Stanley 62 in need of love. Opinions please! (Picture heavy)

[hockey1]

So I happened to come into a Stanley No. 62 for a price that was really hard to pass on. There are however a few problems with the plane, while I'm not afraid of doing some work to get this thing back up and running, at some point I question is it worth it? Even though this is not what I would consider collectors grade I would prefer to keep as many original parts as possible. Final stipulation is I told the seller I am going to put all the items purchased from him back to work and I will not be re-selling just to make a profit. So in an effort to stay true to my word it's either repair it or bust.

Problems:

1) The mouth does not adjust. When the knob is removed the adjustable mouth plate does come out and is only tight at the front of the plane. I think some judicious filing can fix this.

2) The blade needs to be replaced. You can see the previous owner got their money's worth out of the original. What if any currently made blades will fit this?

3) The japanning is bad shape. Really not a big deal since I'm out about to get the ugly stuff.

4) The handle bolt threads are badly stripped out in the body of the plane. I've tried a handle bolt from another plane and got the same result. I'm toying with the idea of brazing to fill the hole and re-tapping OR filling with JB Weld and re-tapping. Either way I would have to buy a 12-20 bottom tap. Also, there is a little hole in the bottom of the plane where someone ran the bolt in too far and blew out a little iron plug. Any thoughts or past experiences anybody can share?

5) The mouth is broken behind the blade. I understand this normal for these planes but will it affect the operation? If there are newer blades that are thicker, would that alleviate blade chatter due to the lack of rearward mouth support? Perhaps running a bead of brazing across the mouth and use a thicker blade.

 

[LastChanceWoodshop]

Jesse,

Woodcraft has a replacement blade for $20.

https://www.woodcraft.com/products/...lacement-blade-for-no-62-low-angle-jack-plane

That said, I probably wouldn't spend any money on repair with that mouth damage.

 

[TENdriver]

Jesse, I kind of walked away from vintage planes about the time you joined NCWW. I recall that No. 62s weren’t all the common back then and they were (as you already know) sometimes problematic. I had and still have lots of planes but I never ran a across a great deal on a 62.

I was never much for doing anything to the planes beyond a general cleaning and lubrication. My interest was limited to putting the planes back to work. Often with it’s original blade whenever that was possible.

Do you have a need for the capability of this No. 62? I ask because now days there are so many modern alternatives available that can cover this work. For me, I’d relegate this not too common plane to more of a “wall hanger” or conversation piece and pickup a modern alternate to do that type of work.

 

[Jeff]

Interesting discussion, to re-purpose this plane or do a little and put it on the shelf for display. :dontknow:

No experience here, but it's probably worth playing around with although yours may never be fully restored and doesn't have to be. Yep, yours is a plane that only a mother could love in its present condition.

It's a bevel up plane too.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_p8M2ApKDdA

http://www.handplane.com/95/stanley-no-62-low-angle-plane/

Here's the same plane in the 21st century.

https://www.lie-nielsen.com/product/low-angle-jack-plane

http://www.leevalley.com/US/wood/page.aspx?p=49708

 

[Chris C]

No offense but that thing is a dog. I'm not sure you'd ever get anywhere with the mouth broken like it is. I agree with Jeff.... clean it up and put it up. Then keep your eyes open for a replacement body... They turn up on eBay and such sites from time to time. Assuming all the other parts are in good shape you might be able to make a good user.

 

[hockey1]

Apologies for the delay and thanks for all of the responses and links. The general consensus confirms my suspicions that it's an ugly baby. Perhaps in the future I will make an attempt to resurrect this tool and learn some new skills along the way. I already have some thoughts on how I would like to repair or possibly improve the plane.

I don't "actually" have a definitive need of the low angle jack to justify spending the money on a new one but there is something nice about pulling out the right tool for the job when needed.....then again :eusa_thin I have been wanting to make a shooting board and a low angle plane would compliment that nicely.

I was able to find a 12-20 tap on Ebay or ​

http://www.victornet.com/detail/TAST-12-20.html

but they are the only two places I've been able to find the right tap to reproduce the threads. Problem is just to get the tap to my house costs double what I paid for the plane. ​

 

[TENdriver]

Yes, you and I and many, many, many others have fumed over Stanleys proclivity to use odd ball threads. I have a perfectly good Stanley No. 5 resting on a shelf due to the missing front tote screw. I’ve refused to pay more for the screw than the plane is worth and it’s too nice of a plane to give up on. One day I’ll locate a screw.

 

[MarkE]

For a non-collectable plane, you can tap those stripped out 12-20 holes with a 1/4-20 tap. Might have to open up the holes a little. I have done this with the frog screw holes.

 

[MarkE]

Yes, you and I and many, many, many others have fumed over Stanleys proclivity to use odd ball threads. I have a perfectly good Stanley No. 5 resting on a shelf due to the missing front tote screw. I’ve refused to pay more for the screw than the plane is worth and it’s too nice of a plane to give up on. One day I’ll locate a screw.

I have a container of these screws in the shop. Let me know what length you need what type of brass nut and I'll see if I have one that will fit.

 

[Rwe2156]

Seen better days......That mouth might be the biggest issue.

 

[Hmerkle]

Yes, you and I and many, many, many others have fumed over Stanleys proclivity to use odd ball threads. I have a perfectly good Stanley No. 5 resting on a shelf due to the missing front tote screw. I’ve refused to pay more for the screw than the plane is worth and it’s too nice of a plane to give up on. One day I’ll locate a screw.

funny thing is "back in the day" that was not an oddball thread - 12-24 is still used in the electrical industry - it is going away slowly, but we run across it quite often.
As Mark suggests, there is sufficient "meat" in the casting to "Bump" up to a 1/4-20 since there in NO intention this will be a "show-piece" but instead, a "user" plane...

 

[TENdriver]

Mark, Thanks for the offer. I won’t go after it right now but sometime in the future I may take you up on that generous offer.

Hank, You’re right that there’s very little reason not to tap to a more readily available thread, but I can be a little too stubborn about this, but I like to keep things mostly intact or original. Ruins Hot Rods, choppers and Reno air race aircraft for me. I like all of those things, but at the same time I lament what is lost in the bargain.

 

[Gotcha6]

As to the 12-24 thread size, that is the standard machine screw size for commercial metal doors and frames. I have buckets of them 1/2" long with #3 countersunk heads. Have you considered converting this to a scrub plane? The damage to the throat shouldn't make much difference that way.

 

[hockey1]

Update:

Well I've done it, after much deliberation I'm venturing down the road to fix this thing. In the end I will not have saved much money repairing this tool but at least I will have the satisfaction of saving it from the land of misfit tools.

The Wood River blade is almost an exact match to the original. As far as I can tell the only difference is the thickness. Wood River = .125 inch and Stanley = .100 inch. So this is a good thing.

I strongly desire to keep as much of this tool original. So I'm opting to keep the original thread pitch and going to order the tap here very soon. This will keep me from having to alter the tote bolt and brass nut. I'm willing to change the blade out because I believe there will be an improvement on performance. Hopefully thicker blade = less blade flex which translates to no further damage to the plane mouth.

The brazing is a work in progress and will need some touching up. But all in all, I don't think it was that "bad" of a job seeing as I've never done that sort of thing before. I will upload some photos once I can get on a compliant computer.