i don't have any opinions on the history, but i do use a bench dog #1 pretty regularly. it sits in a jig i made for thicknessing thin strips of wood for inlay and kumiko work. i first saw a #1 at a friend's place where he shimmed the frog to make it higher angle for smoothing these little jewelry boxes he made with gnarly figure.
Great historical research and well thought through. I agree with your assessments. I was never comfortable with the 'salesman sample' explanation. It all made sense once you said it was in the Stanley catalog three years before a block plane shows up. The No. 1 never made sense to me until the first time I saw someone holding it like a block plane and not complaining that the space is too small to put your hands through the handle. I instantly saw it as a form of a block plane and since I've had a modern No. 1 on my 'to purchase' list. I originally was thinking a Taytools version. The Wood River is nice but I'm thinking a Benchdog as it's more in my price range. Thank you for this video.
I've seen several theories about the no 1 but this block plane idea makes the most sense. And the reason Stanley kept making them is because they had a set of planes they marketed. It's weird to market a set starting with no 2, so they kept the no 1 for consistency, though they didn't make/sell nearly as many as the other sizes.
Your argument is flawed. This time period wooden planes were still the norm. As metal planes were made as the standard, the sizes were of course filled in , comparable to the wooden models being phased out. And as millions of metal planes were manufactured, every one of them, with few exceptions are worth nothing. And yes, I collected for years to the tune of literally hundreds of pieces and it was great. But I say I wish I could convince people to buy my stuff at high prices. Just my rant on collecting in general. Good job on the site and you write excellent reference books.
@timetestedtools well we all have a different view of what we think the #1 was. You and I have probably heard all the theories. Probably not worth going on about it here. Much respect to you as I have well worn copies of your books which I found invaluable in my collecting heyday.
i don't have any opinions on the history, but i do use a bench dog #1 pretty regularly. it sits in a jig i made for thicknessing thin strips of wood for inlay and kumiko work. i first saw a #1 at a friend's place where he shimmed the frog to make it higher angle for smoothing these little jewelry boxes he made with gnarly figure.
Great historical research and well thought through. I agree with your assessments. I was never comfortable with the 'salesman sample' explanation. It all made sense once you said it was in the Stanley catalog three years before a block plane shows up. The No. 1 never made sense to me until the first time I saw someone holding it like a block plane and not complaining that the space is too small to put your hands through the handle. I instantly saw it as a form of a block plane and since I've had a modern No. 1 on my 'to purchase' list. I originally was thinking a Taytools version. The Wood River is nice but I'm thinking a Benchdog as it's more in my price range. Thank you for this video.
Great video, Don, I enjoyed it and your other videos 👍🤠😎🇺🇲
@@jimzeidler3829 thank you!
@timetestedtools You're welcome, Sir 🤠
I've seen several theories about the no 1 but this block plane idea makes the most sense. And the reason Stanley kept making them is because they had a set of planes they marketed. It's weird to market a set starting with no 2, so they kept the no 1 for consistency, though they didn't make/sell nearly as many as the other sizes.
@@davidpeters8813 thanks!
Your argument is flawed.
This time period wooden planes were still the norm.
As metal planes were made as the standard, the sizes were of course filled in , comparable to the wooden models being phased out.
And as millions of metal planes were manufactured, every one of them, with few exceptions are worth nothing.
And yes, I collected for years to the tune of literally hundreds of pieces and it was great.
But I say I wish I could convince people to buy my stuff at high prices.
Just my rant on collecting in general.
Good job on the site and you write excellent reference books.
@@joetocchio9666 I agree with you but don’t understand what you think is flawed on my theories.
@@joetocchio9666 but there wasn't a comparable wooden model to replace, that's the whole point. You're the one with flawed logic.
@timetestedtools well we all have a different view of what we think the #1 was.
You and I have probably heard all the theories.
Probably not worth going on about it here.
Much respect to you as I have well worn copies of your books which I found invaluable in my collecting heyday.
@@joetocchio9666 thank you. And I’m always open to new theories. I have much to learn!