley Model Shop is at best confusing and and may not be entirely reliable in determining when tools were made and/or placed on the shelves in the Model Shop.
 For more information about Bailey’s years at Stanley see, “Leonard Bailey: The Years at Stanley Rule & Level Co., Part I” in The Gristmill, June 2009 No. 135, pp.30-37 and “Leonard Bailey: The Years at Stanley Rule & Level Co. Part II”, in The Gristmill, September 2009, No. 136, pp. 13-22. Both articles are authored by John G. Wells and Paul Van Pernis
Justus A. Traut, worked for the Stanley Rule & Level Company for over 50 years, and churned out patent after patent from the time his first patent was issued on June 20th, 1865, until November 3, 1908, when his last patent was issued posthumously, almost eight months after his death. Traut was just one of the brilliant inside contractors who worked at Stanley. Although he was touted during his lifetime as being the “The Patent King of the United States”, it’s likely that many of his patents were the result of ideas and innovations developed by the mechanics working in his shop at Stanley. Traut was adept at refining those ideas and innovations and then submitting a patent. It was only on rare occasions that he shared credit for his patents with others.
Stanley Rule & level Company and their inside contractors were very responsive to the needs of their customers. They listened carefully to suggestions from the users of their tools and kept a close watch on the developing styles and trends in furniture, architecture, and building construction. The Eastlake and American Queen Anne styles of architecture and furniture were very popular in the United States between 1870 and 1910. Houses were filled with wainscoting, fancy wooden trim, elaborate staircases, window treatments, fireplace surrounds, and mantels. The furniture followed suit with lots of spindles, chamfers, beading, inlays, and elaborate decorative details. Justus Traut was no doubt aware of these trends and responded by submitting a patent application on February 25th, 1885, for a chamfer plane. Granted on April 21, 1885, Traut’s Patent No. 316,079 states, “My plane is principally designed for use in making chamfer moldings on the corners of pieces of wood-work for various uses.” A chamfer can be defined as a transitional edge between two faces of an object. It is a bevel created at a 45º angle to two adjoining right-angle faces. Chamfers are used as a decorative detail or as a means to “ease” sharp edges both for safety and to prevent damage to the edges.
Traut’s patent included drawings of two versions of the chamfer plane. The first set of drawings shown in Figure 1 illustrates a plane that is essentially identical to the Stanley #72 chamfer plane produced and sold by Stanley starting in 1885. Bear will me, and I’ll come back and discuss this version of Traut’s chamfer plane in detail in Part II of this blog post along with another interesting and somewhat mysterious chamfer plane from the Stanley Model Shop.
For the moment I’d like to focus on the plane shown in the second set of patent drawings (See Figure 2). This drawing depicts a two-handled “spokeshave style” version of the chamfer plane. Recently this spokeshave style version of Traut’s chamfer plane along with the accompanying original patent papers came to auction (See Figure 3).
Likely Traut himself, or one of the mechanics in his shop, personally made this tool. It’s exciting, at least for me, to hold in my hands a tool that Traut no doubt held in his hands. Traut assigned this patent to the Stanley Rule& Level Company as soon as he was granted the patent. The patent is signed by Martin Van Buren Montgomery who was the commissioner of patents in 1885 and also by the then “acting” Secretary of the Interior who’s name I can’t read on the patent. I haven’t been able to uncover who this was in my research, so if you know who this gentleman was, please let me know. (Thanks to reader Gary Hammond who informed me that the “acting” Secretary of the interior was H.L. Muldrow).
This delightful little spokeshave style chamfer plane is only 4½ inches long and 9 inches wide across the width of the handles. The japanning on the outside of the plane body and the nicely curved handles are in excellent condition. The Stanley Model Shop number “776” is painted on the end of the right handle and on the lever cap. It is not a “patent model” because the U.S. Patent office stopped requiring the submission of patent models in 1880 (See Figure 4). So this plane would not have been sent to the Patent Office in Washington, but would have remained at the Stanley factory .
In his patent, Traut describes the front portion of his chamfer plane as the “sliding stock” and the rear portion of the body of the plane as a “gage” with “an angular groove b, extending longitudinally through it’s under face” These are shown in the patent drawing in Figure 2. above as “A” and “E”(See Figure 5 below).
The two pieces are brought together when the raised machined rib on the back of “sliding stock A” is slipped into the machined groove on the front of “gage E”.
The 1½ inch diameter shouldered depth of cut set screw is used to hold the two pieces together and to adjust the depth of cut of the chamfer. When the set screw is tightened, the front “sliding stock” is held firmly in place on the rear “gage” portion of the plane. The large size of the depth of cut set screw required the addition of a groove in the “gage” portion of the plane to prevent the set screw from hitting the casting of the rear “gage” portion of the plane. (See Figure 7).
Once the depth of cut of the chamfer is set by adjusting the “sliding stock A”, the set screw is tightened and the spokeshave style chamfer plane is set squarely over the corner that is to be chamfered (See Figure 8).
Traut stated in the patent, when the plane is moved over the wood, …. “shaving after shaving is removed until the ‘gage E’ stops further cutting by resting firmly for its whole length upon the stock being chamfered.” The result is a chamfered corner.
The cutter is 1¼inches wide and has a nice oval logo stamped on the upper end of the cutter (See Figure 9). No cap iron is used with the cutter. The diminutive japanned lever cap is 1 and 5/8ths inches long and only 1 and 5/16th inches wide. The lever cap adjusting screw is brass and is identical to those seen on the Miller’s Patent Plow planes produced by Stanley between 1875 and 1884. The cutter is held in position by tightening the lever cap against the cutter. The plane fits nicely in my hands and feels like it would have worked quite well using either a push or pull stroke across the work piece. This little plane is in almost pristine condition and it is clear that this spokeshave style chamfer plane was never put to use nor put into production. One can imagine that Traut envisioned this chamfer plane being added to the extensive line of spoke shaves that Stanley was already manufacturing. Its small size would have made it handy to use and its simple construction would have made the cost of manufacturing it quite reasonable. But, that never happened. Instead, this plane along with the original patent papers spent its days quietly resting on a shelf in the Stanley Model Shop until it thankfully found its way into the tool collecting world.
There is a Part II to this blog post that contains information about the Stanley #72 chamfer plane and a “mystery” Stanley Model Shop chamfer plane. The image below shows the first production model of the Stanley #72 chamfer plane and an intriguing Stanley Model Shop chamfer plane that seems to predate those shown in Traut’s 1885 patent. So, stayed tuned for Part II of Traut’s Model Shop Chamfer Planes.
by Paul Van Pernis
 For more information on Justus A. Traut, see Smith, Roger K., Patented Transitional & Metallic Planes in America, Volume II, 1992, pp. 207-213. A complete list of his patents can be found at http://www.datamp.org/patents/search/xrefPerson.php?id=124.
 Lot 397, 50th International Antique Tool Auction, March 25th, 2017.
 The first U.S. patent law was passed in 1790, and the granting of U.S. Patents was controlled by the Secretary of State until 1849, when Congress transferred U.S. Patent Office to the Department of the Interior. In 1925, the responsibility for issuing patents was transferred to the Department of Commerce, where it remains today.
 In the US, patent models were required from 1790 to 1880. The United States Congress abolished the legal requirement for them in 1870, but the U.S. Patent Office kept the requirement until 1880.
 This logo, has been noted on some Stanley #102 and #110 block planes of similar vintage.
 See the excellent type study entitled “Stanley #41,42,43,44 Miller’s Patent Plow Planes” by Walter Jacob in Antique and Collectible Stanley Tools, 2nd edition, 1996, by John Walter, pp. 717-725.